修行会

解説

第217首は「武とはいえ／声もすがたも／影もなし／神に聞かれて／答うすべなし」と、武（ぶ）という言葉を掲げながら、そこに「声（言葉としての教説）」「姿（見える形）」「影（痕跡・気配）」のいずれも当てはまらないと、三段で徹底して“捕まえられなさ”を言い切っています。冒頭の「とはいえ」が「そう呼ぶけれど（それでも）」という譲歩で枠を作り、結句の「すべなし」が「手立てがない／どうしようもない」という古語の定型で、神（かみ）に問われたとしても言語化の道が閉じるところまで押し進める。ここでの「神に聞かれて」は、神道的な文脈では“超越的審判”というより、世界の根源（かみ）に対して人が応答責任を負うという緊張として響きます。

植芝盛平の六つのプライマーに沿って読むと、この歌は“説明”ではなく“作法”を促します。プライマーの第一原理〈武＝宇宙原理〉としての武は、定義できる対象ではなく秩序そのものへ整列する態度にあり、プライマーの第二原理〈人との合気〉では相手を論破する言葉ではなく場を結び直す働きが武になる。プライマーの第三原理〈心魂一如〉は、声・息・身が同拍にそろうときにだけ“武”が現れるが、現れた瞬間にそれを言い当てて所有することはできない。プライマーの第四原理〈和合美化〉は、影（痕跡）すら残さぬほどに衝突を鎮め、プライマーの第五原理〈体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者／学び手〉は、その“言えなさ”を理由に黙秘するのではなく、むしろ稽古でしか示せないと腹を決める。プライマーの第六原理〈「至愛」の源に順う〉は、武を「強さの自己証明」に変えず、生かす方向へ固定する。言霊（kotodama）や神名が頻出する流れ（前頁までの「御言」「七十五音」「ス」など）も、ここでは「だからこそ究極は言葉に尽きない」という逆照射になる——言霊は“武を言い切る道具”ではなく、自分の濁りを祓い、場を澄ませるための導線として置かれるのだと読みやすいです。

そしてこのページの語注が示すとおり、武（bu）は本来「戈（ほこ）を止める」系の字源連想を伴う語でありながら（＝争いを止める方向づけ）、この歌ではさらに一段進んで、止めた結果さえ“影として残らない”ところを目標に置いています——だから「武とはいえ」は、武を“もの”としてつかもうとする心（自己像・肩書・説明）を、譲歩の一語で外してしまう。ここまで来ると、以前の「中心は点ではない」「線や場として結ぶ」という非点状の感覚ともぴたりと重なります。武は、点の勝ち負けでも、形の誇示でもなく、場が澄み、争いがほどけたあとに“何も残らない”方向へ働く――けれど、それを「私がやった」と語った瞬間、もう影が生まれてしまう。だから結句は「答うすべなし」で終わり、読者の中に余韻としての沈黙を残す。合気が限りないなら、この“答えられなさ”もまた、稽古のたびに更新され続けます。

口語要約のひとこと

「『武』って呼ぶけど、言葉にも形にも影（痕跡）にもならなくて、神に問われても答える手だてがないんだ。」

修辞の折り――ことばの縁と二つの「なし」

この歌でもっとも精巧に働いているのは、第三句「影もなし」を軸にした環状構成、すなわち首尾の折り返しです。初句の「言へ」と結句の「答ふ」が発語の両端として向き合い、第二句の「声」と第四句の「聞かれて」が聴覚の両側として呼応する。言ふ――声――姿・影――聞く――答ふ、という順に語をたどると、上の句と下の句は「影もなし」の空白を蝶番として折り畳まれていることが見えてきます。したがって第三句の「影」は、声・姿につづく列挙の末項であるだけではない。一首全体がそこで反転し、武をこちらから名づける働きが、神から問われて答える働きへと返される、その無形の中軸に置かれています。

この折りを内側から縫っているのが、「言ふ・声・聞く・答ふ」という発話と聴取の縁語的な語群です。とりわけ「聞かれて」は、後ろの「答ふ」に引かれれば、神から「問われて」と読まれ、前の「声」に引かれれば、声を神に「聞かれて」とも響く。厳密な同音異義の掛詞というより、前後の語が一語を両側から引く掛詞的な両義であり、「聞く」が聴取と質問との境に立っています。しかも、言ふ・声・聞く・答ふという言葉の回路は一首の中にすべて揃っているのに、そこを通る声はなく、返される答えもない。問いの文言そのものも、答えの内容そのものも省かれているため、この歌は“言えない”と説明するだけでなく、省略によって言えなさそのものを演じています。

また、「声も／すがたも／影も」という三項列挙は、聴覚から視覚へと感覚の領域を横断し、最後には直接の形よりもなお薄い「影」へと痕跡を縮めていく。三つの「も」は一つの「なし」へ吸い込まれ、さらに第三句と結句の「なし／なし」が句末反復として照応します。上の句の「なし」は、武に知覚できる徴がないことを閉じ、下の句の「なし」は、それを言葉として返す手立てがないことを閉じる――対象の不可視と応答の不可能が、同じ終止語によって二重に封じられるためです。これは単なる同語の繰り返しではなく、第一の「なし」で世界から像を消し、第二の「なし」で口から答えを消す、対句的な二段の消去になっています。

句境でも同じ働きがつづきます。「声もすがたも｜影もなし」は、まだ終わらない列挙を第三句へ持ち越し、「神に聞かれて｜答ふ術なし」は、接続する「て」によって結句の到来を待たせる。二度の統語的な懸垂によって、音数上の句境と意味の終わりとがわずかにずれ、そのたびに「なし」が流れを断ち切ります。そこへ「こゑ・かげ・かみ・きかれて・こたふ」とカ行音が連なり、意味上の縁だけでなく、音の上でも語が互いを呼び合う。しかし呼び合うほど、その行き着く先は二度の「なし」に戻る。音は密に結ばれ、意味は空へほどける――その逆説が、最後の沈黙を単なる余韻ではなく、一首の構造そのものにしています。

発話行為理論

オースティン（Austin, 1962）の区別に沿えば、この一首の発話行為は、武を名づける音声・語法・意味を成立させながら、その名づけに対応する声・姿・影も、神への返答を可能にする術も存在しない、と述べるところにあります。上の句と下の句の「折り」では、初句の「言へ」と第二句の「声」が第四句の「聞かれて」へ返り、第三句「影もなし」が結句「答ふ術なし」へ返る。前半の〈知覚できる徴の欠如〉が後半の〈応答できる手段の欠如〉へ移されるため、意味内容そのものが折り畳まれ、武について語る発話が、武を語り切れないという発話へ反転します。第三句末の「なし」は、厳密には定型的な切れ字というより三句切れを生む述語終止ですが、その切断によって上の句の否定がいったん閉じ、下の句の問答場面が開くのです。

発話内行為として働くのは、武の定義を提出することではなく、定義を所有しようとする構えを戒め、神前の応答不能へ置き直す教示です。「武とはいえ」は命名を始めながら、その命名の権能を譲歩のうちに外し、第三句の切れを越えた瞬間、発話の向きを〈武について述べる側〉から〈神に問われる側〉へ反転させる。とりわけ「聞かれて」は、結句の「答ふ」に引かれれば「問われて」、第二句の「声」に引かれれば「聞き取られて」と響き、厳密な同音異義の掛詞ではないものの、聴取と質問を重ねる掛詞的な両義を担います。さらに下の句冒頭の「神（かみ）」には、上の句の「上（かみ）」を音として呼び戻すメタ詩的な反響も生じる――ただし、表記と統語は一義的に「神」を指すため、完全な掛詞というより、上の句と下の句の「折り」を耳で縫い合わせる副次的な響きとして扱うのが穏当です。

発話媒介行為として期待されるのは、受け手の説明欲や誇示欲をいったん止め、沈黙、畏れ、謙虚さ、そして稽古による示現へ向け直す作用です。三句切れで像が消え、結句の「なし」で答えも消えるため、意味を理解するだけでなく、答えを探す動作そのものが行き止まりへ導かれる。しかし、この終止は単なる黙秘を命じない。声にも姿にも影にも固定されない武を、説明の所有物ではなく、痕跡を残さず場を整える働きとして現前させる課題が残ります。したがって最後の沈黙は、言葉の失敗を示す余白であると同時に、稽古へ移るための発話媒介的な間となるのです。

コーダ

この歌が最後に残すのは、武についての答えではなく、答えようとする者の立ち方である。声も姿も影もないという否定は、武を空虚にするのではない。むしろ武を、名づけて所有できるものから、名の手前で働くものへ返している。場を語る前に場を聴き、形を示す前に争いの芽をほどき、功を語る前にその痕跡を消す。その順序において、沈黙は不在ではない。行為がふたたび自己像へ回収されることを拒む、もっとも厳しい応答である。

「神に聞かれて、答うすべなし」とは、ただ何も知らないという告白ではないだろう。それは、知ったことを掲げて神前に立つことをやめ、身体そのものを答えの場所として差し出すことに近い。声にできぬものは息に現れ、姿にできぬものは間合いに現れ、影さえ残さぬものは、相手と世界とがふたたび結ばれた、そのあとにだけ知られる。けれど、その「知られたこと」さえ、誰かの所有にはならない。

ゆえに、この歌の終わりは終止ではなく、稽古へ開く門である。二つの「なし」が消しひらいた空白へ、次の一歩が置かれる。武とは何かと問う口が静まったとき、こちらの歩みは、いったい何を答えはじめているのだろうか。

English Translation

Dōka 217 reads: “Though it is called bu, it has neither voice nor form, nor even a shadow; when questioned by the kami, there is no means to answer.” Although the poem raises the word bu (武), it proceeds through three stages—“voice,” meaning a doctrine articulated in words; “form,” meaning a visible shape; and “shadow,” meaning a trace or intimation of presence—to declare its utter ungraspability. The opening to wa ie (とはいえ), “though it is called so” or “even so,” establishes a frame of concession, while the closing sube nashi (すべなし), a conventional classical expression meaning “there is no means” or “nothing can be done,” carries the poem to the point where even if questioned by the kami (神), every path toward verbal formulation has been closed. In a Shintō context, kami ni kikarete (神に聞かれて) resonates less as a scene of “transcendent judgment” than as the tension of bearing a responsibility to answer before the source of the world—the kami.

Read through Ueshiba Morihei’s Six Primers, the poem urges not an “explanation,” but a mode of conduct. Under the First Primer, Bu = Uchū Genri (武＝宇宙原理), “Bu = Cosmic Principle,” bu is not an object that can be defined, but an attitude of aligning oneself with order itself. Under the Second, Hito to no Aiki (人との合気), “Aiki with Others,” bu becomes not language used to defeat another in argument, but an activity that binds the field together anew. The Third, Shinkon Ichinyo (心魂一如), “Heart-mind and Spirit Inseparable,” suggests that bu appears only when voice, breath, and body fall into a single pulse; yet the moment it appears, it cannot be named, claimed, and possessed. The Fourth, Wagō Bika (和合美化), “Harmonization and Beautification,” calms conflict so completely that not even a shadow remains. The Fifth, Tai = Dōjō, Kokoro = Shūgyōsha / Shugyōja / Manabite (体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者／学び手), “Body as Dōjō; Heart-mind as Practitioner,” does not use this “unsayability” as a reason for withholding speech; rather, it resolves that the matter can be demonstrated only through practice. The Sixth, “Shiai” no Minamoto ni Shitagau (「至愛」の源に順う), “Follow the Source of ‘Supreme Love,’” fixes the direction of bu toward the giving and sustaining of life, without allowing it to become a tsuyosa no jiko shōmei (強さの自己証明), a “self-demonstration of strength.” The recurrent stream of kotodama (言霊) and divine names—including the preceding pages’ mikoto (御言), shichijūgo-on (七十五音), and su (ス)—casts a counter-light on this poem: precisely because words possess sacred force, the ultimate cannot be exhausted by words. Kotodama is thus not an instrument for saying bu once and for all. It is placed as a conduit through which one’s own turbidity is purified and the surrounding field made clear.

As the lexical note on this page indicates, although bu (武) traditionally bears the graphic-etymological association of hoko o tomeru (戈を止める), “stopping the spear”—an orientation toward ending conflict—this poem advances one step further, making its aim a cessation whose very result leaves no “shadow.” Thus bu to wa ie (武とはいえ) dislodges, through a single concessive phrase, the mind that seeks to seize bu as a mono (もの), a “thing”: a self-image, a title, or an explanation. At this point, the poem precisely overlaps with the earlier non-pointlike sensibility expressed in chūshin wa ten de wa nai (中心は点ではない), “the center is not a point,” and sen ya ba to shite musubu (線や場として結ぶ), “binding as a line or a field.” Bu is neither victory and defeat at a single point nor the display of a form. It works in the direction of leaving “nothing” behind once the field has cleared and conflict has come undone. Yet the moment that work is narrated as watashi ga yatta (私がやった), “I did it,” a shadow has already been cast. The final line therefore closes with kotau sube nashi (答うすべなし), “there is no means to answer,” leaving a resonant silence within the reader. If aiki is without limit, then this very inability to answer also continues to be renewed with every act of practice.

One-line colloquial summary

“‘Bu’ is what it’s called, but it never becomes words, form, or even a shadow—a trace—and even when the kami asks, there is no way to answer.”

The rhetorical fold: Verbal affinities and the two nashi (なし)

The most intricately constructed device in this poem is its ring composition around the third line, kage mo nashi (影もなし), “there is not even a shadow”—a folding back of beginning and end. The ie (言へ), “say” or “call,” embedded in the opening line faces the final line’s kotau (答ふ), “answer,” as the two poles of utterance, while the second line’s koe (声), “voice,” corresponds to the fourth line’s kikarete (聞かれて), “being heard” or “being asked,” as the two sides of hearing. Tracing the words in sequence—iu—koe—sugata/kage—kiku—kotau (言ふ――声――姿・影――聞く――答ふ), “say—voice—form/shadow—hear—answer”—reveals that the kami-no-ku (上の句), the upper verse, and the shimo-no-ku (下の句), the lower verse, have been folded together around the blank of kage mo nashi as their hinge. The third line’s “shadow” is therefore more than the final item in an enumeration following voice and form. The entire poem reverses there: the act of naming bu from this side is folded back into the act of answering when questioned by the kami. “Shadow” occupies the formless axis of that reversal.

Stitching this fold together from within is the engo (縁語)-like constellation of words associated with utterance and hearing: iu, koe, kiku, and kotau (言ふ・声・聞く・答ふ), “say, voice, hear, answer.” In particular, when kikarete (聞かれて) is drawn forward toward kotau (答ふ), it reads as “being asked” by the kami; when drawn backward toward koe (声), it also resonates as the voice being “heard” by the kami. This is not a strict homophonic kakekotoba (掛詞), or pivot word, but a pivot-like doubleness in which the words before and after pull a single expression in two directions. Kiku (聞く) stands at the boundary between hearing and asking. Moreover, although the entire circuit of language—saying, voice, hearing, and answering—is present within the poem, no voice passes through it and no answer returns. Because both the wording of the question and the content of the answer have been omitted, the poem does not merely explain that bu “cannot be said”; through ellipsis, it enacts that unsayability.

The three-part enumeration koe mo / sugata mo / kage mo (声も／すがたも／影も), “neither voice, nor form, nor shadow,” crosses from the auditory into the visual domain, finally thinning the remaining trace down to “shadow,” something fainter even than form itself. The three particles mo (も) are drawn into a single nashi (なし), while the nashi / nashi (なし／なし) at the ends of the third and final lines answer one another as line-final repetition. The first nashi closes off the possibility that bu possesses any perceptible sign; the second closes off the possibility of returning it in words. The invisibility of the object and the impossibility of the response are thus doubly sealed by the same terminal word. This is more than the repetition of an identical expression. It is a parallel, two-stage erasure: the first nashi removes the image from the world, and the second removes the answer from the mouth.

The same operation continues across the line boundaries. Koe mo sugata mo | kage mo nashi (声もすがたも｜影もなし), “neither voice nor form | nor even a shadow,” carries an unfinished enumeration over into the third line. Kami ni kikarete | kotau sube nashi (神に聞かれて｜答ふ術なし), “being questioned by the kami | there is no means to answer,” uses the connective te (て) to delay completion until the final line arrives. Through these two moments of syntactic suspension, the metrical boundaries and the endings of meaning fall slightly out of alignment, and each time nashi severs the current. Alongside this, the k-series sounds continue through koe, kage, kami, kikarete, and kotau (こゑ・かげ・かみ・きかれて・こたふ), so that the words call to one another not only through semantic affinity but through sound. Yet the more closely they call, the more surely their destination returns to the two occurrences of nashi. Sound is tightly bound; meaning loosens into emptiness. That paradox makes the final silence not merely a lingering resonance, but the very structure of the poem.

Speech Act Theory

Following Austin’s (1962) distinction, the locutionary act of this poem consists in establishing the sounds, linguistic forms, and meanings through which bu is named, while stating that neither voice, form, nor shadow corresponding to that name exists, and that no means exists by which an answer may be given to the kami. Within the ori (折り), the “fold” between the kami-no-ku and shimo-no-ku, the opening line’s ie (言へ) and the second line’s koe (声) fold back toward the fourth line’s kikarete (聞かれて), while the third line’s kage mo nashi (影もなし) folds back toward the final kotau sube nashi (答ふ術なし). The first half’s “absence of a perceptible sign” is transferred into the second half’s “absence of a means of response.” The semantic content is itself folded, so that an utterance speaking about bu reverses into an utterance declaring that bu cannot be spoken to completion. Strictly speaking, the nashi at the end of the third line is not a conventional kireji (切れ字), or cutting word, but a predicate ending that creates a sanku-gire (三句切れ), a third-line cut. Through this severance, the negation of the upper verse closes once, and the question-and-answer scene of the lower verse opens.

The poem’s illocutionary force lies not in presenting a definition of bu, but in admonishing the impulse to possess such a definition and repositioning that impulse before the inability to answer the kami. Bu to wa ie (武とはいえ) begins an act of naming, yet withdraws the authority of that naming within the concession itself. The moment the third-line cut is crossed, the direction of the utterance reverses: from the side that speaks about bu to the side that is questioned by the kami. In particular, when kikarete (聞かれて) is drawn toward the final kotau (答ふ), it means “being asked”; when drawn toward the second line’s koe (声), it means “being heard.” Although this is not a strict homophonic kakekotoba, it bears a pivot-like ambiguity that overlays audition and interrogation. Moreover, the kami (神), “deity,” at the opening of the lower verse produces a metapoetic echo of kami (上), “upper,” in kami-no-ku (上の句), “the upper verse.” Because the written form and syntax unequivocally indicate “deity,” it is most prudent to treat this not as a complete kakekotoba, but as a secondary resonance that stitches the fold between the upper and lower verses together through the ear.

The intended perlocutionary effect is to arrest the receiver’s desire to explain or display, redirecting it toward silence, awe, humility, and manifestation through practice. The image disappears at the third-line cut, and the answer disappears with the final nashi; consequently, the poem does not merely communicate a meaning but leads the very act of searching for an answer into an impasse. Yet this ending does not command mere silence or concealment. The task remains of making present a bu that cannot be fixed as voice, form, or shadow—not as an explanatory possession, but as an activity that orders the field without leaving a trace. The final silence is therefore both an open space revealing the failure of words and a perlocutionary interval through which speech passes into practice.

Coda

What the poem leaves at its end is not an answer concerning bu, but the posture of the one who would answer. The denial of voice, form, and shadow does not empty bu of meaning. It returns bu from something that may be named and possessed to something that works before naming begins. One listens to the field before speaking of it, loosens conflict before displaying a form, and relinquishes credit before its trace can harden into self-image. In this order, silence is not absence. It is the most exacting response: the refusal to let an act of harmony be gathered back into the story of the one who performed it.

To have “no means to answer when questioned by the kami” is not merely to confess ignorance. It is to cease arriving before the divine armed with what one claims to know, and instead to offer the body itself as the place where an answer may occur. What cannot become voice appears as breath; what cannot become form appears as relation; what leaves no shadow is known only after conflict has been unbound and the world joined again. Even then, that knowing belongs to no one.

Thus the poem’s ending is not closure but passage. Into the clearing opened by its two nashi, the next step is placed—not as proof, not as explanation, but as practice. The answer, insofar as there is one, is already disappearing in the ways moved.

References

Academy of American Poets. (2025). Tanka. Poets.org. Retrieved December 20, 2025, from https://poets.org/glossary/tanka

Agency for Cultural Affairs. (n.d.). 現代仮名遣い—付表（歴史的仮名遣い対照）. https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/gendaikana/huhyo_kyo.html

Bianchini, C. T. (2023). 植芝盛平の武道論における「神」観念 [The idea of “kami” in Ueshiba Morihei’s theory of budō]. 人間文化研究科年報, 38. 

Breen, J., & Teeuwen, M. (2010). A new history of Shinto. Wiley‑Blackwell.

Breen, J., & Teeuwen, M. (Eds.). (2000). Shinto in history: Ways of the kami. University of Hawai‘i Press.

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

Fyhn, H. (2011). Møte med tilstedeværelse: Mellom form og tomhet i produktutvikling, aikido og antropologisk erkjennelse [Meeting with presence: Between form and emptiness in product development, aikido and anthropological knowledge] (PhD dissertation). Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Green, T. A. (Ed.). (2001). Martial arts of the world: An encyclopedia. ABC‑Clio.

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/

Hardacre, H. (2017). Shinto: A history. Oxford University Press.

Hosokawa, N. (2014, May 24). Kotodama: The multi‑faced Japanese myth of the spirit of language. OUPblog. https://blog.oup.com/2014/05/kotodama-japanese-spirit-of-language/

Kitazaki, Y. (2013). 「とはいえ」の成立と展開 (PDF). University of Tokyo Repository. https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/35490/file_preview/nihongo13_03.pdf

Kobayashi, R., & Frankovich, R. (1996). Doka: The poems of Ueshiba Morihei: Insights for a modern way of life. Furyu: The Budo Journal.

Kubozono, H. (2003). Mora and syllable. In The Handbook of the Phonetics and Phonology of Japanese (pp. 31–61). Blackwell.

KobunText. (2015). すべなし（術無し）.  https://kobuntext.com/kobun/1996

Manapedia / Qurlab. (n.d.). いらふ（答ふ・応ふ）. https://kobun.qurlab.com/syllabary_a/word146.html

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

Sato, H. (1987). Lineation of tanka in English translation. Monumenta Nipponica, 42(3), 347–356. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2384931

Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press.

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

Shirane, H. (2005). Performance, textuality, and visuality: The case of Japanese poetry. Oral Tradition, 20(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1353/ort.2006.0011

Shirane, H. (Ed.). (2007). Traditional Japanese literature: An anthology, beginnings to 1600. Columbia University 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

Appendix I: Change Modification Log

19 JUL 26 - Added codas to Japanese and English commentaries.
18 JUL 26 - Added additional additional poetics analysis, Speech Act Theory analysis, and translation of commentary to English.
24 JUN 26 - Updated formatting and citation style.
31 MAY 26 - Added utamakura note.
20 DEC 25 - Phase IV completion; commentary added; Phase V styling applied to waka (initial test).
26 NOV 25 - Phase IV preparation.
08 OCT 25 - Initial notes transferred from index page; Phase III completion.
14 APR 20 - Initial notes transferred to index page.