修行会

解説

このページの第13首は、原文「下段をば陽の心を陰に見て打突く剣を清眼と知れ。」を掲げ、英題を 「A Striking Blade is Seigan」 としている。批判的口語訳でまとめると――「下段に構え、内には『陽』の気持ちを保ちながらも外観は『陰』として見せ、その構えから打ち出す一刀こそ『清眼（Seigan）だ』と心得よ」――という指示だ。ページの英訳も「Holding gedan, regard a yō (yang) heart-mind as in (yin); know the sword that strikes …」という趣旨で、下段（gedan）／陰陽（yō–in）／清眼（seigan）の三語を要所に据えている。ここでのポイントは、「見せかたは陰、芯は陽」という二重構造の整え方と、その集中から生まれる決定的一刀を「清眼」と名指していることだ。

語義面を軽く押さえると理解が深まる。清眼は本来「澄んだ眼」を意味しつつ、古来の兵法用語では正眼（中段に構え、切先を相手の目に付ける構え）の異表記としても用いられてきた語である。一方で本句はあえて「下段」に言及しつつ「清眼」を立てるので、単に「型の名称」としての正眼に矮小化せず、澄み切った見（まなこ）＝機を見極める一刀というニュアンスを帯びさせていると読める。つまり、低くおさめ（下段）、陰に見せて陽を保ち（陰陽）、澄んだ眼で割る一刀（清眼）――この三拍子がこのページの核だ。なお、下段が五方の構えの一つであることも補助線になる。

これをこれまでの糸に通すと、植芝盛平のプライマーの第一原理〈武＝宇宙原理〉とプライマーの第三原理〈心魂一如〉が「芯は陽・表は陰”の調整軸を与え、プライマーの第四原理〈和合美化〉は見せ方（陰）の品位を担保、プライマーの第五原理の〈体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者心／学び手〉は下段＝低く構える身体運用を日常に据え、プライマーの第六原理〈「至愛」の源に順う〉は清眼＝澄んだ判断の拠りどころを定める。直前の三首――第10首〈唯一筋に決める〉は陰陽の揺れを一本化し、第11首〈襲うすべなし〉は清眼で間合いを制し攻撃の起点を立たせない帰結を示し、第12首〈天地の息に委ねる〉は呼吸で下段の沈みと陽の芯を同期させる運転法を与える。こうして本ページは、低く静かに（陰）見せて、澄んだ眼と一本の陽で“打ちどころ”だけを割るという、合気の剣の作法を一行で言い切っている。

口語要約のひとこと

「下段に構え、陽の心を陰に見せて、打ち突くその剣を『清眼』と知れ。」

和歌的修辞――「見る／知る」の折りと清眼の見立て

本首でまず見落としがたいのは、五七五七七を一つの命令文で貫く、一首一文の構えである。初句「下段をば」は主題だけを立てて述部を遠くへ送り、二句「陽の心を」も目的語のまま保留される。三句「陰に見て」は接続の「て」によって上の句を閉じ切らず、四句「打突く剣を」もなお判断を宙に置き、結句「清眼と知れ」に至って初めて全体が収束する。初句には題を掲げる弱い間があり、三句目には上下を折る弱い節があるものの、いずれも文を断つ強い句切れではない。狭義の句跨りというより、各句の文節を保ったまま意味を結句へ懸け続ける運びであり、定型的な序詞ではないものの、上の句全体が「清眼」という名を遅れて到着させる序詞的な予備動作を担っている。ここでの「折り」は断絶ではなく、〈見て―打突く―知れ〉の運動を下の句へ渡す関節である。

さらに、第二・三句と第四・五句には、〈AをBとして認める〉という二組の認識構文が変奏対句をなしている。すなわち、〈陽の心を／陰に見て〉に対し、〈打突く剣を／清眼と知れ〉が応じる。前者では「に＋見る」、後者では「と＋知る」が置かれ、「見る」という知覚的・評価的な働きが、「知る」という確定的な心得へ一段深められる。「陰に見る」は相を取らせる操作であり、「清眼と知る」はその操作から生まれた剣を名指して定める操作となる。この並行構文の内部で、陽と陰は明瞭な対照法をなし、しかも陽を陰として見るという逆説を立てる。陽を捨てて陰へ移るのではない。陽を芯に保ったまま陰の相を取る――反対語の緊張そのものが、構えの技法となっている。

縁語的な連鎖も一筋ではない。下段・打・突・剣・清眼は武術語の意味場を作り、心・見・眼・知は認識語の意味場を作り、陽・陰は宇宙論的な対語として両者のあいだに軸を通す。なかでも「清眼」は、構えの名であると同時に「清い眼」と読めるため、武術語群と視覚語群の双方に属する結節点となる。ここで「打突く剣を清眼と知れ」は、単に技名を教えるだけではなく、打ち突く剣そのものを眼に見立てる。剣は何かを打つための器であると同時に、機を見抜くための眼となり、作用と知覚とが一語の内で重なる。しかも、この見立ては内容として述べられるだけではない。「見て」「知れ」と命じる文そのものが、あるものを別のものとして見定める操作を、詠みの内側で実際に遂行している。

その見立てを支えるのが、主体と視点の省略である。文法上、「陰に見て」の主体は命令を受ける稽古者と取るのが自然だが、誰の眼に陰として立つのかまでは明示されない。そのため、内側から陽の心を陰として整える自己認識と、外側から陰として読まれる対敵上の呈示とが、一つの省略の内に重なる。また「打突く剣」では、打ち突く人の姿が文面から退き、剣そのものが動作を担う。単純な擬人化というより、行為主体が人から剣へ換喩的に移される構文であり、心・身体・剣の境を薄くする。結句「知れ」の呼びかけ先も名指されないため、命令は特定の一人に閉じず、稽古の場へ入るたびに新たに発せられる教歌の声となる。

首尾にも照応がある。初句の「下段」と結句中の「清眼」は、ともに構えを担う硬質な術語として一首を挟み、「下」という低い位置から「眼」という知覚の座へ、語義上の垂直軸を引く。その中間を、身体の位置、心の極性、外に現れる相、剣の作用、認識の確定が段階的に進み、漸層的な運びを作る。下段から清眼へ移るとは、単に剣先を上げることではない。低く沈めた身体から、澄んだ認識を立ち上げることである。語体の上でも、下段・陽・陰・剣・清眼という硬い漢字語の節目を、見て・打ち突く・知れという和語の動詞が動かしており、静かな名詞群へ動作を通して、最後に一つの名を確定する。聴覚上も、げだん・いん・けん・せいがんに反復する撥音「ん」が要語を内韻的に結ぶ一方、「うちつく」に集まる破擦音・閉鎖音が、その静かな連鎖へ一度だけ鋭い打撃を入れている。

結句は体言止めではなく、命令形「知れ」による用言止めである。したがって、本首は形式上「清眼」で終わるのではなく、「清眼と知れ」で閉じる。切れ字は置かれていないが、命令形そのものが一首を断定的に断ち、稽古上の迷いへ終止符を打つ。ただし、意味の余韻まで消えるわけではない。「知れ」と命じられたために、かえって「清眼」とは何かという問いが残り、正眼という構え、清い眼という知覚、打突く剣という作用の三層が反芻される。余韻は名詞を残して黙るところからではなく、名を知り直せと迫るところから生じる。下段から放たれる一刀は、相手へ届く前に、まず何を「眼」と呼ぶのかという認識そのものを切り改めている。

配置は、現在の「解説」第三段落の後、「口語要約のひとこと」直前が最も自然である。

発話行為理論

オースティン（Austin, 1962）の言語行為論（Speech Act Theory）に寄せれば、本首の発話内行為（illocutionary／イルロキューション）は「下段—陰陽—清眼」という命題を述べるだけでなく、その述べ方自体が稽古の作法になっている。上の句（下段／陽の心／陰に見て）が状況と操作を置き、下の句（打突く剣／清眼と知れ）がそれを名指しで確定する。ここに「折り（折り目）」が立ち、1–2句と4句は「を／をば」の反復で身体・心・剣を同じ枠に収め、3句と5句は「見て—眼—知れ」の視覚語彙で認識の軸を揃える。 

発話内行為（illocutionary／イルロキューション）として、命令形「知れ」によって「心得」を成立させる働きをもつ。「清眼」は単なる型名の指示に留まらず、同音の層（正眼の技術語／清い眼の比喩）を引き込み、掛詞的に上と下を懸け渡す。切れ字が句に曲折や言い切りを与えると説明されるのと同様に、末尾の言い切りが稽古上の規範を硬く固定し、判断を曖昧に残さない。 

発話媒介行為（perlocutionary／ペルロキューションは、理解の転回が身体操作へ移植される点に集約される。陰に見せる操作が、結果として濁りではなく「清さ」を生むという逆説が立ち、打突の瞬間に“見抜き”が同居しやすくなる。要するに、外の陰が内の陽を消すのではなく、外の陰が内の陽を通すための器となり、その器の透明度が「清眼」として名付けられている――という受け取りが成立したとき、構えと一刀の結び目が変わる。

コーダ

下段は、ただ剣先を低く置くための構えではない。陽を失わず、しかも陽を露わにしないための沈みである。外に立つ陰は弱さの印ではなく、内に保たれた陽を騒がせず、必要な一筋だけを通す器となる。ゆえに、ここで求められる静けさは動きを止める静けさではない。まだ打たれていない一刀を、すでに澄ませている静けさである。下段・陰陽・清眼という三つの語は、構え、心、眼を別々に教えるのではなく、低く沈む身体のうちで三者が一つになる瞬間を指している。

その瞬間、剣は意志の命令を受けて後から動く道具ではなくなる。心が見、眼が知り、剣が打つという順序さえほどけ、見抜くことと打ち突くこととが一つの働きになる。「清眼と知れ」とは、型の名を暗記せよという命令ではない。濁りのない一刀が生じたところを清眼と呼び、その名によって、身体の低さと心の明るさと外相の静けさを、もう一度結び直せという命令である。知ることは、ここでは説明を所有することではなく、剣の働きそのものへ変わることになる。

だから、一刀が割るものは、相手との間だけではない。陽は外へ誇示されなければならないという思い、陰は退くことだという思い、眼は顔にあり、剣は手にあるという分別までが、その澄んだ一線によって切り改められる。下段の深みから清眼が立つとき、開いているのは人の眼なのか――それとも、剣そのものなのか。

English Translation

Commentary

This page presents Dōka 13 in its original form—Gedan o ba yō no kokoro o in ni mite uchitsuku ken o seigan to shire (下段をば陽の心を陰に見て打突く剣を清眼と知れ)—under the English title “A Striking Blade is Seigan.” In a critical colloquial rendering, its instruction may be summarized as follows: “Take gedan. Retain a yang heart-mind within while presenting its outward appearance as yin, and understand that the single blade struck forth from that stance is precisely seigan.” The page’s English translation likewise reads in the sense of, “Holding gedan, regard a yō (yang) heart-mind as in (yin); know the sword that strikes …,” placing three terms at its decisive points: gedan (下段), yō–in (陽–陰), and seigan (清眼). The central point lies in how the double structure “yin in presentation, yang at the core”—misekata wa in, shin wa yō (見せかたは陰、芯は陽)—is brought into alignment, and in how the decisive single cut born from that concentration is explicitly named seigan.

A brief review of the word meanings deepens the reading. Seigan (清眼) originally means “a clear eye,” while in the terminology of classical strategy it has also long been used as a variant spelling of seigan (正眼), the middle stance in which the sword-tip is set upon the opponent’s eyes. Yet because this verse deliberately invokes gedan (下段) while foregrounding seigan (清眼), the latter need not be diminished to seigan (正眼) as merely “the name of a form.” It may instead be read as carrying the further resonance of a wholly clarified vision: a single cut that discerns the decisive opening. In other words, settle low—gedan (下段); present yin while retaining yang—in-yō (陰陽); cleave with a lucid eye—seigan (清眼). This threefold cadence is the core of the page. It also helps to remember that gedan is one of the gohō no kamae (五方の構え), the five stances.

Threaded onto the line established thus far, the First Principle of Morihei Ueshiba’s Primers—“Bu = Cosmic Principle,” Bu = Uchū Genri (武＝宇宙原理)—and the Third—“Heart-mind and Spirit, Inseparable,” Shinkon Ichinyo (心魂一如)—supply the axis along which “yang at the core, yin at the surface,” shin wa yō, omote wa in (芯は陽・表は陰), is adjusted. The Fourth Principle—“Harmonize and Beautify,” Wagō Bika (和合美化)—safeguards the dignity of what is shown, the yin aspect. The Fifth—“Body as Dōjō; Heart-mind as Practitioner / Ascetic / Learner,” Tai = Dōjō, Kokoro = Shūgyōsha / Shugyōsha-gokoro / Manabite (体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者心／学び手)—places the bodily operation of gedan, of settling low, within everyday life. The Sixth—“Follow the Source of ‘Supreme Love,’” “Shiai” no Minamoto ni Shitagau (「至愛」の源に順う)—establishes the ground from which seigan, lucid judgment, proceeds.

The three verses immediately preceding it continue the same thread. Dōka 10, “settle upon the one sole line”—tada hitosuji ni kimeru (唯一筋に決める)—draws the oscillation of yin and yang into one. Dōka 11, “no means remain to assail”—osou sube nashi (襲うすべなし)—shows the consequence of governing maai (間合い) through seigan: the point from which attack would arise is never allowed to stand. Dōka 12, “entrust oneself to the breath of heaven and earth”—tenchi no iki ni yudaneru (天地の息に委ねる)—provides the operating method by which breath synchronizes the sinking of gedan with the yang core. Thus, in a single line, this page states the method of the sword of aiki (合気): appear low and quiet—yin—and, with a lucid eye and one undivided line of yang, cleave only the place at which the strike belongs.

In one colloquial line

“Take gedan. Let a yang heart-mind appear as yin, and know the sword that strikes and thrusts as seigan.”

Waka rhetoric: The ori (折り), or fold, of miru / shiru (見る／知る), “seeing / knowing,” and the mitate (見立て) of seigan (清眼)

One of the first things not to be overlooked in this verse is its one-poem, one-sentence stance: a single imperative sentence runs through the entire 5–7–5–7–7 form. The opening line, gedan o ba (下段をば), raises only the topic and sends the predicate far ahead; the second, yō no kokoro o (陽の心を), remains suspended as an object. The third, in ni mite (陰に見て), does not fully close the kami-no-ku (上の句), for the connective -te (て) carries it onward. The fourth, uchitsuku ken o (打突く剣を), still leaves the judgment hanging in the air; only with the closing seigan to shire (清眼と知れ) does the whole finally converge. A light pause in the opening line raises the topic, and a light articulation in the third folds the upper and lower portions together, but neither is a strong syntactic kugire (句切れ) that severs the sentence. Rather than ku-matagari (句跨り), or enjambment in the narrow sense, the movement preserves the phrasal unit of each line while keeping its meaning suspended upon the close. Although it is not a conventional joshi (序詞), the entire upper verse performs a joshi-like preparatory motion, delaying the arrival of the name seigan. The ori (折り), or fold, here is not a rupture but a joint that passes the movement mite—uchitsuku—shire (見て―打突く―知れ), “see—strike and thrust—know,” into the shimo-no-ku (下の句).

Lines two–three and four–five further form a varied parallelism between two constructions of recognition, each construing A as B. Yō no kokoro o / in ni mite (陽の心を／陰に見て) is answered by uchitsuku ken o / seigan to shire (打突く剣を／清眼と知れ). The former sets ni + miru (に＋見る) against the latter’s to + shiru (と＋知る): the perceptual and evaluative work of miru (見る), “to see” or “to regard,” deepens by one degree into the settled practical knowledge of shiru (知る), “to know.” To “see as yin”—in ni miru (陰に見る)—is an operation that causes the heart-mind to assume an aspect; to “know as seigan”—seigan to shiru (清眼と知る)—is an operation that names and determines the sword born from the first. Within this parallel structure, yang and yin form a clear antithesis while also establishing the paradox of seeing yang as yin. The verse does not abandon yang and move into yin. It retains yang at the core while assuming the appearance of yin: the tension between the contrary terms itself becomes a technique of stance.

The engo (縁語)-like chain is not confined to a single strand either. The vocabulary of gedan (下段), striking, thrusting, ken (剣), and seigan (清眼) forms a martial semantic field; heart-mind, seeing, eye, and knowing form a cognitive field; and yō (陽) and in (陰) run an axis between the two as cosmological counterterms. Above all, seigan (清眼), because it is at once the name of a stance and legible as “a clear eye”—kiyoi manako (清い眼)—becomes the junction belonging to both the martial and visual vocabularies. Here, uchitsuku ken o seigan to shire (打突く剣を清眼と知れ), “know the striking-thrusting sword as seigan,” does more than teach the name of a technique: it casts the striking sword itself as an eye. The sword is an instrument for striking something, but at the same time an eye for seeing through to the decisive opening; action and perception overlap within a single word. Nor is this mitate merely stated as content. The sentence itself commands mite (見て), “see,” and shire (知れ), “know,” and thereby actually performs, within the poem’s own utterance, the operation of discerning one thing as another.

What sustains this mitate is the omission of subject and viewpoint. Grammatically, the subject of in ni mite (陰に見て), “regard as yin,” is most naturally the practitioner receiving the command, yet the verse never specifies in whose eyes the stance is to appear as yin. Thus, an inward self-apprehension that arranges the yang heart-mind in the aspect of yin and an outward tactical presentation read by an opponent as yin overlap within a single omission. Again, in uchitsuku ken (打突く剣), “the striking-thrusting sword,” the figure of the person who strikes and thrusts recedes from the wording, and the sword itself bears the action. This is less simple personification than a metonymic transfer of agency from person to sword, thinning the boundaries among heart-mind, body, and blade. Because the addressee of the closing shire (知れ), “know,” is likewise unnamed, the command does not close upon one particular person. It becomes the voice of an instructional verse uttered anew whenever the space of practice is entered.

The beginning and end answer one another as well. The opening gedan (下段) and the closing seigan (清眼) are both hard-edged technical terms of stance that bracket the poem, drawing a semantic vertical axis from the low position of shita (下), “below,” to gan (眼), “eye,” the seat of perception. Between them, bodily position, the polarity of the heart-mind, the aspect shown outwardly, the action of the sword, and the finality of recognition advance step by step, producing a graded, climactic movement. To move from gedan to seigan is not simply to raise the sword-tip. It is to bring lucid recognition upright from a body settled low. In its diction as well, the hard kanji terms gedan / yō / in / ken / seigan (下段・陽・陰・剣・清眼) are set in motion by the native Japanese verbs mite / uchitsuku / shire (見て・打ち突く・知れ). Action passes through the quiet cluster of nouns and, at the end, fixes a single name. Aurally, the moraic nasal n (ん), repeated in gedan / in / ken / seigan (げだん・いん・けん・せいがん), binds the key words through inner rhyme, while the affricates and stops concentrated in uchitsuku (うちつく) drive one sharp blow into that quiet chain.

The closing line is not taigendome (体言止め), a nominal ending, but yōgendome (用言止め), a predicative ending, through the imperative shire (知れ). Formally, therefore, the verse does not end with seigan (清眼); it closes with seigan to shire (清眼と知れ), “know it as seigan.” No kireji (切れ字) appears, yet the imperative itself cuts the poem decisively and puts an end to hesitation in practice. That does not erase the semantic yoin (余韻), however. Precisely because the verse commands shire—“know”—the question of what seigan is remains, and three layers continue to reverberate: seigan (正眼) as stance; the clear eye—kiyoi manako (清い眼)—as perception; and the striking-thrusting sword—uchitsuku ken (打突く剣)—as action. The yoin arises not from leaving a noun behind and falling silent, but from the pressure to know the name anew. Before the single cut released from gedan reaches the opponent, it first cuts cognition itself anew, remaking the very act by which something is called an “eye.”

Speech Act Theory

In terms of Austin’s (1962) Speech Act Theory, the illocutionary act of this verse does more than state the proposition gedan—in-yō—seigan (下段—陰陽—清眼); its very manner of statement becomes a discipline of practice. The kami-no-ku (上の句)—gedan / yō no kokoro / in ni mite (下段／陽の心／陰に見て)—places the situation and the operation, while the shimo-no-ku (下の句)—uchitsuku ken / seigan to shire (打突く剣／清眼と知れ)—names and fixes them. Here an ori (折り), a fold or crease—orime (折り目)—takes form. Lines one–two and line four gather body, heart-mind, and sword into the same frame through the repetition of o / o ba (を／をば), while lines three and five align the axis of recognition through the visual vocabulary mite—gan—shire (見て—眼—知れ), “see—eye—know.”

As an illocutionary act, the imperative shire (知れ) brings a kokoroe (心得)—a practical knowing to be taken to heart-mind—into force. Seigan (清眼) does not remain merely the designation of a formal stance; it draws in homophonic layers—seigan (正眼) as a technical term and the metaphor of a clear eye, kiyoi manako (清い眼)—and hangs the upper and lower portions across one another in a kakekotoba (掛詞)-like bridge. Just as a kireji (切れ字) is said to give a verse its turn or decisive closure, the final declaration firmly fixes the norm of practice and leaves no judgment vague.

The perlocutionary act is concentrated in the point at which a turn in understanding is transplanted into bodily operation. A paradox takes shape: the operation of appearing as yin produces not murkiness but clarity—kiyosa (清さ)—making “seeing through,” minuki (見抜き), more readily co-present at the instant of strike and thrust. Put simply, outer yin does not extinguish inner yang. Outer yin becomes the vessel through which inner yang passes, and the transparency of that vessel is named seigan (清眼). Once that understanding takes hold, the knot joining stance and single cut changes.

Coda

Gedan is not merely a stance in which the sword-tip is placed low. It is a settling through which yang is neither lost nor exposed. The yin that stands outwardly is not a sign of weakness; it becomes the vessel that keeps the inward yang from agitation and permits only the necessary single line to pass. The stillness required here is therefore not a stillness that arrests movement. It is the stillness in which the cut not yet delivered has already become clear. Gedan, yin–yang, and seigan do not teach stance, heart-mind, and eye as separate matters. Together, they name the instant at which all three become one within a body settled low.

At that instant, the sword ceases to be a tool that moves only after receiving the command of intention. Even the sequence—heart-mind sees, eye knows, sword strikes—comes undone, and seeing through and striking-thrusting become one activity. “Know it as seigan” is not an injunction to memorize the name of a form. It commands that the place where an undimmed cut arises be called seigan, and that through this name the low body, the luminous heart-mind, and the quiet outward aspect be bound together once more. Knowing here is not the possession of an explanation. It is the moment in which knowledge becomes the working of the blade itself.

The single cut therefore cleaves more than the interval between practitioner and opponent. It cuts anew the belief that yang must announce itself, that yin means withdrawal, and that the eye belongs only to the face while the sword belongs only to the hand. When seigan rises from the depth of gedan, whose eye has opened—the practitioner’s, or the sword’s own?

References

All Japan Kendo Federation. (2019). Kendo match & referee regulations (打突部位). https://www.kendo.or.jp/wp/wp-content/themes/kendo/assets/library/pdf/kendo-shiai_regulations.pdf

All Japan Kendo Federation. (2023). Handbook for kendo shiai and shinpan management. https://www.kendo-fik.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FIK-Handbook-for-Kendo-Shiai-and-Shinpan-Management-20230726-1.pdf

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Bennett, A. C. (2015). Kendo: Culture of the sword. University of California Press.

Brower, R. H., & Miner, E. (1961). Japanese court poetry. Stanford University Press. 

Classical Martial Arts Research. (2015, Jul. 3). Seigan‑no‑kamae 正眼之構. Retrieved from https://classicalmartialartsresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/seigan-no-kamae-%E6%AD%A3%E7%9C%BC%E4%B9%8B%E6%A7%8B/

Frellesvig, B. (2010). A History of the Japanese language. Cambridge University Press.

Greenhalgh, M. (2003). Aikido and spirituality: Japanese religious influences in a martial art (Master’s thesis). Durham University e-Theses. https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4081/

Hayashi, M., & Hayek, M. (2013). Editor’s Introduction: Onmyōdō in Japanese history. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 40(1), 1–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41955528

Heinrich, A. V. (n.d.). What is a waka? Asia for Educators (Columbia University). Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_600ce_waka.htm

Imabi. (n.d.). The particles ga & wo. https://imabi.org/the-particles-ga-wo/

Maeda, S., Kodera, N., & Hirano, K. (2022). 民俗文化・古武道の伝承活動における教歌の検討 : 宝蔵院流槍術の歌伝書を事例として [An examination of educational songs in the transmission of folk culture and classical martial arts: A case study of the song manuals of Hōzōin-ryū spear techniques]. Kinki Minzoku, (188), 33–51. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14094/90009079

McCullough, H. C. (2010). Bungo manual: Selected reference materials for students of classical Japanese (Cornell East Asia Papers, No. 48). Cornell University Press.

Nanzan Institute for Religion & Culture. (2013). Chinese religion and the formation of Onmyōdō (yin‑yang/wuxing in Japan). https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/journal/6/article/1363/pdf/download

Nogawa, M. (2023, February 13). 五正眼の構え (list of seigan graph variants in usage). Note.com. Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://note.com/kendo_chudoku/n/ne4656686485e

Pranin, S. (2002). Morihei Ueshiba and Onisaburō Deguchi. Aikido Journal. Retrieved from https://aikidojournal.com/2002/08/02/morihei-ueshiba-and-onisaburo-deguchi/

Queeney, M. (2020, April 9). Tanka and renga: Looking through windows. Poetry Foundation. Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/157323/tanka-and-renga-looking-through-windows

Shirane, H. (2005). Classical Japanese: A grammar. Columbia University Press.

Stalker, N. K. (2008). Prophet motive: Deguchi Onisaburō, Ōmoto, and the rise of new religions in imperial Japan. University of Hawai‘i Press.

Ueshiba, M. (1977). 合気道奥義（道歌）(S. Abe, Ed.). 阿部, 醒石. Retrieved from http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~yp7h-td/douka.htm

Vovin, A. (2003). A reference grammar of Classical Japanese prose. RoutledgeCurzon.

Appendix I: Change Modification Log

23 JUL 26 - Added additional poetics analysis; updated English translation of commentary.
24 MAY 26 - Translated commentary to English; clarification edits; updated reference for Maeda et al. (2022).
23 MAY 26 - Updated Speech Acts analysis; revised citation style.
24 JAN 26 - Phase V Speech Acts (Austin, 1962) analysis added in Japanese. 
21 JAN 26 - Added a note on をば (oba) as emphatic object marker. 
13 JAN 26 - Updated Poetry Foundation article to Queeney (2020); reordered All Japan Kendo Federation for proper date order.
21 DEC 25 - Phase V styling applied to waka.
07 DEC 25 - Updated quotes to Japanese quotes and back propagated English "Primer" to Japanese "プライマー" for Japanese readability.
26 OCT 25 - Phase III completion; Phase IV completion. Added commentary.
14 APR 20 - Initial notes transferred.