Below is an article written by fellow Budoka and researcher Mark Tankosich. Mark lives in Japan where he works at writes out of a university in Southern Japan. He holds a 6th dan, Renshi in Jodo. His home page is: http://www.marktankosich.com/

Please visit Mark's page as he has many excellent, well researched papers on Japan, Okinawa and Budo culture.


Karate Ni Sente Nashi:
What the Masters Had to SayIntroductionPerhaps no Japanese phrase is more familiar to karate practitioners around the world than “karate ni sente nashi.” Typically translated as, “There is no first attack in karate,” this maxim has become known primarily through the teachings of Gichin Funakoshi. The founder of Shotokan and, according to many, the “father of modern karate-do,” Funakoshi made the principle the second of his Niju Kun (“Twenty Precepts”), following only the directive to not forget that “karate begins and ends with courtesy” (Funakoshi, “Karate-do nijukajo”).

Clearly, for Funakoshi, the maxim karate ni sente nashi was of great importance. In addition to including it as one of his “Twenty Precepts,” he stated in a 1935 magazine article that he “view[s] it as [expressing] the essence of karate-do” (Funakoshi, “Karate no hanashi” 65). Nor is he alone in this view: Shoshin Nagamine, respected founder of the Matsubayashi school of Shorin-ryu karate, wrote that, “This phrase [. . .] embodies the essence of Okinawan karate” (Nagamine 13). Similarly, Masatoshi Nakayama, longtime head of the Japan Karate Association, stated that, “[. . .] it is not an exaggeration to say that it is these words that succinctly and fully express the spirit of karate-do” (Nakayama 80).

With such esteemed masters as these expressing such strong sentiments regarding the significance of the sente nashiprinciple, one can only assume that the principle represents a way of thinking that is — or at least should be — profoundly important for those who consider themselves to be serious practitioners of the art of karate-do. Specifying just exactly what that way of thinking is, in all of its subtleties, would perhaps be a difficult task, but obviously, at its most basic level, the maxim at least clearly proscribes the use of any “first strikes” on the part of karate-ka. Or does it?

Differing OpinionsCertainly many of today’s karate practitioners would argue that striking first is a violation of karate ni sente nashi. Iain Abernethy notes, for example, that when he published an article in some British magazines advocating the use of pre-emptive striking in certain situations:
[. . .] I received a markedly increased level of correspondence. Some were very supportive of [my position] [. . .]. Of those who contacted me in the positive, many stated that their immediate peer group were wholly opposed to the idea [. . .].

The ones who responded in the negative were often VERY strong in their opposition. Their objections were essentially based on moral grounds, but a number cited “karate ni sente nashi” as if I was encouraging the breaking of an 11th commandment! (Abernethy, “Striking First?!” Emphasis in final sentence added.)

Similarly, in his book Steady Training, Antonio Bustillo notes:
I’ve heard many instructors quote the [sente nashi] slogan stating it means you must first wait for an opponent to attack and strike out before you retaliate. As verification to their testimony they use the katas as examples. “Every kata starts with a block. [. . .]” (Bustillo 247)

Yet, there are also those karate-ka who disagree with this position, who believe that the sente nashi principle does not necessarily rule out all first strikes. These practitioners typically argue that a “first attack” can also consist of something other than a physical blow and that once an opponent has engaged in such an attack the karate-ka is free to “defend” himself by striking first. Abernathy, for instance, says:
I believe that ‘karate-do ni sente nashi’ and the pre-emptive strike are in no way mutually exclusive and can exist side by side. To my mind, once an assailant has decided to attack us, the attack has begun. We are then well within our rights to use whatever methods are appropriate to ensure our safety. [. . .] If an individual is behaving in an aggressive way whilst attempting to invade our personal space then there is a strong possibility that their verbal aggression is about to escalate to the physical. This verbal assault is an attack in itself and waiting until the attack becomes physical is foolhardy in the extreme. (Abernethy, Bunkai-Jutsu 122)

Similarly, an anonymous author, after describing a hypothetical situation in which a female karate-ka dispatches three men who accosted her on the street late at night, writes:
Only when we factor in the intent of your opponents do we get a better picture of “karate ni sente nashi.” [. . .] They surrounded you at midnight. They closed mae (sic) [i.e., engagement distance]. They assumed kamae [i.e., fighting postures] even if only American streetgang type nonchalant kamae. [. . .] Their intents were probably violent for such actions as the above can hardly be interpreted as altruistic.

If you felt your life was in danger by their intent your first attack is defense. The war broke out when they stepped across the line of intent and into your personal protected space. [. . .]

When you feel the breach in peace it is time to strike. [. . .] The war has begun. The person who throws the first strike is immaterial (sic). The war began with mobilization, entrapment and perceived intent. [. . .] You would be foolish to delay until after the first physical strike is thrown at you [. . .]. [. . .]

The well-trained martial artist [. . .] may find certain situations [. . .] as conditions where she justifiably throws the physical first strike without breaching “karate ni sente nashi.” (Karate Ni Sente Nashi)

What the Masters Had to Say
Kohaku Iwai lists four Okinawans — all of them legendary martial artists — as “the warriors who introduced karate-jutsu to the [Japanese] mainland”: Gichin Funakoshi, Choki Motobu, Chojun Miyagi and Kenwa Mabuni (Iwai 187-211). What, one wonders, did these men have to say about interpreting the karate ni sente nashi maxim? A future paper will examine Funakoshi’s thoughts; here, let us look at some of the writings of Miyagi, Motobu and Mabuni.

Chojun Miyagi
To the best of this author’s knowledge, there were three documents produced by Chojun Miyagi (or at least three have been made public): Goju-ryu kenpo, Ho goju donto and Karate-do gaisetsu (“Outline of Karate-do”) (1). The first two of these, written in 1932 and 1942 respectively, contain no reference to sente nashi. In Karate-do gaisetsu, Miyagi does briefly mention the sente nashi principle, but not in any way that is particularly helpful to our discussion. In the version that appears in Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts, we find the following paragraph:
Folklore contends that the teaching methods of long ago focused mainly upon self-defense, with little emphasis placed upon training the mind, or cultivating the precept “karate-do ni sente nashi” (there is no first attack in karate-do). I have observed the neglect of this diligent principle, although, with the passage of time, teaching policies have gradually improved to where that imbalance has, for the most part, been corrected. My conviction is that the fist and Zen are one of the same (sic). Together, this balance cultivates intellect ahead of strength. The transmission of budo’s essential precept must be fostered. (Miyagi, “Karate-do Gaisetsu” 50) (2)
Other than in this passage, Miyagi makes no mention of the sente nashi maxim.

Choki Motobu
Choki Motobu, in his 1932 publication Watashi no karate-jutsu (“My Karatejutsu”), expresses his thoughts on sente nashiin a way that is directly relevant to the question being asked here. In a one-paragraph section titled Karate ni sente nashi, he writes:
There is an expression, “karate ni sente nashi.” Apparently some people interpret this literally and often profess that “one must not attack first,” but I think that they are seriously mistaken. To be sure, it is certainly not the budo spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that one’s primary purpose must be the training of mind and body. The meaning of this saying, then, is that one must not harm others for no good reason. But when a situation can’t be helped, in other words, when, even though one tries to avoid trouble, one can’t; when an enemy is serious about doing one harm, one must fiercely stand and fight. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is crucial, and one must take that control with one’s first move. Thus, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this. (Motobu 58- 59) (3)

Indeed, on at least one occasion Choki Motobu did demonstrate his willingness to strike first, if a story told to karate researcher Charles Goodin is to be believed. Goodin reports that he heard the story from Motobu’s son, Chosei, who in turn had heard it from Chozo Nakama, a former student of the elder Motobu (4). According to the account provided Goodin, Choki Motobu, in his seventies at the time, was attending a large party when a former student burst in and, waving a knife, challenged Motobu. Goodin reports:
“I can use this,” [the student] declared stabbing the knife into Motobu’s table, “I will never lose the fight.” (sic)
[. . .] “I won’t fight with any weapon,” [Motobu] stated calmly. “I won’t fight with a knife.” Although he tried his best to convince the student not to fight, the student insisted. “Are you really that determined to fight me with a knife?” asked Motobu.
“I am,” proclaimed the student defiantly. “I won’t change my mind!”
“All right then,” said Motobu finally. “I will take you up on your offer, but we should not fight in the house.”
The student grabbed the knife and headed for the door. Motobu followed closely behind. Just before the student reached the door, Motobu kicked him in the back, shattering his backbone. (Goodin 12)
Assuming that the above account is accurate, whether or not the situation in which Motobu found himself can truly be called one in which physical conflict was unavoidable is, perhaps, open to debate. Motobu’s willingness to strike first, however, is clear.

Additional information regarding Motobu’s thoughts on striking first can be found in Motobu Choki sensei: Goroku (“A Collection of Sayings of Sensei Choki Motobu”) (5). There, listed as saying number nine, we find a statement that seemingly contradicts the karate ni sente nashi principle: Karate wa sente de aru (“karate is the first attack”). (Nakata 42). Given the opinion that he expresses in Watashi no karate-jutsu (see above), it seems reasonable to conclude that with these words Motobu meant to stress the importance of striking first when trouble is unavoidable.

Kenwa Mabuni
Kenwa Mabuni, the founder of the Shito-ryu school of karate, produced a number of publications during his lifetime. Among them, and co-authored with Genwa Nakasone, was the book Kobo kenpo karate-do nyumon, about which noted karate historian Patrick McCarthy has written:
Considered his best work of all [. . .]. [. . .] this [. . .] was considered by one writer to be the real “Master Text” of karate-do. [. . .] Mabuni Kenwa won widespread recognition during that pre-war era with this book and, considering the magnitude of this work, it is surprising to hear that it has never been translated into English. (McCarthy, “Standing” 30)

In this book, in a section of Chapter 10 entitled “Correct and Incorrect Understanding of the Meaning of ‘Karate ni Sente Nashi,’” we find the following extremely relevant comments:
There is a precept “karate ni sente nashi.” Properly understood, this indicates a mental attitude of not being eager or inclined to fight. It is the teaching that just because one has trained in karate does not mean that one can rashly strike or kick others. It seems that there are two types of mistaken interpretations regarding this precept, and [I’d] like to correct them.

The first is a mistaken understanding held by some people who are not karate practitioners. Such people say, “In all fights the opportunity for victory is seized by getting the jump on your enemy; a passive attitude such as sente nashi is inconsistent with Japanese budo.” Such a view forgets the essential purpose of budo: Bu (6) takes as its ideal the stopping of the spear (7), and its aim is the maintenance of peace. Those who make such statements do not understand that the true spirit of Japanese budo means not being bellicose.

When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior gone to battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should get the jump on the enemy and preempt his use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of sente nashi.

Second is a mistaken understanding found among some karate practitioners. It is a view that does not see sente nashi as an attitude, but rather as a literal, behavioral rule to be rigidly followed. As noted above, when absolutely necessary, when one is already facing a battle, it is an accepted truth of strategy that one should try to take sensen no sen (8) and forestall the enemy’s actions.

In conclusion, the expression karate ni sente nashi should be properly understood to mean that a person who practices karate must never take a bellicose attitude, looking to cause an incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others. (Mabuni and Nakasone 82-83) (9)

Discussion
Examining the writing of Chojun Miyagi reveals little regarding his interpretation of the karate ni sente nashi maxim. Our look at the thoughts of two other legendary karate pioneers, though – Choki Motobu and Kenwa Mabuni – clearly shows that they strongly believed that striking first does not necessarily violate the sente nashi principle. Indeed, both men seem to have felt that a first strike is, under certain conditions, the only reasonable course of action for a karateka to take. It is interesting to note that, just as is true today, when Motobu and Mabuni were writing their books (in the 1930s), there were apparently those who viewed sente nashi as being a prohibition on striking first; both masters unambiguously condemn such literal interpretations.

Given his (assuming here for the purposes of discussion, well-deserved) reputation as somewhat of a ruffian who had more than his share of fights, one might argue, perhaps, that Choki Motobu’s views on the properness of striking first should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. What of Kenwa Mabuni and his views, though? In what light should we see them? According to McCarthy, Mabuni was “a staunch advocate of the moral values established to govern the behavior of karate-do practitioners” (McCarthy, “Standing” 34). If this is true, then one could hardly “explain away” Mabuni’s expressed willingness to strike first as the view of someone not particularly concerned with whether or not karate-ka behaved in a morally-proper manner. Apparently, when Mabuni (with Nakasone) stated that, “[. . .] when one is already facing a battle, it is an accepted truth of strategy that one should try to take sensen no sen and forestall the enemy’s actions,” he did so with complete awareness of the moral issues involved.
AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to express his heartfelt gratitude to his wife (and best friend), Yasuko Okane, and to his colleague and friend, Izumi Tanaka, for their patient Japanese language assistance. He would also like to thank leading karate researcher Joe Swift for his helpful email correspondence, and martial arts author Iain Abernethy for his kind help. Any and all errors are, of course, solely the fault of the author.

Notes

1. Actually, there are apparently two versions of Karate-do gaisetsu : one written in 1934 and the other in 1936 (Kinjo 54-55). It is assumed that the 1936 version to which Kinjo refers is the one that appears in Higaonna (81-88). Also, the Goju-ryu kenpo that appears in Toguchi’s Karate no kokoro , dated August 29, 1932, and signed “ Chojun,” was one presented to a Mr. Kiju Azama. The author learned from Swift of the existence of a document with the same title and date, also signed “Chojun,” but presented to a Mr. Tatsutoku Senaha (Swift, “Re: Miyagi Document”). Apparently Miyagi produced and gave out several copies of the document (Swift, “Re: Miyagi Translation”). It is assumed that the copies, however many there are, are the same in content. Finally, it is interesting to note that the title of the second piece mentioned – Hogoju donto– is, according to Higaonna (68), a line from a poem found in the so-called “Bible of Karate,” the Bubishi. Translating its meaning as “the way of inhaling and exhaling is hardness and softness,” Higaonna identifies the expression as being the inspiration for Miyagi naming his style of karate “Goju- ryu.”
2.  Whether owing to differences in translation or to differences in the “original” Japanese versions, Higaonna’s account of this paragraph differs somewhat. It does not, however, provide any more information that is relevant to our discussion than does McCarthy’s version.
3. The translation presented here is this author’s. For an alternative translation, see McCarthy and McCarthy (Karate-jutsu: 96).
4. Noble was told essentially the same story by the same source (Noble 47).
5. This collection was put together by Mizuhiko Nakata, under the supervision of Kenji Marukawa. Nakata, while a martial artist, was not actually a student of Motobu’s. He writes that from the time he first formally met Motobu (around 1935) until Motobu left Tokyo to return to Okinawa (which Iwai puts at 1939), he saw Motobu at least once a week. He reports that he and Motobu would eat and (“thoroughly”) drink together while discussing karate and other things. Motobu would also actually demonstrate for him. The second person mentioned above, Kenji Marukawa, was one of Motobu’s top students. (Nakata 56- 58; Iwai 200)
6. That is, 武, the first syllable / ideogram of budo (武道).
7. This is a reference to the theory that the ideogram for bu is made up of the characters戈 (hoko) and 止(tomeru). The latter of these, tomeru, means “to stop.” A hoko is defined by the Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary as a long-handled weapon used to stab or thrust at an enemy. The dictionary further states that this weapon developed into the naginata (a Japanese halberd) at the end of the Heian period (794-1185), and into the yari or spear at the end of the Kamakura period (1185-1333). It should be mentioned here that Shogakukan’s Shinsen Kanwa Jiten also notes other possible origins for the character武, in addition to the “stop spear” one.
8. Sensen no sen is one of three kinds of sen or initiative. Go no sen and sen no sen are the other two. Kim et al. define these as follows: Go no sen is reactive or responsive initiative, sen no sen is simultaneous initiative, and sensen no sen is preemptive initiative.
9. As far as this author can tell, the passage presented here has never before appeared in English. The translation provided is this author’s
   .

Bibliography

• Abernethy, Iain. Bunkai-Jutsu: The Practical Application of Karate Kata. Cockermouth, UK: NETH, 2002.
• Abernethy, Iain. “Striking First?!” E-mail to the author. 20 Sept. 2002.
• “Bu.” Character Explanation. Shinsen Kanwa Jiten. 5th ed. Shogakukan, 1987.
• Bustillo, Antonio. Steady Training. Lincoln: Writers Club, 2001.
• Funakoshi, Gichin. “Karate no hanashi.” Kaizo July 1935: 56-72.
• Funakoshi, Gichin. “Karate-do nijukajo to sono kaisetsu.” Karate-do taikan. 1938. Ed. Genwa Nakasone. Ginowan, Jap.: Ryokurindo Shoten, 1991. 67-87.
• “Go no sen” Tuttle Dictionary of the Martial Arts of Korea, China & Japan. Comp. Sun-Jin Kim, Daniel Kogan, Nikolaos Kontoggiannis and Hali Wong. Rutland: Tuttle, 1995.
• Goodin, Charles. “Choki Motobu: Revelations from His Son, Chosei. (Pt. 2)” Dragon Times Vol.20: 9-12.
• Higaonna, Morio. The History of Karate: Okinawan Goju-ryu. 2nd ed. N.p.: Dragon, 1995.
• “Hoko.” Def. 1. Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Rev. ed. Shogakukan, 1988. On Microsoft /Shogakukan Bookshelf CD-ROM, Ver. 2.0.
• Iwai, Kohaku. Motobu Choki to ryukyuu karate. Tokyo: Airyudo, 2000.
• Karate Ni Sente Nashi: In Karate there is no First Strike. Aoinagi Karate. 3 Oct. 2002 (link)
• Kinjo, Hiroshi. Postscript. “Karate-do Gaisetsu: An Outline of Karate-do.” By Chojun Miyagi.  Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts Volume Two: Koryu Uchinadi. Comp. and trans. Patrick and Yuriko McCarthy. Boston: Tuttle, 1999. 54-55.
• Mabuni, Kenwa, and Genwa Nakasone. Kobo kenpo karate-do nyumon. 1938. Ginowan, Jap.: Yojusha, 1996.
• McCarthy, Patrick. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Mabuni Kenwa Story.” Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts Volume Two: Koryu Uchinadi. Comp. and trans. Patrick and Yuriko McCarthy. Boston: Tuttle, 1999. 1-37.
• McCarthy, Patrick, and Yuriko McCarthy, trans. Watashi no karate-jutsu. By Choki Motobu. My Art of Karate. Comp. and trans. Patrick and Yuriko McCarthy. Virginia, Austral.: International Ryukyu Karate Research, 2002. 74-110.
• Miyagi, Chojun. “Goju-ryu kenpo.” Karate no kokoro. Seikichi Toguchi. Tokyo: Okinawa Bunka Kyokai, 1986. 129-33.
• Miyagi, Chojun. “Ho goju donto: Karate zakko.” Gekkan bunka Okinawa. Aug. 1942: 4-7.
• Miyagi, Chojun. “Karate-do Gaisetsu: An Outline of Karate-do.” Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts Volume Two: Koryu Uchinadi. Comp. and trans. Patrick and Yuriko McCarthy. Boston: Tuttle, 1999. 39-55.
• Motobu, Choki. Watashi no karate-jutsu. Nippon denryu hyoho motobu kenpo. Superv. Chosei Motobu. Kawaguchi, Jap.: Sojinsha, 1993. [61-173.]
• Nagamine, Shoshin. The Essence of Okinawan Karate-do. Rutland: Tuttle, 1976.
• Nakata, Mizuhiko. Motobu Choki sensei: Goroku. Superv. Kenji Marukawa. Ed. Tamotsu Onuma. 1978. Motobu Choki seiden: Ryukyu kenpo karate-jutsu tatsujin. Ed. Tamotsu Onuma. Kawaguchi, Jap.: Sojinsha, 1993. 39-58.
• Nakayama, Masatoshi. Karate-do: Seishin to giho. Nagano, Jap.: Kazusa, 1985.
• Noble, Graham. “A Meeting with Chosei Motobu.” Classical Fighting Arts, Issue 1: 41-47.
• “Sen no sen” Tuttle Dictionary of the Martial Arts of Korea, China & Japan. Comp. Sun-Jin Kim,Daniel Kogan, Nikolaos Kontoggiannis and Hali Wong. Rutland: Tuttle, 1995.
• “Sensen no sen” Tuttle Dictionary of the Martial Arts of Korea, China & Japan. Comp. Sun-Jin Kim, Daniel Kogan, Nikolaos Kontoggiannis and Hali Wong. Rutland: Tuttle, 1995.
• Swift, Joe. “Re: Miyagi Document.” E-mail to the author. 10 Oct. 2003.
• Swift, Joe. “Re: Miyagi Translation.” E-mail to the author. 20 Oct. 2003.

​​What follows has taken me over ten years to both research and most importantly, to weigh-up the ramifications of my research. I am a firm believer in just because we CAN, does not mean we ‘should’. With knowledge comes responsibility. My closest friends have been kind as they listened to the wrestling between my academic training as a historian and my wish to enable Chito Ryu practitioners. Ultimately, I believe accuray is important rather than misleading people. And to this end I have decided to share my research.

There are people who wish this information to be known but due to obligation and fear of reprecussions will not. Indeed, some who know this information have already be exorcised from membership in some circles. The ability to impose such social penalties is not the sign of a healthy or enlightened orgaisation. So for those who cannot speak openly, I do hope you find carthesis in this article.

On a personal level, both a researcher and practitioner what I assert below sits uncomfortably with me. Nonetheless, it is my sincere goal that my research will further others to find evidence which contradicts my findings. 

Most importantly I hope that those largest bodies with the responsibility for preserving and developing the work of Chitose Gochoku (such as the Hombu in Kumamoto, the Canadian Chito Kai and the USA Chito Kai) will take responsibility for making available in English and Japanese an historically detailed and accurate portrayal of Chitose. I sincerely believe that such bodies hold a moral obligation to provide, in English, translations of Chitose’s formal writings. Chito Ryu is a small karate RyuHa and has as many English speaking practitioners as Japanese. I firmly believe that these speakers should have access to an accurate portrayal of the thinking and life of our founder - indeed all who practice Chito Ryu should have such accuracy available to them in their native tongue. Afterall, when we all bow to show respect to OSensei, who are we bowing to? 

Only Chitose's smaller work, Kempo Karate-Do is available in English thanks to the translation by Christopher Johnston with the support of Hanshi Dometrich and Michael Colling of the USA Chito Kai. The much more detailed and, in my opinion, informative Zen Nippon Chito Ryu Kyohon (shortened title) remains only in Japanese. Zen Nippon Chito Ryu Kyohon is fascinating work for in it one gets a greater understanding of how Chitose conceptualised the role of karate in leading a well-balanced and purposeful life.

While the information in the Kyohan is available via the dojos affiliated with the above three organisations, it is an historically significant work that deserves more respect and exploration.

For all who search for the historical Chitose, the information available is thin and repetitive. In Japanese, there are the above works in which Chitose in his own words outlines his martial history and variations of the information found in the Chito Ryu Kyohan text (published by the Hombu in 1975 and edited again in 1979). In English, there are general introductions provided in the Canadian Chito Kai instructor manuals, the Tsuruoka and Higashi texts in various forms. However, all these texts do not deviate much from the script issued by the Hombu. 

NB: A word of caution the Kyohon means to book, whereas Kyohan means study guide - they are not the same text, and for this reason, I refer to the Chito Ryu Kyohon as the brown text hereafter, in reference to its brown, cloth cover.

There are, however, three other texts which do add to the canonical history of Chitose. There is the Unante (1995;2000) text by John Sells, which while presenting useful historical photos has numerous factual inaccuracies and assertions. More interesting are the Colling article from Dragon Times (https://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/article33.htm) and the June 2002 article from Traditional Karate, composed by Rune Ingebrigtsen. These latter works make a sincere effort, using oral history, to fill-in-the gaps of the life of Chitose, before the 1950s. Unfortunately, when working with oral history, a central challenge is the stories often repeat the common myths passed down, not to mention the Hawthorne Effect. 

As I explored the early years of Chitose’s life, I noticed a minor but, substantial discrepancy between the texts available in English and Japanese around Chitose’s medical career. For example, Colling’s asserts: ‘Chitose took up teaching for a short while at the Okinawan Teachers College, and by 1922 he was ready to head back to Japan to study medicine. He was accepted as a student at the Tokyo University Medical Center and became a doctor in 1924, then spent five years working in a hospital after graduation from medical school before he was accepted as a full doctor by the Japanese Medical Association.’ However, the text from 1975 Hombu suggests that Chitose came to Tokyo in the 1920s and was quite busy practising medicine. In other words, he was practising medicine when he arrived. 

Another interesting point is that half of the English text state he graduated from medical College. In contrast, the other half stated he came to Tokyo to study medicine, but no mention is made if he graduated. In neither of the text which Chitose penned himself does he mention either his medical career or graduating from a Japanese university. There remain two other pieces of the enigma that is the Chitose medical career.

Firstly, in the 1964 article for Black Belt magazine Chitose claims to have been a gynaecologist. Secondly, in most of the English text is the assertion at one level or another that Chito Ryu was based in part on Chitose’s studies as a doctor. No such claim is made in the Japanese texts which I consulted although as I will explain later, he does consult with physicians in writing his Chito Ryu Kyohon (brown text). 

As time passed and I researched more on this apparent minor issue, I uncovered that several seniors in Chito Ryu knew about this discrepancy in the medical assertions. Using their support and insight, I have spent time researching Chitose’s medical claims and based on my findings I believe he was not a medical doctor, at least in the sense of having a University certification.

Below I discuss the evidence.

Evidence 1:
Japan during the Meiji Period (circa the 1850s) did have professional schools of medicine and indeed readily caught up with their Western counterparts. The ‘discovery of the plague bacillus in 1894, the discovery of a dysentery bacillus in 1897, the isolation of adrenaline(epinephrine) in crystalline form in 1901, and the first experimental production of tar-induced cancer in 1918’ (https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-medicine/Japan) all bear witness to the great strides Japan made in the field of medicine. The most notable school was founded in 1857 at the University of Tokyo. By Medical Act of 1874, all medical doctors had to be certified (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288623/). In other words, to be a certified doctor in Japan meant to study and to pass medical exams.

Evidence 2:
One of the great myths about exploring Japanese history is that many records were destroyed either as a result of the great Kanto earthquake (1923 - famous in karate circles for destroying Funakoshi’s Tokyo Dojo) and the bombing raids that marked the end of the World War 2. However, such an assertion is simply not accurate. Japan has an excellent national archive, which is available online at https://rnavi.ndl.go.jp/research_guide/entry/theme-honbun-102014.php . Indeed the listing of doctors is complete for the 1920s and early ’30s and neither the name Chinnen nor Chitose are listed. In other words, Chitose was not a recognised doctor, at least of western-styled medicine.

The simple lack of agreement as to if it was Kyoto or Tokyo where he attended university appears to add a need for at least some level of caution when accepting the oral history passed down regarding these years. 

Of course, there is the genuine possibility that Chitose attended university just never graduated. We know by the mid-1920’s he had a wife and son and would have been responsible for their care, even if they remained in Okinawa. Those responsibilities plus the massive destruction caused by the 1923 earthquake could have induced the young student to give up his studies.

I also know of two other Japanese researchers who have tried to find evidence of Chitose’s medical certification and found as I did. Likewise, I asked for the help and support of a surgeon and university lecturer who also, could find no evidence that the young Chitose ever graduated with a medical degree.

Evidence 3:
Had he been a doctor and a university-educated person one would expect him to hold a commissioned officers rank in the Japanese Imperial Army. However, I was unable to find any such standing.

A point of note here is Colling's asserts that in 1919 Chitose was part of the Imperial Body Guard however this seems highly unlikely, as he was an Okinawan. Appointing an Okinawan to serve as an imperial bodyguard in the late 1910s would have been similar to selecting an Irish national to guard George V. 

Chitose would have been meeting his national conscription expectation during these years and would have served in Kyushu where Okinawan conscripts were stationed. Had he been an imperial bodyguard in 1918-19, one would have expected him to hold a position of similar status with his remobilisation in the mid-1930s. Again, no evidence was found on any front regarding such condition. Indeed most people consulted believed he was stationed in Kyushu for the duration of the war.

Evidence 4:
Japan was devastated by the war. It was a prime time to be a doctor yet we know via photo evidence that by 1946 Chitose was holding fundraisers for Okinawa (Sells, p. 136) and not working there as a doctor who was severely needed. Additionally, he married a second time in 1946, and his new wife already had a daughter. Soon other children would follow. However, rather than working as a doctor, he tried unsuccessfully to open a hardware store in Kumamoto in the early 1950s, before landing a more permanent position with local garrison as a karate instructor.

Evidence 5:
The Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology was formed in 1948 and based upon a review of the notes from this meeting and the first national meeting Chitose was not present. Membership in this Society was essential if one wished to continue to legally practice as a gynaecological doctor in Japan. Given the date and what we are told in the orthodox history of Chitose, he was still practising medicine at this time so as a gynaecologist we could expect him to attend, especially in light of the massive need for such specific medical care in the aftermath of the war.

Evidence 6:
When Chitose penned his Brown Book in 1971 he acknowledged that the following doctors had given him advice and support:

• Doctor of Medicine Motor Neuroscience of Physical Education, Daijo Kobayashi Sensei 
• Doctor of Medicine Endocrine Pathology, Shigeki Mori.

Of note is that nowhere in this publication does Chitose claim to be a medical doctor. This, despite the text having a significant focus on the physical benefits of correct karate training.

So what this does all mean? Closing thoughts
On the one hand, some may be upset for they believed that Chito Ryu was founded on Chitose’s medical training. Of course, even given the orthodox narrative, his practice as a gynaecologist would appear to have little impact on designing a karate system.

Some may believe he misrepresented himself. Perhaps? However, exaggerating the truth has been part and parcel of people trying to escape terrible poverty and find meaning in situations of utter destruction. If he did exaggerate his medical knowledge in the name of promoting his RyuHa, he would not be the first or the last to do so. Indeed, the field almost expects such.

On the other hand, of course, there is the genuine possibility that Chitose served as a medic during the war and thus gained considerable knowledge in the field, even if he was never officially certified. Also possible is he may have studied traditional Okinawan medicine, and that is what he could have been practising on the mainland during the 1920s. Neither of these practices would have enabled him to consinue practice post Wolrd War Two when under the occupation regulation of professions became increasingly documents and centrally controlled.

However, until those that know or have access to such information are willing to share, we remain in the dark.

Personally, having wrestled with this knowledge for over decade now, I realise that by focusing on the medical issue, I may have been missing the incredible and profound RyuHa which is Chito Ryu. Indeed liberating myself for the need to cling to a mythical past meant I could focus on what was important - the connection between the formal two-person drills we have been left and kata. 

For me, the historical Chitose is far more appealing than the mythical one. He is a man with an incredible will to power. Someone who, despite racism, lack of opportunity, war, and unimaginable loss managed to pass-on something which has made my life much more fulfilling. For this, I am forever in his debt.

Of course, my sincere wish if for the evidence to come to light which is historically robust and proves what I assert herein is wrong. That is the whole point of research: To open conversations and questions.

There remains much research to be done in karate and Chito Ryu history.

Viable next steps for those in Chito Ryu would be to place Chitose in is Okinawan family, fill in the void of knowledge we have about his life before the 1950s and as always to preserve yet develop the rich roots he left us.


Selected Works Cited.
Chitose, T., 2000. Kempo Karate-Do (trans. C. Johnston)
Chitose, T., 1971. 生理解剖医学に立脚せる　全日本空手道連盟千唐会　教本
千唐流本部　1975　千唐流空手道　入門・基本編　全日本空手道連盟千唐会
Ingebrigtsen, R., June, 2002. Traditional Karate p. 34-38.
Sells, J., 2000. Unante (2nd edition)

The Weapons Ban TheoriesPosted on April 27, 2017 by Andreas Quast (rights reserved)

​According to a foundational theory of Karate, in pre-modern times an indigenous unarmed martial art of Ryūkyūan design existed. Generally referred to as Tī 手 in the native pronunciation, it is considered a native form of boxing and an original form of today’s Karate.[1] Various dates of its earliest creation sketch out a time frame extending from the 12th to the early 17th centuries.[2] The father of Okinawan studies, Iha Fuyū (1876–1947) described it as an indigenous unarmed martial art of Ryūkyū whose creation was triggered by two sequential weapon bans:

1. The first implemented by King Shō Shin in the early sixteenth century, and
2. the second by the Shimazu house of Satsuma following their 1609 Ryūkyū invasion.

Iha argued that Tī developed inversely proportional to the decrease in military armor, that is, in a causal effect with these two weapons bans.[3]

Perception of the Weapons Ban Under King Shō ShinAs regards the first weapons ban under King Shō Shin, Iha Fuyū misread the text of article 4 of the Momourasoe inscription (1509): He assumed that Shō Shin had confiscated all arms and had turned them into practical tools and utensils such as farm implements. That is, sort-of swords into plowshares.[4] This was the beginning of the theory that Shō Shin intentionally had demilitarized Ryūkyū.

Based on the above, Iha further concluded that under Shō Shin by royal command the feudal lords from all territories had to locate to Shuri in order to secure peace inside the country. As preparations for war were no longer necessary, he confiscated all the arms of the whole country, without exception.

George Kerr, in his influential standard work, also translated article 4 as a complete ban of the ownership and use of weapons.[5] He further added that, in an attempt to forestall the dangers of insurrection, it was first ordered that swords were no longer to be worn as personal equipment. Next, the petty lords were ordered to bring all weapons to Shuri, to be stored in a warehouse under supervision of one of the king’s officers.[6]
Still in 2000 Beillevaire noted that the Ryūkyū Kingdom had been quite vulnerable since the first half of the 16th century when the local lords were disarmed and forced to reside in Shuri to prevent rebellions.[7]

As regards the perception of this weapons ban, Iha clearly stated that among Karate persons King Shō Shin, by his political measure of abolishing all weapons in Ryūkyū, is considered to have provided the first major trigger for the development of Karate.[8]

In Karate circles this theory is perceived as King Shō Shin’s intention to completely eliminate the military readiness of the lower warrior classes. In addition, the theory was further expanded as follows: In order to completely eliminate the military readiness, the weaponry of these warrior classes were requisitioned, stored in the Office of Revenues,[9] and placed under close supervision of the royal government in Shuri. As the carrying of weapons was prohibited, an effective unarmed martial arts developed among the ruling class warriors as the only alternative to weaponry. With the idea of felling down the enemy with one’s bare hands, Karate’s technical precision increased and formed into a weapon itself following the conception of “one strike, sure kill” (ikken hissatsu ー撃必殺).[10]

Critique of the TheoryThe above given theory provided the impetus and logic for the idea that unarmed Karate developed as a result of this ban. Since the time of Iha and to this day this reasoning permeates the sublevels of the writings and theories related to the origin and development of Karate, both among Okinawan and Japanese as well as Western authors, as well as in the chitchat of practical experts.

Yet, already in 1977 Nakahara Zenchū noted that there were not only weapons such as bamboo spears and Bō (fencing staves) at the time of Shō Shin, but also cut and thrust weapons, which were not Okinawan products but imported from Japan. He pointed out a serious error in Iha’s interpretation of Shō Shin’s alleged abolition of weaponry[11] and corrected the phrase in question to all sorts of cut and thrust weapons and bows and arrows were stored in magazines, in order to be used as tools for the defense of the country.[12] Furthermore citing the Ryūkyū history work Kyūyō, Nakahara explains that Shō Shin’s measure of storing weapons was not meant to abolish the armaments of the country, but rather to organize all sorts of cut and thrust weapons and other arms for the completion of the national defense.[13]

It has also been pointed out that Japan excelled in the manufacturing of cut and thrust weapons, and that these weapons constituted the leading trading good to China, by which Japan became the arms factory of East Asia, so to speak, which was not a mere political idea, but an economic one.[14] That the Ryūkyū Kingdom had been heavily involved in this weapons trade within the tributary trade with China can clearly be seen in the list of tribute articles given in the official work Rekidai Hōan, among which were thousands of swords and other weaponry during the Ming era.[15]

Furthermore, by explicitly stating that this theory “mainly comes from Karate people,” Nakahara, as an Okinawan, shared his first-hand experience, saying that by lumping everything together it is claimed that Shō Shin abandoned weaponry because he was a musician, as a result of which the government became one of culture, etiquette[16] and esteem for music.[17]

In 1987 Sakihara Mitsugu also translated the part in question from the original text as has appeared in the Monument Inscriptions of the Ryūkyū Country,[18] giving the translation as “swords and bows and arrows are accumulated exclusively as weapons for the protection of the country.” Similar to Nakahara he concluded that King Shō Shin, far from abolishing arms, accumulated them and was proud of his superior weapons. The truth is that Ryūkyū never in her history had been officially disarmed.[19]

And in 2000 Sakihara again delineated the disarmament issue in Kerr’s newly published edition. Among the Karate intelligentsia it has also been understood that weapons had prevailed among the commoners and the warrior class.[20]

Actually, above described article 4 relating to the alleged weapons ban must be viewed in connection with the following article 5, i.e. “Law and order were established throughout the country” (Kerr) and “One thousand officials were awarded court ranks and one hundred officials were appointed to posts” (Sakihara). In accordance with Nakahara’s interpretation of article 4 – pointing to the completion of a system of national defense –, articles 4 and 5 actually refer to the establishment of the composite government organization called Hiki, which included all kinds of national affairs as well as the military.

The described accumulation of weapons under government administration and the establishment of law and order throughout the country strongly suggest that the military equipment and personnel were placed under the administrative and operative responsibilities of the royal government organization of the Hiki. In other words, the actual meaning of the said disarmament was that the Anji were indeed stripped of the military jurisdiction over their individual troops and military equipment, but these were transferred and centralized under the jurisdiction of Shō Shin’s newly organized military government structure.

Furthermore, there is no actual proof that in the above process the local troops and weaponry were physically transferred to Shuri. Rather, it seems that administrative control over troops and weaponry was mainly achieved by the implementation of local governments all over Okinawa Island, as can be seen in the case of the Guardian of Hokuzan and other local military governors, as well as in the auxiliary troops from southern Okinawa which were deployed to Shuri and Naha in case of an emergency. Such it appears that the officials sent out to the local areas by the central government were responsible for law and order in these regions, necessitating troops and weaponry themselves, which would have been provided – at least partially – by troops and equipment from magazines owned by the local communities and still in existence from the previous rule of the Anji. And this appears to be the real meaning of Shō Shin’s weapons management orders.

From the above we can see that all claims of a primordial form of unarmed Karate as having developed as a result of King Shō Shin’s alleged weapons ban is a completely untenable historical fallacy. Even worse: It appears to be fictitious, artificial and wishful thinking.

​

Footnotes[1] Cf. Miyazato 1978: 17. Shinzato 1996: 249. Kinjō 2012: 18. Nohara 2007: 56-57. Nagamine 1957: 51. Kadekaru 2012: 176.
[2] OKKJ 2008: 90. Nagamine 1957: 51. Nohara 2007: 56-57.
[3] Iha 1938: 310.
[4] Iha 1938: 306. Text of Article 4: 服裁錦綉器用金銀専積力剣弓矢以為護国之利器此邦財用武器他州所不及也. Sakihara, in Kerr 2000: 543
[5] Kerr 1958, 105
[6] Kerr 1958: 107
[7] Beillevaire 2000: I, 26
[8] Iha 1938: 296-97
[9] 公庫, government financial institution for the management of public funds.
[10] As explained by Takamiyagi Shigeru, in OKKJ 2008: 102.
[11] Cf. Sakihara, in Kerr 2000: 544.
[12] Citing article 4 of the Momourasoe inscription as given in the Chūzan Seifu: 「蔵二刀剣・弓矢之属一以為二護国之具一」. Nakahara gives the term Tōken 刀剣, i.e. cut and thrust weapons. The Chūzan Seifu, Vol. 6 中山世譜巻六, however, gives Manken 万劒, i.e. 10,000 swords, in the sentence 「又藏万劒弓矢之屬。以爲護國之具。」That is, „And 10,000 swords and arrows and bows and similar military equipment were placed in a magazine, in order to be deployed as tools for protecting the fatherland.”
[13] Nakahara 1977: 588, 594. 「服は錦綉をたち、器は金銀を用い、専ら刀剣をつんで、以て護国の利器となす。此の邦の財用、武器、他州の及ばざる所なり」. Cf. Ishadō 2004: 82, giving the original text as 服裁錦綉器用金銀専積刀剣弓矢以為護国之利器此邦財用武器他国所不及也。
[14] Nakahara 1977: 586.
[15] Cf. Uezato 2010: 224-55.
[16] Reigaku 礼楽, which is considered of high importance in Confucianism to appease the actions and quiet the minds of the people.
[17] Nakahara 1977: 592
[18] Ryūkyū-koku-chū Himonki 琉球国中碑文記
[19] Sakihara 1987: 199.
[20] See, for instance, Shinzato Katsuhiko, in OKKJ 2008: 105.
© 2017, Andreas Quast. All rights reserved.