Introduction
This essay concerns a question rarely asked from within the kyudo world itself: when, and how, did Japanese archery lose the ability to see itself from the outside?
My claim, stated up front, is this. Through the unification of kyudo that began in the Meiji era and was consolidated after the Second World War, the discipline lost its internal plurality. As a consequence, the kyudo community today can no longer recognise its own historical choices as choices. The current form is experienced as natural, inevitable, and singular — when in fact it is the result of specific institutional decisions that could have gone otherwise.
This is not an attack on kyudo. It is a problem that kyudo must face if it is to re-ground itself as a living discipline rather than a preserved artefact.
1. What Collective Self-Awareness Requires
For a martial tradition to function healthily as a community, it needs a vantage point from which to see its own practice from the outside. This vantage point cannot be produced from within a single, unified orthodoxy. A community that contains only itself cannot recognise its own path as a path among other possible paths. The current form becomes “just how things are” rather than “what we chose.”
The most efficient way to internalise an outside vantage point is to hold multiple directions within the same discipline in parallel. Each stream becomes a mirror for the others. The question “why did we choose this, and not that?” remains a living question, posed and answered inside the community itself, every day.
Karate
Karate sustains at least four distinct directions in parallel.
- Okinawan karate — the originating lineage, preserving older kata such as Naihanchi, Passai, and Kushanku, along with body-sensitivities like kakete and muchimi that were later abstracted out of mainland forms.
- Traditional karate (mainland, sport-oriented) — Shotokan, Goju-ryu, Shito-ryu, Wado-ryu, and others, competitively organised around controlled-contact (sundome) rules.
- Full-contact karate — rooted in Kyokushin and its offshoots, committed to direct striking and combat realism.
- Kata competition — a direction focused on the aesthetic and performative perfection of forms.
The parallel existence of these four allows each to measure itself against the others. “Why do we stop short of contact?” “Why do we strike through?” “Why do we preserve the kata?” These are not academic questions inside karate. They are lived ones, because the alternatives are visible and available.
Judo
Judo has a similar structure. Kodokan judo (the competitive mainstream) coexists with Brazilian jiu-jitsu (the grappling- and combat-focused divergence) and Sambo (the independent Russian lineage). Through these siblings, judoka themselves can see what competitive judo has shed over time.
Kendo
Behind the bamboo-sword sport of kendo stand the surviving classical schools of swordsmanship — Shinkage-ryu, Jigen-ryu, Hokushin Itto-ryu — along with the separate disciplines of battojutsu and iaido. Practitioners of kendo are, by and large, aware that kendo is not kenjutsu. The internal distinction is alive.
Kyudo — the collapse of parallel streams
Kyudo alone has lost this parallel structure.
The Dai Nippon Kyudo Kai (1919), the shooting-form unification carried out by the Dai Nippon Butokukai’s kyudo section (1934), and the founding of the All Nippon Kyudo Federation (Zen Nihon Kyudo Renmei, 1949) together consolidated what had been a plural landscape. Multiple lineages were bundled into a single stream. The technical heritage of dosha (hall-shooting) traditions, the distinctions between busha (martial shooting) and busha-based foot-archery styles, and school-specific or purpose-specific shooting methods were compressed under competition rules and the dan grading system.
Today, the only widely recognised parallel direction to modern kyudo in Japan is yabusame — mounted archery. Combat-oriented foot-archery lineages, surviving custodians of dosha technique, and streams that internalise comparative study of non-Japanese archery traditions exist only as small-scale activities by specific groups. None of them operates at a scale that institutionally shapes the discipline.
As a result, the internal foothold from which a kyudo practitioner might ask “what is kyudo, really?” has vanished. The mirror of comparison — whether from within Japan or from abroad — is, for practical purposes, no longer there.
2. The Functional Beauty of Martial Arts, and What Kyudo Discarded
Before going further, a general premise about martial traditions must be stated plainly.
It is true that martial arts and budo can contain body cultivation and spiritual training. But the origin of their forms lies in the maximisation of killing capacity. Blade alignment, distancing, footwork, breathing — these elements appear beautiful because they are the distilled residue of movements optimised for lethality.
In the term “functional beauty,” the function comes first, and the beauty is derivative. Reverse the order, and the martial art ceases to be martial.
- A karate strike looks beautiful because its trajectory is the most efficient path to destroying an opponent.
- A kendo men-strike looks sharp because it travels the shortest line to the skull.
- A well-executed judo throw looks decisive because it drives the opponent into the ground at the most dangerous possible angle.
Strip away the function and try to preserve only the beauty, and the movement becomes decorative — approaching, ultimately, dance. The history of martial traditions shows this trajectory repeatedly.
What kyudo institutionally discarded
Kyudo is a budo that explicitly abandoned, as a matter of institutional design, the function of maximising lethality through the bow. Concretely:
- There is no examination of penetration power.
- There is no official competition measuring arrow speed, range, or post-impact destructive force.
- “Hit” (atari) is judged, but “did the arrow penetrate?” or “did it pass through armour?” is not.
- Dan grading is assessed against aesthetic standards that are a modern construction.
- In effective practice, ceremonial bearing (taihai) weighs more heavily than shooting technique (shajutsu).
This amounts to removing the martial skeleton of the discipline by the community’s own hand.
While other budo preserve the killing-origin movement structures and concepts under their rule systems, kyudo has reassembled the movement structure itself into something ritually other. I am not condemning this historical choice. A choice is a choice, and may be respected as such. The problem is that the awareness that a choice was made has been lost inside the community.
3. The Vegetarian Analogy
Inside the kyudo world, references to combat realism often provoke a reflexive denial. A typical form is: “Combat with a bow would just be murder — that has nothing to do with kyudo.”
The structure of this reaction is the same as a certain form of vegetarianism.
A vegetarian’s individual choice to refuse meat is a choice that deserves respect. But when it transforms into an ideological vegetarianism that dismisses the entire meat-eating history of humanity as “barbaric,” something changes. What began as a personal act becomes a structure of moral condemnation directed at those who have not stepped off the path the vegetarian chose to leave.
Part of kyudo discourse has fallen into this same structure. Laid out step by step:
- We abandoned combat realism (fact).
- But we do not recognise it as “abandoning” — we recognise it as “elevating” (self-perception drift).
- Other martial traditions and other cultures’ archery (yabusame, Mongolian, Turkish, Chinese, Korean mounted-archery traditions) that retain combat realism are implicitly positioned as “still at an earlier stage” (devaluation of others).
- As a result, both the fact of being a derivative branch and the heretical position we occupy when seen from the martial mainstream become invisible (a double self-awareness gap).
What is going on here is the loss of two linked recognitions: that we are heretics within the martial genealogy, and that our heretical status is the result of historical choice.
The purification of kyudo into a “way” (do) is not itself something to be condemned. But the purification of kyudo into a “way” and the claim of superiority over other lineages are, properly, separate propositions. They are inherited together in a conflated form, and this is the philosophical knot at the core of contemporary kyudo thought.
4. How This Self-Awareness Gap Became Institutional — Three Structural Factors
Why, then, was this failure of self-recognition institutionalised? Three structural factors account for most of it.
(a) The timing and political context of unification
The unification of kyudo from the Meiji era through the early Showa period proceeded under a compound pressure: the importing of Western modern sport, integration into the national education system, and the demands of militarism.
For “kyudo as budo” to be integrated into national education, inter-school differences and combat-specific techniques had to be institutionally excluded. A unified standard form had to be reproducible in schools and dojo across the country.
In this process, the fact that combat realism had been abandoned was processed in a way that ensured the abandonment itself would not be noticed. Rather than being recorded as a historical choice, it was institutionalised as a redefinition of “the original nature of kyudo.”
(b) Post-war redefinition
After the war, in order to sever the association with militarism, “kyudo as spiritual cultivation” was pushed to the foreground. The link to combat realism was cut more deeply still.
At this stage, the self-definition “kyudo is not so much a martial art as a way” was established, and the distance from the martial origin was institutionalised. The international circulation of Eugen Herrigel’s Zen in the Art of Archery (German original 1948, widely received in Japan from the 1950s onward) reinforced this redefinition.
The redefinition was reasonable within the post-war context, but the fact that it was a redefinition has been forgotten, and the illusion that “this is how kyudo always was” has settled into place.
(c) The loss of external comparison
Where karate holds Okinawan, mainland, and full-contact streams in parallel, and judo has BJJ and Sambo beside it, kyudo has kept no comparative counterpart outside Japan — yabusame aside — within its ordinary field of view. As a consequence, the mirror of relativisation has disappeared.
These three factors overlay one another. The cumulative result is that kyudo, as an institution, has lost the capacity to recognise its own historical choices as choices.
5. Implications
The consequence that follows is one the kyudo world finds difficult to confront directly.
A community lacking plural directions cannot recognise its choices as choices. And what cannot be recognised as a choice cannot be chosen again. The present form becomes institutionalised as the natural and singular form, and when this is pointed out from outside, the community closes in a reflexive defensive posture.
I have elsewhere examined related problems in the history of kyudo under the names origin inflation and the concealment of discontinuity. Inflating origins and concealing ruptures are, at root, the same operation: each makes invisible the fact that the current form is the result of historical choice and that other alternatives were possible. The argument of this essay is continuous with those.
The recovery of parallel directions — combat-oriented archery, yabusame, dosha technique, comparative study of other peoples’ archery traditions — is not for the sake of attacking kyudo. It is needed as the foothold from which kyudo can see itself in a mirror.
A heretic can ask the meaning of their own choice only once they recognise that they are a heretic. A heretic who cannot see their heresy mistakes themselves for the sole mainstream. Inside that illusion, there is no foothold from which to tell whether one’s “choice” was really chosen, or whether one was merely pushed into it by historical accident.
6. Conclusion — On Holding Up a Mirror
My own activity connects directly to this line of argument. I work to present, not as theory but as concrete practice, a direction that stands alongside modern kyudo — as a place where training is possible, as technique that can be physically encountered, as equipment and conditions that can be compared.
Doing so is not a rejection of kyudo. It may be, instead, an act of holding up a mirror to kyudo.
Not confrontation, but the provision of a foothold for self-awareness. Over the long term, this is a structure from which the kyudo world itself stands to benefit.
I do not argue that what was lost must be recovered. I argue that what must be built is a place where the loss can be noticed. In sequence, showing what has been lost must come before asking anyone to admit that it was lost.
When kyudo becomes able to see itself, kyudo will be able, for the first time, to choose itself again. That re-choosing might lead to inheriting the current form unchanged. It might lead to attempting another form. This essay takes no position on which is correct. I only note that the restoration of the capacity to choose, as such, is a condition of a mature martial community.
This essay is a reworking, for an English-language audience, of a piece originally published in Japanese on note. Specific sub-topics — the detailed history of shooting-form unification, cross-cultural comparative study of archery traditions, the reconstruction of dosha technique — are addressed separately.
A note on terms
For readers less familiar with Japanese martial vocabulary:
- Budo (武道) — the category of Japanese martial “ways” including judo, kendo, karate-do, aikido, kyudo.
- Kyudo (弓道) — “the way of the bow”; the standardised modern form of Japanese archery.
- Kyujutsu (弓術) — “the technique of the bow”; the older, pre-standardisation martial archery tradition.
- Yabusame (流鏑馬) — Japanese mounted archery.
- Dosha (堂射) — hall-shooting; a historical long-range shooting tradition associated most famously with Sanjusangen-do in Kyoto.
- Taihai (体配) — ceremonial bearing, deportment; the ritualised movement that frames the act of shooting.
- Dan (段) — ranking system used across modern budo.
コメントを残す