Talk:Miyamoto Musashi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ronin or Samurai

Something I'm not quite sure about, so I'm asking it here: Is Musashi properly called a ronin, or a samurai?

Based on my incomplete knowledge of his time, I would venture to call him a samurai, as that term implies a warrior or soldier who observes bushido. A ronin, although applied to masterless samurai, was considered someone ranked between a mercenary & a brigand. Further, IIRC, the strict imposition of social classes had not quite begun in Musashi's lifetime, so a samurai without a master was not the contradiction it became much later, say at the time of Chushingura, also known as the 49 Ronin. (I'm a fan of the movie.)

I'm avoiding the problem by calling Musashi a "swordsman", but that also does not adequately reflect what he represents in Japanese culture: an individual who found the Way through single-minded, if not obsessive, study of the use of the sword. --llywrch 17:16 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

A person who receives a stipend from a Lord as Musashi did is called a samurai. A ronin or wave man was a masterless samurai. The term is still commonly use in Japan for people who have finished study and are still looking for employment. The fact that he received various stipends as he travelled to live with the Lord's Honda, Ogasawara and Hosokawa is well recorded. He was even in the position of requesting that they employ his adopted sons. CHW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.67.252 (talk • contribs) 18:10 UTC, Jan. 28, 2006.

Killing Kojiro with an oar

Is there any historical basis for the statement that Musashi killed Sasaki Kojiro using an oar (rather than a sword), or is it only because of the statement in the twentieth-century fiction by Yoshikawa Eiji? May 9, 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.117.22.148 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed documented. It is in Musashi's biography, The Lone Samurai. Also, in Musashi's later years, in Kumamoto he was asked what kind of sword he used to defeat Sasaki Kojiro. Musashi selected and carved a piece of wood into a bokken, that is still owned today by the Matsui (Nagaoka) family. NeoChrono Ryu 03:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Differences between the Japanese and English pages

The statement "In 1634 he settled in Ogura with his stepson Iori." should probably read "... Kokura ... ." Kokura is a different reading of the same kanji as Ogura and was the castle town of the daimyo Ogasawara (next sentence in the article). Ogura is a place name in Kyoto.

The Japanese page is very different from the English, and calls into question some of the statements in the English, including whether Munisai was Musashi's father, and whether Musashi defeated the Yoshioka school, stating that factual information is not known (to the author of the Japanese page?). It omits many of the details that are in the English, making no mention of Musashi's mother or stepmother, and adding that Musashi was the subject of kabuki, joruri and kodan fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.1.54.253 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Not a Samurai, "Master of strategy"

Musashi would be technically seen as a ronin, because he had no real masters, or senseis who taught him his craft/skill/tactics.. but the idea with Miyamoto Musashi is that with him being such a self-taught person, his style was supposed to be the best and most effective in all history. I doubt he is a Samurai, because he says that he dislikes being bound to a certain style because he says that it puts limits on your skills, such as strategy and skill.

Musashi calls himself a Strategist; A type of warrior which uses both technical skill and Tactical maneuvers in battle to win. The idea that Musashi was helped by his students is somewhat far fetched. His schools were founded later on in his life, and in his other books, he claims that in later life, he gathered a liking for finer points in life, so I doubt he's going to be getting his students to help, because they weren't fully fledged in his art, and obviously, if he was getting beaten (which is very unlikely, neigh impossible) I doubt his students would be any use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.180.21 (talk • contribs) Jan. 12, 2006, 15:00 UTC.

I disagree. Musashi was teaching very young- there is a certificate for transmission of the Enmei Ryu when he was 22, in 1605. --maru (talk) contribs 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what the above personal opinion has to do with an encyclopedia that generally puts out an unbiased view. Nippon Budokan and other Japanese experts etc have no problem whatsoever in recognizing his philosophy and Kenjutsu as a national heritage. To question this would be to question their values. Unless you press to have more knowledge than them and perhaps are member of the ryu with some profound knowledge that you have gained through practice and study of his works I suggest you leave you own personal opinions out of it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.67.252 (talk • contribs) 18:10 UTC, Jan. 28, 2006.

I humbly submit that Musashi was indeed considered a "samurai," assuming one of the previously made statements that he was employed by various lords is correct. Being a ronin has nothing to do with whether you have a master in your art. In my experience with the term, it strictly pertains to your employment. Also, ronin are considered samurai as they both come from bushi (warrior) families. A ronin is simply an unemployed samurai, hence no master. It does not mean no master in one's art, but simply means no employer.

All ronin are samurai, but not all samurai are ronin. That being said some samurai moved back and forth through the titles. It appears that Musashi did this. Much of his life was spent traveling without his loyalty anywhere, he swore allegiance for a short time and fought a few wars, and eventually retired from it all. So, to sum it all up, Musashi was a ronin sometimes and sometimes not a ronin, but he was a samurai his whole life.

Separating Fact from Fiction

"These are obviously stories and its not too difficult to separate fact from fiction considering that the medical term eczema was not known in the 1600's and that baths were not readily available to the masses. More like a wash in a stream was be more available in these times."

I have removed this section, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. People more qualified than I am are welcome to reinstate its arguments, but they should consider doing so in a semi-literate fashion, preferably supporting their arguments with something.

Particular criticisms:

1. Medical terms are invented to describe symptoms, not discovered. Is whoever wrote that claiming that 16th century Japanese people didn't notice the symptoms of eczema, or were unable to describe them?! Besides, the question of whether the term eczema was "known" (whatever that's meant to mean) is nonsensical - it's an English word for heaven's sake, what possible relevance does it have to Japanese history?
2. Baths not readily available to the masses in C16th? Strange, then, that the Japanese love of bathing, and the frequency with which they did it, was one of the things that the first Europeans to visit Japan were most amazed by. Mm, could that have been in the 16th century by any chance? Why, I do believe it was!

"People more qualified than you?"...Surely you jest!

1. It is my understanding that the author's use of the term eczema to describe the undoubtedly advanced symptoms of Phenylketonuria, by the way discovered by Dr. Asbjørn Følling: Norway, 1934 was to ensure the reader make the obvious connections. Those being of course that given the times and Miyamoto' position, coupled with appearing ill or to be exhibiting any weakness at all would invite challenges by those hoping to gain the advantage.
2. Regarding your thoughts pertaining to the Japanese demonstrating a love of bathing and the subsequent realization of this fact by the Europeans, whom we know were for the most part unwashed and over perfumed, did they really have any choice other than to marvel at it's concept? Added to which you comment does nothing in the way of convincing any other than yourself that there are any parallels to be drawn between bathing in a stream and bathing in a steamroom , in a tub of hot water that is continually being ladled across your back and head by the same beautiful woman whose hands rarely leave your body for the entire time you take your bath! So let us now reconsider whether the commoner was in fact able to enjoy the same lavish extravagance as the ruling class. Hmm, I think not but thanks for illuminating us all to the stream as a historical component . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.147.60 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 10:29 UTC.

Travelers...

Musashi spent a great deal of time walking from place to place. All monetary and class implications aside, you don't see too many steam baths sitting around in the wilderness. --TR 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Musashi as an artist

I'm planning on adding a section about the art Musashi produced, loosely based on The Lone Samurai and some online sources. Where in this article would be a good place to put this, which will probably add up to a couple of paragraphs? My first thought was 1.4, last under the bio-topic, but other suggestions are welcome. --Jacob no. 9 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be in the midst of a report on him, and in Miyamoto Musashi's Article I found in Encyclopædia Britannica, the first paragraph on him ends with "...famous Japanese soldier-artist of the early Tokugawa period." The rest of the article mainly focuses on his skills as an artist, with only the last two sentences commenting on his swordsmanship. That's just a little something to take note of in considering what to do for the details of him as an artist... --TerraGamerX 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference in fiction

Steve Perry's Matador sequence refers to Musashi, but my copies are in storage: maybe someone with more immediate access could check? I'm sure I recall a martial art named the Musashi Flex. --Phil | Talk 12:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

References in anime

Is it really necessary to cite all these fleeting references in random Anime shows? It makes the article cluttered.

There's a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Japan-related topics notice board#Historical people in popular culture. --Fg2 11:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a rare weapon in the Phantasy Star Online game called Musashi, could this be a reference?

Factual Reference

I own a book titled The Lone Samurai, which acts as a biography of Musashi. The ISBN of it is 4-7700-2942-X. It was printed in 2004, the publishing company is Kodansha International, and it was distributed in the U.S. by Kodansha America. It is written by William Scott Wilson, and details Musashi's life excellently. It even lists its sources in a bibliography at the end of the book. --NeoChrono Ryu 03:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Life and Times of Miyamoto Musahi

I think there should be a little more information on his life and death, his parents, etc. It would be helpful. --The Gwai Lo 04:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Scott Wilson's book like some other books is based upon translations of the remaining factual documents. If details are not so clear it is because they are not available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.67.252 (talk • contribs) 18:10 UTC, Jan. 28, 2006.

Thank you for your encouragement & some dismissals

Hello there, nice to see you're saying my article is of good enough quality to be a featured article, really makes me feel appreciative of the work I've contributed towards the article. I disagree that it is rambling, as most of the works relating to Musashi are ones closely relating to his style, and are difficult to understand out of the concept of Musashi's life and times, mainly because his techniques and Knowledge were based so closely on him, widely renowned as a "Loner" character.

Most of the information requires "previous knowledge" of other topics which most people would not be privy to understanding, be it outside the scope of the article. I know it may be long, but I assure you that although perhaps I should trim the articles on techniques, the information is accurate and has taken me a long long time to ensure that it is easy to understand, mainly because the Go Rin No Sho, and Dokkodo are hard books to comprehend, even after multiple times of reading them.

Once all information on the remaining books has been added, then i will go over and add in links to the pages of the book which I used.

Lastly, to the rambling and somewhat lacking gentleman above me. We can use modern expressions to illuminate past conditions because we know now what they are. Of course it would not have been called eczema in the past, but we refer to it as that now.

Secondly, there were no facts posted as to Musashi's uncleanliness. The idea of stream washing is not completely separated from reality, but I do believe that it is incorrect as there were frequently bath houses inside major houses, under which he served at least two to my recollection.

The idea that bathing was letting Musashi's guard down was untrue, as every single duel which Musashi was a combatant in, he was either the catalyst starting the duel, or was engaged in a respectful duel.

Please take

Thanks for your support, again. (Spum 12:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

Hyakutake-Watkin.....

In reading Gorin no Sho it is deliberately written to be ambiguous. Translating it into English makes it more so. This is why there are so many copies. However for a practicing member of the ryu it is a lot easier as a manual of application. There is no copy of Dokkodo in English in print that delves into the succinct meaning of Musashi's will. I have a very detailed translation of Dokkodo's deeper meaning but would not be willing to publish it here where almost anyone is at liberty the change its content. Already some really unnecessary deletion have been made to some accurate information. A lot of the comments on these pages are based on peoples personal views and realms on pure fantasy when when people talk of beautiful women ladling water. They have never even sat in a Japanese Goemonburo. Conception is have gained from reading about Musashi, but obviously most have never had any experience within his ryu that teaches not only his practice but his philosophy. What must seriously be considered is that in Musashi's time the transmission of written text was rare. Rejection of transmission in written form reflects the recognition of real intuitive comprehension on a personal level.

It is inconceivable that a person that was a house guest of Japanese Lords among them the founder of Japanese propriety would be tolerated if he was unkempt or unclean. However the area he lived in for the last few years of his life has little or no facilities to this very day save that of a temple. It is situated part way down a mountain with stream at the very bottom. A good half a day trip for an older man.

Birth/Upbringing discrepancy

In the second paragraph of the section on Birth, it says Musashi was raised by his uncle from the age of seven, when his father died. However, the first paragraph of the section on Upbringing says it was his mother who died when he was seven, and that his father's role is unknown. I'm not familiar with Musashi's history (I was reading this article to find out), so can't make the call as to which is correct. Thanks. --Zelphar 08:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a gramatical problem with the article under birth: "Much of Miyamoto Musashi's early life is shrouded in mystery; though his early life is fairly well-documented, the sources conflict" this at worst is nonsense at best is confusing i don't have the infomation to correct it but thought i'd point it out Nate1481 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it starting with "The details of Miyamoto Musashi's early life are difficult to verify; though many documents claim to describe his early life, the sources conflict." -- JHunterJ 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I altered a quote. If it is a direct quotation, it should be reverted, and a source should be provided (for all quotations) so that people will not edit it. --Fg2 10:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

Just a note, but one thing this page definitely needs to have fixed is its grammar and sentence structure. Sentences like "The latter idea that Musashi would have hated Shinto because of "alien" practices could be seen as completely misconstrued because Shintoism would not be something alien to him; The odds being that Musashi would have been in much contact with Shintoists, those being the majority of Japan at that time, and as such, would also be reflective upon the amount of Shintoists which he duelled with or battled against." and "Kihei used a sword as the duel with Musashi was unexpected." make so little sense or are so vague that it seems to me they'd leave any potential readers more confused than they started out. --Anon.

Section on the fight with Arima Kihei

I think that the entire section in this article concerning the fight with Arima Kihei should be eliminated and melded with the Arima Kihei article. --NeoChrono Ryu 06:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

He was not called BENNOSUKE, it was BENOSUKE

I'm sorry, but someone has obviously got this wrong, I've never seen a double B in any Japanese, or Chinese name.. ever. It's just the same as SAMANOSUKE being SAMMANOSUKE, no, no, no. --Spum 17:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Spum,

I doubled the "n." A double "n" is common in person and place names. It arises when one character ends in an "n" sound and the next begins with "n" (or certain other sounds). Conversely, when the kanji before the "no" does not end in "n" the double "n" is wrong. That's the difference between these names and the reason why "ben-no-suke" should have a double "n" but "sa-ma-no-suke" should not.

As one example, see the place name Sannomiya Station. This is very similar in that the first kanji is "san"; the middle is the kana "no"; the ending ("miya") does not affect the doubling of the "n." The personal name "Shinnosuke" is a very close analogy. Likewise, kanji with readings like "san," "man," "han," "kan," "kin," "sen," "ban," "bin," "bun," "mon," "ran," "rin," and "ron" would get a double "n" if the middle character is "no."

However, I did not have a source for the writing of this name. The Japanese Wikipedia had the kanji, but did not indicate pronunciation. The first kanji is "ben," not "be." The "no" is omitted from the Japanese, and the omission is quite common. The shortening of "ben" to "be" would be very uncommon. Of course, I can't say it's impossible. If you've got a good source in English, it would be a great addition to the article!

Best regards, Fg2 21:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,

I tried typing Shinnosuke into the search box, and came up with a few examples. Also, here is the sentence from the Japanese Wikipedia: 幼名は「辨助」(弁助)と伝えられる。 The kanji 辨 (in parentheses, the modern simplification 弁) is "ben." The simplified kanji is the same as in bento.

You can also go to this site, which is in Kumamoto. It's tricky to get there. You have to log in (I assume it sets a cookie), accept the terms, then go back and click on this again. It gives his childhood name as べんのすけ; the hiragana are be-n-no-su-ke.

Hope that helps. --Fg2 07:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, all the works I've seen have given it as Bennosuke (such as Kenji Tokitsu's Miyamoto Musashi). --maru (talk) contribs 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cause and date of death, also, his name.

It is said in the introduction to Wilson's translation of the "Book of Five Rings" that Musashi died on May 19, due to thoracic cancer. Since Wilson's translation is frequently cited in this article, I believe it would be appropriate to change the date and include cause of death. Also, it is obvious from the Wilson translation that Musashi preferred the family name Shinmen, not Miyamoto, so I believe this should also be addressed. --Skywalkert65b 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No macron for Gorin no sho

I edited the article and removed the macron from the title of Musashi's most famous book. A user asked me for additional information so I wrote this.

The word "sho" is the last kanji 書　meaning "writing" or "book." Its pronunciation has a short vowel, not a long one.

You can see an entry for 書 in any Japanese kanji dictionary, including Wiktionary. You can copy and paste the kanji right from this window into Wiktionary's search box (not just for this kanji but for any kanji, although of course Wiktionary doesn't have them all) but this link should take you directly to the article. Look at the Japanese section and you'll see しょ (two hiragana symbols), not しょう (three hiragana), as well as sho not shō. For contrast, look at another kanji. This one has the pronunciation しょう (three hiragana) or shō. You can see the difference. --Fg2 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I agree with the remarks in the peer review about the lead paragraph, and it was so clear to me what was needed that I moved the naming issue to the section on his training in swordsmanship and changed the first paragraph to this:

Miyamoto Musashi (宮本 武蔵 Miyamoto Musashi, c.1584 - May 19, 1645), prior to adulthood known as Miyamoto Benosuke, was a famous Japanese swordsman, who is claimed to have been one of the most skilled swordsmen in the history of Japan. Musashi, as he is often simply known, became legendary by triumphing in numerous duels, even from a very young age. He invented and developed the Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu style of swordsmanship and he wrote The Book of Five Rings, an enigmatic book of strategy, tactics, and philosophy that is much studied by businesspeople and others even today.

I think this gives the reader solid reasons for his fame and I trust it is a smooth invitation to read further. --Hu 10:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

References?

The only reference listed (A book called "The Lone Samurai") actually disagrees with a large amount of the information presented in the article. Should this remain a reference if this is the case. I am not aware of any information from the book that is actually used by the article. (This unsigned comment was by User:NeoChrono Ryu 22:16 UTC, 12 December 2005).

You removed the book from the references because you claimed the article and the book are not in agreement. Which do you think is better? The article or the book? By removing the book reference, it seems you think the article is more accurate than the book. --Hu 01:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed that I was pointing out the article as a better resource that the book. I think the book is better by far, but I do not think that it should be cited if it is not used as a resource. I think that the entire article needs a complete rewrite, using this book as a main reference, since it is one of the first of its kind, to give a complete and thorough biography of Musashi. I simply do not have the time to devote myself to such a project right now, but if the article is still in need of correction, perhaps this summer I will attempt a total rewrite. --NeoChrono Ryu 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No apology needed, I was just trying to sort things out. My inclination would be to leave the book in the list of references because it is good. That way an interested party is more likely to track it down and fix the discrepancies without requiring you to rewrite the article. --Hu 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I have heard this book is a highly fictionalized version of Musashi's life. I'm sure the basics are correct, but I can't speak for the rest of it. -ARO

Further reading

For your concern I made "Further reading" section and listed the book in it. This will be more appropriate than listing the book in the reference section, since it is not really used as a reference for the current contents of the article, but still let others know the existence of the book. --BorgQueen 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent solution. --Hu 02:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually this is BAD ... VERY BAD... if it was listed in references, that means SOMEONE used it for a reference to write SOME of this content. As such removing it from a "reference" to "further reading" implies that no content from the book was used in the making of this article which is very likely wrong. This is as bad as having NO references.  ALKIVAR™ 07:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who originally put it in as a reference, but since the information from the book has been removed and replaced with false information, I feel that it is appropriate to have a further reading section, thereby making the resource available to browsers, but not implying its use in the article. --NeoChrono Ryu 19:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is being reviewed for a feature page. Perhaps several books should be used to cite facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.21.223 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 December 2005 UTC.

If anything Miyamoto Musashi - His Life and Writings Author: Kenji Tokitsu gives a far more well rounded view of the facts and actually explores certain misconceptions. The part about being a book for business men should be deleted. This is purely promotional to sell copes of one of many translations CHW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.67.252 (talk • contribs) 18:10 UTC, Jan. 28, 2006.

I have to agree there. Tokitsu's book is the most lucid I've read, and he is rather good about discussing the various sources and why there is so much confusion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This page is RIDDLED with factual inaccuracies, blatant ones. The same things are repeated multiple times, with different facts for each part. Please put a warning about this page. but notably:

"In 1634 he settled in Kokura with his step-son Iori, and later entered the service of daimyo Ogasawara Tadazane, taking a major role in the Shimabara Rebellion. Iori served with excellence in putting down the rebellion and gradually rose to the rank of karo - a position equal to a minister. Musashi, however was reputedly injured by a thrown rock while scouting in the front line, and was thus unable to accrue any form of merit."

Death

Six years later, in 1633 1634+6=1633? Musashi did not go to edo he went to KYOTO. MOTHER did not die FATHER did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.34.171 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 December 2005, UTC.

Killerclaw adds; don't mean to be an ass... But if it's wrong perhaps someone should fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerclaw (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 Jan., 2006.

Virtually anything written about Musashi will have factual inaccuracies; the man has as much legend written about him as fact (and he wrote some of the legend himself, of course). --128.226.230.77 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but the article should either state the most probable scenario(s), or all of them. Not contradict itself. Editors must read (and, if sure, change) the corresponding parts of the article before adding or changing facts. --Jacob no. 9 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Japanese history we are talking about. That is a history that is allways full of mistakes and opinions. Not only that, but we are talking about one of the biggest legends in Japanese history, or in any history. That just amplifies the problem. Alot of facts keep changing in this article because NO historian knows what is correct about Musashi. All the editors here just have their favorite version that they think is correct and so they try to push it on everybody else. I just don't know if this article CAN be fixed, especially over the net. -ARO

Hyakutake Watkin - Hyoho Niten Ichiryu

I read the original page and the information. It all seemed fairly reasonable to me. I would put forward the following reasons to show that a very clear accuracy will never be reached and the page should have been left as it was.

1. Present English translations on the history of Musashi are based upon actual authentic documents. However some of the facts in these documents will always be in dispute such as the time of Musashi's fathers death. Musashi's place of birth etc.
2. His writings particularly that of Gorin no Sho are in kata kana. So there can be no dispute of kanji mistakes. However...... the writing in Japanese by Musashi's own admission is very ambiguous. Translating this into English makes it even more so. hence the availability of many copies. There is even one from English into English with the writer professing to be translator. This book in it's entirety was written to be part of a manual. Reading the rest of Musashi's writings this become self evident to a practicing member of the ryu.
3. A book describing the subtle details of Dokkodo, delving into the Buddhist precepts therein is not available in print in English. I have such a translation but would be most unwilling to place it on the Internet for anyone to be able to edit at will.
4. The Scott Wilson book is suggested as an adequate reference but there are contradictions even down to the weapons used in particular duels when one reads a similar far more authoritative work Miyamoto Musashi - His Life and Writings Written by Kenji Tokitsu. Again this information is far from undefined to be able to comment on it.
5. Overall the information shown was of representative value to what we know of Musashi. A lot of the comments made since page was taken down reflect some very personal biased views and are not in keeping with an online encyclopedia.

Hyakutake Watkin - Hyoho Niten Ichiryu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.67.252 (talk • contribs) Jan. 28, 2006.. The above five points were originally on the Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute page, but seemed misplaced, and probably belong here. Hu 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely impossible to draw firm conclusions from reading the Scott Wilson book alone. Translations made from the same text references by Tokitsu even have Musashi and his opponents using different weapons in duels. Problems in kanji translation are of course possible. But even a layman cannot confuse weapons such as a short sword, staff real sword and bokuto (Japanese wooden sword).

There was part of the original information I would question however.

For further reading Eiji Yoshikawa. (1995 (reprint edition)). Musashi, Kodansha International is suggested.

"This is a purely fiction work that is now being carried on in the form of TV melodrama's by his son Yoshikawa Eimei. This has little or no benefit and if anything draws away for the sad lack of factual information and back into fantasy.

Hyakutake Watkin - Hyoho Niten Ichiryu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyaku (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 January 2006 UTC.

Hm

Hmm, as a student of the Japanese language, and having been to Japan over the last summer, I do believe that I have the right to say that the name "Bennosuke" is perfectly reasonable and realistic. It simply affects how long it takes the say the name.

Now, I have a question referring to the origin of Miyamoto's adopted name "Musashi": Musashibou Benkei. I do believe that the page on Musashi has been edited since the last time I checked, because I recall reading that Benkei was a legendary swordsman who was credited with the feat of wielding nine swords into battle. Normally I would say this improbable, but there has been a character in the Japanese fighting series Samurai Spirits (or Samurai Showdown, as it's known in the US) that wields seven swords of varying lengths, including a deadly nodachi. If Benkei really was accredited with wielding nine blades, then he would be a reasonable and logical source of inspiration.

Anyways, to my question: did Benkei really wield nine swords into battle? Or was that just a fictionalized image of him? Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else? Please respond and destroy my ignorance. --Direkliancliff 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nine swords? Well I agree with the legend that Benkei was a very skilled warrior-monk, (sohei), but the notion that he used nine swords sounds like a distortion of the tale that Benkei carried eight to eleven (depending on tradition) different weapons on his person into battle. Of course that too may just be another exaggeration though. If its not either one of those examples than maybe the tale you heard was about Benkei fighting with, and breaking, nine swords in one battle one after the other. I remember another tale from the same period about another monk who engaged in a battle so fiercely that all his weapons broke one by one until he had only his small dagger left after which he retired in one piece(!). Anyways, hope that answers your question. --Fred26 15:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "wielding nine swords" is an allegory? A reference to a school of thought, or philosophy? --Pjanini1 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. Just to illustrate: I think the Chinese had a very nasty execution method in its pre-Communism days called "death by a thousand cuts"..I'm pretty sure they didn't actually administer a thousand cuts to the unfortunate victim. Anyways, Cliff doesn't mention&qoute any sources word-for-word. But if he can find it and qoute it than perhaps we can make a better assessment. Fred26 12:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Swords break in battle. Carried nine swords, using one (or two) at any one time? Vincent 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...that's one scenario, although it would be the first time I've heard of it. :) Carrying nine swords just doesn't seem reasonable to me..especially not since the Japanese sword hadn't really become the popular weapon as it was in the later period. In those days, late 12th century, it was the "Way of the Horse and Bow", and monks like Benkei usually carried the naginata as the main weapon anyways. You know this whole "nine-swords" thing is kinda interesting. I'm gonna try and dig up what I can from whatever I can find. --Fred26 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Apprentice

I've taken this out from the lead: "He also had an apprentice, Jōtōrō. His life is portrayed in the novel Musashi." - The lead paragraph needs to be concise, and these sentences seem rather out of place. The apprentice thing would better be dealt with somewhere in the timeline section, perhaps. The novel is already covered in Miyamoto Musashi in fiction. --BorgQueen 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronin/Samurai disagreement.

Musashi was a shugyosha, not a samurai, and not a ronin. Shugyosha were simply traveling swordsmen who tested their skills against other shugyosha or basically anyone who challenged them.

You can't be a ronin without first being a samurai and this is something Musashi never was. He kept guest status with each lord he was on good terms with. --Anon.

Peer review again

Anyone want to try a peer review again, and maybe if that goes well a FAC? Peer review's main concern was addressed, and I think I greatly improved the article regardless. It'd be nice to see it as an FA. --maru (talk) contribs 07:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've trudged through all the moving and formatting, and it's up. Comment at will. --maru (talk) contribs 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Was he left-handed?

I don't know much about Japanese swords and how to use them but I once heard on TV that he had an advantage because he was left-handed and had the surprise factor, but reading the article it seems that he just used the sword where it fitted best. Anyone knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.158.168 (talk • contribs)

Hard to say. No source really mentions him not being right-handed, but on the other hand, from what I understand of Tokitsu's work, there's some interesting evidence that his style's stances and grips would have allowed him to throw his short sword really effectively (as he was supposed to be able to do) if he was left-handed. --maru (talk) contribs 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard any mention of it going either way. If I had to guess though, I would say that he may have been abidextrous. Whether he was born that way or forced it on himself is not clear, but the fact that he wielded two swords at once shows he was at least competent with his left hand. Also, Gorin No Sho makes a big deal of not having any preferences, so I would not be surprised if he taken it upon himself to master using his non-dominant hand. This is all speculation though. -ARO

Nue?

In the description of the first picture it says that the creature Mushashi is fighting is a "nue". According to the description we have in Wikipedia, that is not a nue since it doesnt have any of the Chimera-like features. Am i missing something here?

A "Nue", especially during Edo period, typically referred to what we today consider as a "monster" or "creature". Since you perceived it as a "creature" and not an "animal", it's a nue.--Revth 03:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Go Rin No Sho

I undid the edits of "Go Rin No Sho" -> "Gorin No Sho" and standardized on capitalizing each word in the title. This is the way it appeared in the New York Times (November 14, 1982, Section 3, Page 25, Column 1, "The Nine Lives of a Book of Five Rings"), and "gorin" is not a word in my Japanese dictionary (Sanseido's New Concise Japanese-English Dictionary). Anyone know of any style guide comments that would apply here? --JHunterJ 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) is a good place to ask. Also, "no" is a minor word, and might be better with a lowercase letter. --Fg2 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like Fujiwara no Teika, for example. --maru (talk) contribs 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Book of Five Rings also uses Go Rin No Sho, so if it should be changed, it should be changed there first. (I agree with the part about no being a minor word, FWIW.) -- JHunterJ 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But shouldn't "no" (の?) feature in the Kanji title? At present, it just reads "Go Rin Sho". I don't know the original work, so I'm hesitant about correcting it myself. Extenebris 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. The Japanese Wikipedia article also does not have "no" (visit the English Wikipedia's article on the book, and click the link to the Japanese Wikipedia to see it). In present-day Japanese an author writing a book with "no" in the title would write it, but it wasn't necessarily written in previous centuries. It looks like Musashi did not. Various external links in the English and Japanese WP articles also omit "no" from the Japanese title. Fg2 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Musana?

Can anyone provide more information about the name "Musana"? For example, kanji, and a reference to a suitable source? I was unable to locate it in the Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks. --Fg2 05:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Musana in; I got it from the Tokitsu book listed in the refs, but I don't remember seeing any kanji or kana or anything. --maru (talk) contribs 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's reassuring that it came from a published source. Kanji would make it easier to locate on the Web, butI'll try other methods. Fg2 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Only one reference is provided and the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The Arima Kihei article should be merged to the Miyamoto Musashi#First duel section. Kihei has no importance on his own, and the Kihei article says little if anything besides what is already stated in the Musashi article. 24.126.199.129 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another good thing about the merge is that it brings another inline reference to this article, which sorely needs it! I added it and some details from Kihei's page. I believe we are ready to make Kihei's page a redirect and complete te merge Renmiri 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merged Renmiri 20:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I spanned it of to a new page. The timeline is full of disputed information as the subsequent Biography section makes clear. Also, that large white space, particularly at the beginning of a page makes the page hard to read. I almost skipped the bottom part entirely! Renmiri 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should even have the timeline. Things aren't too disputed for Musashi's later life, but for the early 0-30 portion, any timeline is an exercise in speculation or buying into particular theories. --maru (talk) contribs 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with you. But I saved it to a new page: Miyamoto Musashi's life Timeline just in case others disagree Renmiri 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

timeline merge

• agree merge back here. Chris 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• agree Takedashingen620 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• strongly agree. Needs to be merged back with main article. If some areas are considered inaccurate or disputed, corrections or commens should be made. --MChew 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

Should the bolded text below say 'must be' instead?

Like with most disciplines in martial arts, Musashi notes that the movement of the sword after the cut is made must not be superfluous; instead of quickly returning to a stance or position, one should allow the sword to come to the end of its path from the force used. In this manner, the technique will become freely flowing, as opposed to abrupt.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wily duck (talk • contribs)

as an artist

can someone please expand on this and add a photo. also if there is an archive of his works, they can be added to wikicommons. --AlexOvShaolin 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Picture at the Top

The picture at the top right, with Minamoto slaying a Nue, doubt it is Masashi but just another hero in another time with the same last name because no only the hanji name is different but the time when the legend take place is also different.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai.Standard (talk • contribs)

The picture at the top seems inappropriate because it was taken from 18rh century's fiction, "Honcho Suikoden" - a parody of a chinese classic "Water Margin." In "Honcho Suikoden," many historical heroes fight during Rebellion of Emi no Oshikatsu (Fujiwara No Nakamaro) in the 8th century. (There are letters which can read "Honcho Suikoden　（本朝水滸伝）" on upper-right of the image.) Though its character derived from historical Musashi's figure, the man depicted in the picture is "another Musashi" - similiar to historical Musashi, having the name with same pronunciation (and different spelling), but another fictional person. Thus, it is inappropriate to use the image as a top image of a historical figure, Miyamoto Musashi. The image is also used in Musashi's page in Japanese Wikipedia. However, it should be noted that the image appears in the paragraph "Musashi in fiction."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.127.158 (talk • contribs)

Have moved another to the top, would replacing it in the fiction section here be appropriate? --Nate 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The new top image seems appropriate. If you want to use the former one, it should be good to put the former one in the fictional section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.127.158 (talk • contribs)

Was Musashi the greatest?

At the very least, the absolute statement that he was the greatest anything of all time should be removed unless it can be cited to. Saying "one of the greatest" is probably more fair. It's also a little problematic to call him a samurai at all, much less the best one ever, as was discussed a long time ago (see top of this page). In fact, I'm aware of some historians referring to Minamoto Yoshiie as the greatest samurai of all time, and he predates Musashi by 600 years. Even saying he is the most famous is a problem, because while he might be the most famous in Western society, there are many other famous swordsman whom stories and legends developed around. For example, Yagyu Jubei has been widely incorporated into Japanese tales and legends over the last 400 years or so. It would be more neutral to say that Musashi was a great swordsman, and one of the most famous in Japanese history. Bradford44 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim in the article does not say he was the greatest; it says he is considered to have been one of (stricken Fg2) the greatest. A citation of a person who made that assessment (someone who is knowledgeable on the subject) is what's necessary here. Wikipedia does not make value judgments about samurai or anything else, but if authoritative assessments have been published by reputable publishers, Wikipedia can report them. Lacking such a citation, we should state, as Bradford44 says, that he was one of the most famous swordsmen in Japanese history. Fg2 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been five days with no objections, so I'm changing it to say "one of the greatest", per this discussion, and removing the 'citation needed' tag. Bradford44 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Bokken is not really a handicap.

I don't want to add this to main article, since I realy don't want to add to the mess, but heres something for interested. Often it is noted that his use of wooden swords is a great testament of his swordsmanship, but all his duels were with un-armoured opponents. In that situation wood is just as damaging to the body and lightness off wood is advantage since swordsman with iron weapons is slower.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.201.165 (talk • contribs)

Your assertions seem kind of unlikely to me. If it isn't really a handicap, then why is using one so unusual?

Weight doesn't really matter - a wood sword still have to be thick and heavy enough so that when it breaks bones and organs after being swung by a guy who was in all likelihood many times stronger and fitter than you or I; remember, it's not like swords are very heavy, a few pounds at the most.

Also, blades being only as effective as blunt wood in duels? Uh huh. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29 25 July 2007 (GMT)