YEARNING FOR THE BELL: A STUDY OF

TRANSMISSION
IN THE SHAKUHACHI HONKYOKU TRADITION
RILEY KELLY LEE

ABSTRACT

This thesis looks at past and present processes of transmission within the tradition of
the shakuhachi honkyoku (尺八本曲, shakuhachi ‘original pieces’). The shakuhachi,
an end-blown bamboo flute, has existed in Japan since the eighth century. Since at
least the fifteenth century, it has been used as a tool for spirituality, and has been
particularly associated with Zen Buddhism. The honkyoku were composed, performed
and transmitted within that spiritual context, especially during the Edo period (1600-
1868) by mendicant priests called komusô (虚無僧, ‘priests of nothingness’). An
understanding of the nature of the honkyoku was expressed in such concepts as honnin
no kyoku (本人の曲, ‘one’s own piece’), zettai no ma (絶対の間, ‘absolute timing’),
tettei on (徹底音) and ichi on jôbutsu (一音成仏, ‘one sound becoming
Buddhahood’).

A piece-specific genealogy chart for the honkyoku “Reibo” (鈴慕) of the Ôshû
lineage (奥州系) is presented, which relies upon written and anecdotal material to
trace two main lines of transmission. These lines transmit honkyoku which have
become known as “Futaiken reibo” (布袋軒鈴慕, ‘“Reibo” of the Futai temple’) and
“Shôganken reibo” (松巌軒鈴慕, ‘“Reibo” of the Shôgan temple’). A comparative
analysis of transcriptions of ten performances of these “Reibo” pieces by six
shakuhachi players representing these two lines of transmission shows a high degree
of variability and a number of patterns of similarities and differences. These patterns
demonstrate the oral nature of the transmission, and allude to the process-oriented
“essence” of the honkyoku tradition.

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research and writing of this thesis was supported by a University Postgraduate
Scholarship from the University of Sydney. Research undertaken for one year in
1988-1989 was supported by a generous grant from the Japan Foundation (a funding
agency of the Japanese Government). Grateful acknowledgement is made to Allan
Marett, my supervisor, and to members of the Syakuhati Kenkyû Kai (Shakuhachi
Research Group) in Japan, including Tukitani Tuneko, Yamaguti Osamu, Simura
Satosi, and Seyama Tôru. Acknowledgement is also made to my present shakuhachi
teacher, Yokoyama Katsuya, to my former teacher, the late Sakai Chikuho II, and to
the many members of the entire shakuhachi tradition with whom I have had the
pleasure of meeting. Finally, particular appreciation is due to my family for their
support and patience.

This UMI edition is a corrected version of the original manuscript successfully

submitted to the University of Sydney in 1993. No substantial changes have been
made. Many of the typographical, spelling and grammatical errors have been
removed. Likewise, numerous unclear passages have been rewritten. The majority of
these corrections were suggestions made by Tom Deaver (Nagano, Japan), Prof.
Yamaguti (University of Osaka) and Prof. Trimillos (University of Hawai’i). In
particular, Tom Deaver, with his nearly three decades of experience in the shakuhachi
tradition in Japan, greatly contributed to this more readable edition of the thesis.

Blue Mountains, NSW 1992

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR REVISED WEBSITE,

HARD COPY AND PDF EDITIONS
This thesis was originally written on an obsolete NEC Japanese word processor using
a now-defunct software program. The original files were prepared for my website by
James Jennings, after I had been told by a number of professional data retrieval
companies that the floppy discs on which the original files resided were impossible to
read and the data lost.

This present hard-copy version is a meticulous revision of the James’ website version.
The thesis was reformatted from html code into a text-based document, a task I
thought impossibly tedious. It also contains many corrections, too numerous to list.
This version exists because of Gary Dempsey’s initial prompting and labourious
proofreading of the entire thesis a number of times.

Thank you James and Gary, for doing the impossible!

Manly, NSW 2010

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF CHARTS viii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi

LIST OF TABLES xi

INTRODUCTION 1

1. THE INSIDERS/OUTSIDERS PARADIGM 14

1.1 Concepts and Problems with Insider/Outsider Paradigms 14
1.2 Insiders and Outsiders to the Shakuhachi Tradition 15
1.3 Definitions of Insiders and Outsiders to the 17
Shakuhachi Tradition
1.3.1 Layers of Insiders within the Shakuhachi Tradition 19
1.3.2 Location of Author within the Shakuhachi Tradition 21
2. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE 25
2.0 Four Types of Literature 25
2.1 First Type of Literature: Authored and Read by Insiders 27
2.1.1 Musical Scores in Shakuhachi Notation 27
2.1.2 Other Written Historical Documents, Including the 36
Kyotaku Denki Kokuji Kai
2.1.3 Limited Edition Publications 41
2.1.4 Non-Scholarly Periodicals and Articles 42
2.2 Second Literature Type: Authored by Insiders for 44
Outsiders
2.2.1 Historical Documents 44
2.2.2 Books and Other Publications 45
2.2.3 Scholarly Publications 46
2.2.4 Non-Scholarly Periodicals and Articles 51
2.2.5 Beginner Manuals 53
2.2.6 Descriptive Notes Included in Commercial Recordings 54
2.2.7 Concert Programme Notes 55
2.3 Third Type of Literature: Authored by Outsiders for 56
Insiders
2.3.1 Modern Compositions 56
2.3.2 Government Documents 57

iii
 2.4 Fourth Literature Type; by Outsiders for Outsiders 58
2.4.1 Historical Sources 58
2.4.2 Scholarly Publications 59
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SHAKUHACHI AND HONKYOKU 60
3.1 The Shakuhachi of the Nara (646-794) and Heian 62
(794-1185) Periods
3.1.1 Shakuhachi of the Shôsôin and Hôryûji 63
3.1.2 Pictorial and Written Evidence of the Nara and Heian 66
Shakuhachi
3.2 The Shakuhachi of the Middle Ages (1185-1600) 73
3.2.1 Literary References to the Shakuhachi in the Middle 77
Ages
3.2.2 The Shakuhachi and Buddhism in the Middle Ages 79
3.2.3 Classification of Shakuhachi of the Middle Ages 86
3.3 Types of Shakuhachi in the Edo Period 90
3.3.1 The Hitoyogiri 91
3.3.2 Tempuku 98
3.4. From Komosô (薦僧) to Komusô (虚無僧) 102
3.5 The Fuke Sect 110
3.5.1 The Early Fuke sect 110
3.5.2 The Keichô no Okitegaki and the Ordinance of 1677 115
3.5.3 The San’in Sangu 122
3.5.4 The Organization and Activities of the Fuke sect 128
3.5.5 The Decline and Demise of the Fuke sect 135
3.6 The Shakuhachi as a Secular Musical Instrument 139
3.7 Suizen after the Abolition of the Fuke Sect 149
3.8 Transmission of Honkyoku from the Meiji Era to the 153
Present
4. TRANSMITTING “THE BELL”; A CASE STUDY OF THE PIECE 165
“REIBO”
4.1 The Word “Reibo” and Related Terms 165
4.2 Classification of “Reibo” Titles 170
4.3 The Ôshû Family of the “Reibo” Piece 173
4.3.1 “Shôganken reibo” Lineage 178
4.3.2 “Futaiken reibo” Lineage 183
4.3.3 A Third Lineage of Transmission of the Ôshû Family 189
of the “Reibo” Piece
4.4 Lineage Chart of the Transmission of “Ôshû kei 191
‘Reibo’”
5. ONTOLOGY OF TRANSMISSION; THE NATURE OF THE REALITY 197
OF HONKYOKU TRANSMISSION
5.1 Concepts of Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Sound 198

iv
 5.2 Orality, Zen and the Shakuhachi Honkyoku 210
5.2.1 Orality and Music 218
5.2.2 Orality and the Transmission of Shakuhachi 224
Honkyoku
5.2.3 Dreams 230
5.3 Documents and Performance 237
5.4 Three Formal Elements of Transmission in the 249
Honkyoku Tradition: Lineage, Lessons, and Notation
5.5 The Fourth Formal Element of Transmission: 260
Performance
5.5.1 The Aspect of Timbre 261
5.5.2 The Aspect of Pitch 271
5.5.3 The Aspect of Rhythm 282
5.6 Ideologies of Transmission 287
5.6.1 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Sacred Object 288
5.6.2 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Music 292
5.6.3 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Transcending ‘Object’ 295
and ‘Music’
6. AN ANALYSIS OF SHAKUHACHI HONKYOKU 305
6.1 Musicological Approaches 306
to Honkyoku Analysis
6.1.1 Transcribing Honkyoku 310
6.1.2 Existing Musicological Analyses that Use 316
Transmission
6.1.3 Analyses of Honkyoku Scores 326
6.2 Tradition-Based Approaches 331
to Honkyoku Analyses within the
Shakuhachi Tradition
6.2.1 Informal Oral Analyses 342
6.3 Methodology of Transcription and Analysis 346
6.3.1 The Recordings 348
6.3.2 Transcription Method 353
6.3.3 The Orthographically Simplified 358
Transcription
6.3.4 Lining up the Orthographically Simplified 359
Transcriptions
6.4 Comparative Analysis of “Reibo” 369
6.4.1 Establishing a Common Identity for the Ten 371
Pieces Using Data from the Transcriptions
6.4.2 Comparison of the Two Groups, “Futaiken 376
reibo” and “Shôganken reibo”
6.4.3 Comparisons within a Single Lineage within 384
One Group

v
 6.4.3.1 Jin-Sakai Lineage 385
6.4.3.2 Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto 387
Lineage
6.4.3.3 Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto Lineage 389
6.4.4 Comparison between the Transcriptions of 397
Uramoto and Jin
6.4.5 Analysis of the Uramoto-Watazumi Lineage 403
7. CONCLUSION 417

FIGURES 429

TABLES 503

APPENDIX 1. Transcriptions 509

APPENDIX 2. Orthographically Simplified 569
Transcriptions
APPENDIX 3. Lining up of the Orthographically 595
Simplified Transcriptions
APPENDIX 4. Okamoto’s Analysis of the First 636
Six Phrases of “Reibo” in the
Original Japanese
APPENDIX 5. Scores of the “Reibo” Pieces in 638
Traditional Shakuhachi notation

BIBLIOGRAPHY 651

APPENDIX 6. List of Recordings of Pieces 684

vi
 LIST OF CHARTS
Genealogy chart 1. 179
Genealogy chart 2. 179
Genealogy chart 3. 184
Genealogy chart 4. 188
Genealogy chart 5. 190
Genealogy chart 6. 192
Genealogy chart 7. 356

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Example of handwritten score of Yamaue Getsuzan 429
Figure 2. Example of Furuya score 430
Figure 3. Araki score of “Shika no tône” 431-432
Figure 4. Comparisons of scores of “Shôganken reibo” 433
Figure 5. Excerpts from published score of “Kyûshû reibo” 434
Figure 6. Treitler’s examples of recurring melodic patterns in Gregorian chant 435
Figure 7. Example of dai furi in “Yamato Chôshi” 436
Figure 8. Spectral evolution of a tone played on a transverse flute 437
Figure 9. Spectral evolution of two tones played on a shakuhachi 437
Figure 10. Example of a meri kari pair within one phrase 438
Figure 11. Example of meri kari pair over two phrases 438
Figure 12. Yin and yang in honkyoku tone cells 438
Figure 13. Honkyoku scores with minimal duration markings 439
Figure 14. Example of Kinko honkyoku score with duration markings 439
Figure 15. Example of Chikuho honkyoku score with duration markings 439
Figure 16. Transnotation of “Kyorei” 440
Figure 17. Examples from Weisgarber’s analysis 441
Figure 18. Example of graphic notation 442
Figure 19. Some problems with staff notation regarding sharps and flats 443
Figure 20. Transcription using colours to denote meri/kari technique 443
Figure 21. Changes to orthographically simplified transcriptions 444
Figure 22. Transcriptions of formal divisions in “Shôganken reibo” as per traditional 445
scores
Figure 23. Transcriptions of formal divisions in “Futaiken reibo” as per traditional 446
scores
Figure 24. Example of correlation of core notes 447
Figure 25. Two examples of reibo no te melodic pattern 448
Figure 26. Example of notes of long duration shared by transcriptions 449
Figure 27. Division between shirabe and honte section 450

vii
Figure 28. Division between honte and takane section in “Shôganken reibo” 451
Figure 29. Division between honte and takane section in “Futaiken reibo” 452
Figure 30. Division marking beginning of hachigaeshi section 453
Figure 31. Division between hachigaeshi and musubi section in “Shôganken reibo” 454
Figure 32. Beginning of FR musubi section 455
Figure 33. Beginning of SR musubi section 456
Figure 34. Ending of “Shôganken reibo” 457
Figure 35. Ending of “Futaiken reibo” 457
Figure 36. First occurrence of cadential formulae 1 and 2 458
Figure 37. Second and third occurrence of cadential formula 2 459
Figure 38. Fourth occurrence of cadential formula 2 460
Figure 39. Fifth and sixth occurrence of cadential formula 2 461
Figure 40. Cadential formula ending SR takane section 462
Figure 41. Cadential formula ending FR takane and SR takane gaeshi sections 463
Figure 42. Cadential formula ending FR hachigaeshi section 464
Figure 43. Cadential formula ending SR hachigaeshi section 465
Figure 44. Comparision of formulae 1 & 2 and their location 466
Figure 45. Example 1 of material not shared by two groups 467
Figure 46. Example 2 of material not shared by two groups 468
Figure 47. Example 3 of material not shared by two groups 469
Figure 48. Example 4 of material not shared by two groups 470
Figure 49. Example 5 of material not shared by two groups 471
Figure 50. Example 6 of material not shared by two groups 472
Figure 51. Example 7 of material not shared by two groups 473
Figure 52. Example 8 of material not shared by two groups 474
Figure 53. Example 9 of material not shared by two groups 475
Figure 54. Example 10 of material not shared by two groups 476
Figure 55. Comparison 1 of Jin/Sakai material 477
Figure 56. Comparison 2 of Jin/Sakai material 478
Figure 57. Comparison 3 of Jin/Sakai material 479
Figure 58. Comparison 4 of Jin/Sakai material 480
Figure 59. Comparison 5 of Jin/Sakai material 481
Figure 60. Comparison 6 of Jin/Sakai material 482
Figure 61. Comparison 1 of Uramoto/Watazumi/Yokoyama material 483
Figure 62. Reibo no te used for detailed analysis 484
Figure 63. Comparison 1 of Watazumi/Yokoyama/Iwamoto material 485
Figure 64. Comparison 2 of Watazumi/Yokoyama/Iwamoto material 486
Figure 65. Comparison 3 of Watazumi/Yokoyama/Iwamoto material 487
Figure 66. Comparison 4 of Watazumi/Yokoyama/Iwamoto material 488
Figure 67. Comparison 1 of Uramoto/Jin material 489
Figure 68. Comparison 2 of Uramoto/Jin material 490

viii
Figure 69. Material unique to Uramoto 491
Figure 70. Comparison 1 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 492
Figure 71. Comparison 2 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 493
Figure 72. Comparison 3 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 493
Figure 73. Comparison 4 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 494
Figure 74. Comparison 5 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 494
Figure 75. Comparison 6 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 495
Figure 76. Comparison 7 of Uramoto/Watazumi material 495a
Figure 77. Comparison 1 of Uramoto/Watazumi reibo no te 496
Figure 78. Comparison 2 of Uramoto/Watazumi reibo no te 497
Figure 79. Comparison 3 of Uramoto/Watazumi reibo no te 497
Figure 80. Details of reibo no te #1 498
Figure 81. Details of reibo no te #2 499
Figure 82. Details of reibo no te #3 500
Figure 83. Details of reibo no te #4 501
Figure 84. Comparison of reibo no te in ten performances 502

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration 1. Blowing edges for shakuhachi, hitoyogiri, tempuku, dongxiao, 61
and tanteki
Illustration 2. Pictorial evidence from Nara-Heian periods 68
Illustration 3. Drawing of five-hole shakuhachi in Taigensho 76
Illustration 4. Biwa hoshi with shakuhachi 76
Illustration 5. “Picture or Rôan Playing the Flute” 82
Illustration 6. Komosô in Sanjûniban shokunin awase uta 82
Illustration 7. Hitoyogiri performance and practice session 95
Illustration 8. Komosô (straw mat priest) 95
Illustration 9. Drawings of tempuku performances 99
Illustration 10. Diagram of shakuhachi holes and symbolic names 126
Illustration 11. Six examples of Edo period drawings of komusô 134
Illustration 12. Komusô ‘dandies’ 134
Illustration 13. Edo period sankyoku performance 141
Illustration 14. Edo period min’yô performance 141

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Combinations of fingerings and meri/kari techniques to produce the pitch g’ 503

ix
Table 2. Comparison of formal sections in “Reibo” family of pieces 504
Table 3. Formal divisions of “Futaiken reibo” and “Shôganken reibo” 505
Table 4. Reibo no te locations within the formal divisions 506
Table 5. Three methods of performing g" in reibo no te 507
Table 6. Musical events found in phrases F:U8-10 508

x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
 INTRODUCTION
This thesis is about the transmission processes that have occurred in the past and are
continuing to occur today in the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition. The tradition is
centered largely in Japan, but since the 1960s and especially from the 1980s an ever-
increasing number of performers and performances can be found outside Japan
(Kamisangô 1974:22; Lee 1976:97, 1986:11-12). The shakuhachi (尺八) is an end-
blown bamboo flute that first entered Japan as one of the instruments of the court
ensemble (gagaku, 雅楽) imported from China in the middle of the seventh century
(Kurihara 1918:32-35; Kamisangô 1974:10; Ueno 1984:8-9; Hôgaku Hyakka Jiten
(Kikkawa, ed.) [hereafter HHJ] 1984:491-493; Tukitani 1988:39-40; Nihon Ongaku
Daijiten (Hirano, et al., ed.) [hereafter NOD] 1989:329, 500). It evolved over the
centuries to become distinct both from its form at the time of importation and from all
end-blown flutes anywhere in the world (Tukitani et al., 1991:1-2; HHJ 1984:491;
NOD 1989:329). Though no instrument or genre of traditional Japanese music, or
hôgaku (邦楽), can compete in popularity in modern day Japan with western-derived
musics such as rock, pop, jazz and classical music, the shakuhachi is nonetheless one
of Japan’s most popular hôgaku instruments.

In this thesis, the term honkyoku (本曲), which literally means “main” or “original
piece” refers only to the repertoire of mostly solo shakuhachi pieces (Tukitani
1990a:3) which, from as early as the fifteenth century, were anonymously composed
and aurally transmitted, within the context of Zen Buddhism, as a religious practice
(Kamisangô 1974:10-12). These honkyoku were played by monks known as komusô
(虚無僧), who were most active during the Edo period (1600-1868)
(Kurihara:1918:90; Ueno 1984:205). Honkyoku are the oldest pieces and are generally
the most venerated of all the genres of music in the shakuhachi tradition.

Honkyoku is only one of many genres of shakuhachi music. The term koten honkyoku
(古典本曲, classical honkyoku), coined by Tukitani in the 1970s, is most frequently
used in Japan today to differentiate this genre from others of the shakuhachi tradition
(Tukitani 1990a:32). In particular, koten honkyoku are distinct from those solo pieces
(also called honkyoku) which, since the late 19th century, have been composed by
named persons. These composers were frequently heads (iemoto 家元) of secular
sect-like organizations or schools (ryû 流), who may have used the term honkyoku to
elevate the status of their compositions in the eyes of their members. By far the
largest of all shakuhachi schools in Japan today, in terms of membership, is the Tozan
ryû (都山流) (NOD 1989:501). It is ironic that no koten honkyoku are transmitted
within Tozan ryû. The only honkyoku in its repertoire are the above mentioned
modern pieces, composed by the founder of the school, Nakao Tozan (中尾都山,
1876-1956).

In general, little has been written about the transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku or
any other genre of shakuhachi music. Studies of the shakuhachi and its repertoire
typically focus upon four areas: the development and uses of the instrument over
time, with discussions of prototypes and related instruments; its use by the komusô of

1
the Edo period; the development of the various ryû in the 19th century and later; and
finally, an examination of the professionalism of the latter 20th century (Kamisangô
1974; Malm 1959:151-164; Ueno 1984). The repertoire available to the modern day
shakuhachi player, including honkyoku, is usually described as it exists in a single
instance in time, with little or no reference to the historical development of the pieces;
exceptions are the recent articles by Tukitani (1990, 1990a 1991). Such descriptions
give a particularly distorted impression of honkyoku. As will be shown in this thesis,
one of the most noticeable characteristics of many honkyoku is their high degree of
variability and change, due in part to the way in which they have been and are
transmitted.

Apart from superficial surveys of the shakuhachi tradition, such as are found in
reference works devoted to all areas of hôgaku or Japan’s traditional music (Kishibe
1984:78-80; HHJ 1984:491-493; NOD 1989:500-506), the majority of the literature
on the shakuhachi is ryû specific. Notable exceptions are Ueno’s book Shakuhachi no
rekishi (尺八の歴史 1984) and much of the writings of Tukitani and Kamisangô, all
of which are written in Japanese. (See Chapter 2, Survey of the Literature, for a
discussion of these writings.) One reason these scholars are able to write about the
shakuhachi without being ryû specific is because they do not play the shakuhachi and
consequently are not affiliated with any ryû. In contrast to the above-mentioned non-
performing scholars, the author of this thesis is a performer of the shakuhachi.

Unlike most of the ryû specific material written by other shakuhachi performers, this
thesis attempts, as far as possible, to transcend the boundaries of the ryû and treat the
shakuhachi tradition as a whole. Furthermore, it does not view the honkyoku
repertoire as static, as having been handed down unchanged since time immemorial,
but instead it focuses on the numerous ways in which pieces are constantly changing
and how they have been transmitted from individual to individual over many
generations.

In this thesis an initial understanding of the processes of transmitting the many

honkyoku from individual to individual and from generation to generation will be
sought through a detailed description of what has occurred in the transmission of a
single piece, tracing the transmission through however many ryû and individuals as
may arise. The piece chosen as a case study for this thesis is the honkyoku “Reibo”
(鈴慕), which, like most honkyoku, has been largely transmitted orally.

The reasons for choosing “Reibo” as the focal point of the thesis are many and will
be discussed in full in Chapter 4. Suffice it to say here that today there is not just one
definitive “Reibo” piece, but a great number of “Reibo” pieces, all related to each
other to a greater or lesser degree, and all equally definitive. The actual meaning of
“Reibo” must therefore be defined. By this is meant not only the definitions and
possible significance of the Chinese characters which make up the title (鈴慕, literally
‘Bell Yearning’), but also the musical definition of “Reibo”. What precisely is being
referred to when we use the word “Reibo”? What constitutes the piece? How many of
its sounds or sequences of sounds can be changed or omitted before the piece is no
longer thought of as “Reibo”? Can patterns be detected which might explain the
many musical variations and different titles? These and other questions must be
addressed, especially in the context of performance.

2
Because of the oral nature of the transmission, the context of performance is
particularly important in a study of the honkyoku “Reibo”. For example, there are
cases of pieces with musical characteristics that are clearly identical to those of
“Reibo” but which are called something else, for example “Fûrin” (風林, ‘Wind-
woods’). The question of musical identity arises in other oral traditions as well, for
example in American folk tunes (Seeger 1977). The number and diversity of “Reibo”
pieces that exist today are the result of, and clearly reflect, the manner in which the
piece has been transmitted from generation to generation. Therefore, a comparison of
different versions of the piece should reflect the nature of the transmission, indicating
extent and degree of change as well as stability during the process of transmission.

In order to understand the processes of transmission within the shakuhachi tradition,

the ontology of transmission itself must be discussed; for example, questions such as
the following must be asked: What, precisely, is transmitted? Is the nature of the
transmission of honkyoku perceived differently by different teachers and students?
How does the transmission from teacher to student, from individual to individual and
from lineage to lineage compare? What can be learned of the transmission of “Reibo”
by looking at the processes of performing the piece as opposed to studying notated
scores of the piece? These questions are taken up more fully in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.

It is also important to examine the relationship between the author of this study, the
object of this study (the processes of transmission in the shakuhachi tradition) and the
study itself. This study is both subject and object, itself a part of the process of
transmitting the shakuhachi tradition both in and outside of Japan, as well as a study
of that process. The boundaries between the observer, the observation and the
observed; and between the transmitter, the receiver and that which is being received
are not at all distinct. In writing this thesis, I am both the observer and, as a member
of the shakuhachi tradition, part of what is being observed. In writing the previous
sentence, I am observing myself observing what I am observing about a tradition of
which I am a part.

Though everyone who is a member of any tradition is also to a large degree a highly
motivated observer of that tradition, my status as “observer” has been legitimized, at
least in the world of Western academia, by having received a Bachelor of Arts degree
in music and a Master of Arts degree in ethnomusicology, both from the University of
Hawaii. The topic of my MA thesis was the performance practices of the Chikuho ryû
(Lee 1986), for the most part a very ryû-specific study.

I am also very much a part of what is being observed, the tradition as well as the
transmission processes of that tradition; I began learning to play the instrument in
Japan in 1970 and continued learning there for seven years. In 1980, I became the first
non-Japanese in any lineage or school of the shakuhachi tradition to receive the rank
of dai shihan (大師範, grand master), as a member of the Chikuho ryû (竹保流)
under the tutelage of Sakai Chikuho II (二代目酒井竹保, 1933-1992). I have been
performing the shakuhachi professionally as my primary source of income for twenty
years. From 1973 until leaving Japan in 1977, I performed the shakuhachi on stage as
the only non-Japanese member of the internationally acclaimed Japanese drum and
folk music group, “Ondekoza” (now called Kodô).

3
I taught shakuhachi through the University of Hawaii Music Department and
privately in Honolulu from 1979 until 1986. During this time, I founded a still active
shakuhachi club within the community. Since coming to Australia in 1986, to begin
postgraduate doctoral studies at the University of Sydney, I have continued teaching,
performing and recording. (My recordings are distributed worldwide on the USA
labels, Smithsonian Folkways, Lyrichord and Narada, and most recently on the
Australian labels, Tall Poppies and New World Productions). I am Australia’s only
professional shakuhachi player. Permanent residence was granted to me by the
Australian Government in 1989 on the strength of my shakuhachi activities. I am still
receiving shakuhachi instruction whenever possible, having studied periodically with
Yokoyama Katsuya (横山勝也, b.1935) since 1985. However one defines an
“insider” to a tradition (my definition is found in Chapter 1), there is a strong case for
my being considered “inside” the shakuhachi tradition, and thus part of the object of
this study.

The separation between subject and object has been, until relatively recently, one of
the main tenets of Western scientific thought. It is a major assumption behind many of
the various definitions of “positivism”, of which Halfpenny lists twelve. Examples of
these definitions are: “Positivism is a theory of knowledge according to which the
only kind of sound knowledge available to humankind is that of science grounded in
observation”; and “Positivism is a theory of history in which the motor of progress
that guarantees the emergence of superior forms of society is competition between
increasingly differentiated individuals” (Halfpenny 1982:114-115). Assumptions such
as these most likely remain deeply ingrained in the thought habits of most Westerners
(particularly scholars and academics) today, despite the anti-positivistic moves which
have occurred in many academic disciplines over the last decade. In acknowledging
that such a separation would be totally inappropriate to the present study (see next
paragraph), that it would eat at the intellectual honesty which lies at the heart of the
scholarly discipline, I realize that I am in danger of being perceived by some as
somehow flaunting the rules of academic discourse.

Upon entering the world of the shakuhachi, at least some of its more traditional
realms, one senses that the distinction between subject and object is not only
questioned, but negated. As stated above (see p.1), for at least the two centuries
leading up to the latter 19th century, honkyoku, the oldest and most venerated of all of
the genres of shakuhachi music, were played almost exclusively by mendicant priests,
who belonged to the Fuke-shû (普化宗), a sub-sect of Zen Buddhism. Even today,
though the instrument is largely secularized, many shakuhachi players perform
honkyoku not as an act of making music but as an act of suizen (吹禅, ‘blowing Zen’),
a practice which has probably existed since well before the sixteenth century (Blasdel
1984:216; Kamisangô 1974:10-11; Ueno 1984:159-162). In one sense, when playing
honkyoku one does not differentiate between the performer, the performee (the
instrument), the performed (the piece) and the performance (the music). Just as in the
more orthodox zazen (座禅; ‘seated meditation’) of Zen Buddhism, there is no real
differentiation between the act of meditation, the one who is meditating, and that
which is being meditated.

A blurring of boundaries between the transmitter and the receiver can also be seen in
the shakuhachi tradition itself. Many of the changes that have been and are still being
experienced in the shakuhachi tradition in Japan are due to strong influences, both

4
past and present, from the West. For example, the extensive use of staff notation by
shakuhachi players, the concept of performances in concert halls and the tape recorder
and other mechanical recording devices have all effected much change on the
tradition. These changes, having become a part of the shakuhachi tradition, are now
being transmitted to the West. At the same time there are also examples of features of
the modern day shakuhachi tradition which have accelerated its transmission to the
West. Further discussion of this subject can be found in Chapter 5.

It should be no surprise to anyone familiar with Japanese philosophy, either the

Chinese import of Taoism ([道教] Japanese: Dôkyô) or Zen Buddhism, that a study of
the “Zen music” of the shakuhachi seems to affirm the theories of anti-positivism. In
his discussion of Derrida’s concept of differance, Leitch (1983:42) could have well
been quoting the central Chinese figure of Taoism, Lao Tsu ([老子] Japanese: Rôshi):
“it has neither existence nor essence. It belongs to no category of being, present or
absent”; “there is no name for this, not even essence or Being...”; “Differance is
neither a word nor a concept”. One cannot help thinking that Lao Tsu as well as many
of the Zen Buddhist masters in some ways might have embraced the same spirit as
that of the anti-positivists or deconstructive critics. More will be said on this subject
in Chapter 5.

In addition to the esoteric non-differentiation of subject and object, the honkyoku

tradition shares with its wellspring of inspiration, Zen Buddhism, the importance
placed upon direct transmission from one person to another without reliance upon
writing, i.e., scriptures or notations. The subject of orality must be dealt with in depth,
as the transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku is primarily an oral one even today, at
least one hundred and fifty years after notation began to be used (Lee 1986:127;
1991:19). The honkyoku tradition exhibits characteristics common to all oral
traditions, such as formulaic repetition of embellishments, phrases and parts of
phrases. Much has been written on orality in recent years, both in regard to the spoken
word (Parry, Lord, Ong, Butler, etc.) and, specifically, to music (Treitler, The Oral
and literate in music, etc.). Theories of orality provide a framework with which to
examine honkyoku. They shed light on the formulaic construction of honkyoku.

Orality is a state of being which, according to Ong (1982:15), can be thought of as

“pristine human consciousness that was not literate”. Theories of orality enable us, at
least partially, to comprehend if not fully reconstruct that consciousness. The idea of
“pristine human consciousness” is central to Zen Buddhism; the latter is one way of
experiencing the former. Likewise, honkyoku, when performed as suizen, are
manifestations of “pristine human consciousness”. As with Zen Buddhism, they are
fundamentally oral and experiential in their transmission and context. Thus, the
subjects of transmission, orality and Zen Buddhism converge in the study of
shakuhachi honkyoku.

Though this thesis deals mainly with the processes of transmission of the honkyoku as
found in Japan, these processes are also occurring outside Japan, where the
shakuhachi is one of the most well-known among traditional Japanese musical
instruments. The popularity of shakuhachi among non-Japanese is attested to by the
fact that almost every major shakuhachi performer/teacher in Japan is teaching or has
taught non-Japanese students. A primary example of this can be found in Kyoto,
which is not only the heart of traditional Japan, but is also the location of Meianji

5
(明暗寺), one of the main temples of the komusô during the Edo period and the center
of the post-Edo honkyoku movement which has survived to this day. For at least the
past ten years, Kurahashi Yoshio (倉橋義雄, b.1949), a noted teacher based in Kyoto
and representing a conservative shakuhachi lineage, has taught substantially more
non-Japanese students than Japanese students.

There are today a number of active shakuhachi teachers who reside permanently in
Europe, North and South America and Australia. These teachers are passing their
knowledge of the instrument and its tradition directly to their students and, through
performances and recordings, to a wide non-participatory audience as well. There is
an “International Shakuhachi Society” based in England with governors living on
three continents. The “International Shakuhachi Training Center” in rural Japan
caters, to a large extent, to non-Japanese. Recently one of Japan’s largest music
publishing houses has published in English a “manual for learning” the shakuhachi. It
is written largely for prospective students of the instrument who have no access to a
teacher (Blasdel 1988).

In light of the above, and other examples too numerous to list, it is obvious that the
shakuhachi and its music is in the process of being rapidly transmitted to the West. As
with every cross-cultural transmission changes inevitably occur. This is not to imply
that the shakuhachi tradition as it exists in Japan is itself static.

As one of the above-mentioned teacher/performers of the shakuhachi living outside of

Japan, who has been actively participating in the transmission process for twenty
years, it is my hope that this thesis will not only add to the corpus of knowledge on
the shakuhachi in general and to theories of transmission, but will also contribute in at
least two ways to the ongoing process of transmitting the tradition to the West.
Firstly, merely by writing in English, knowledge of the shakuhachi tradition, which
may be common among literate Japanese shakuhachi enthusiasts but otherwise little
known, becomes more accessible to the West. Secondly, by examining the processes
of transmission as it has occurred and is continuing to occur in the shakuhachi
tradition in Japan, it becomes possible to begin to understand causes and effects in its
transmission to the West, their likely origins and their future developments.

The following is a chapter by chapter summary of the thesis:

Chapter 1 discusses the paradigm of insider/outsider, addressing the problematics

involved in utilizing such a paradigm. It also defines the concepts “insider“ and
“outsider” as they relate to the shakuhachi tradition.

Chapter 2 surveys and groups the literature on the shakuhachi which has been written
in Japanese, English and other languages, within categories determined by their
authors and readership in terms of the insider/outsider paradigm. Particular attention
is focussed on the treatment of transmission in the various sources. This chapter also
surveys ethnomusicological literature which presents common models of transmission
in the honkyoku tradition.

Chapter 3 is devoted to the history of the shakuhachi honkyoku. In contrast to many of

the published histories of the shakuhachi, eg., Die shakuhachi der Kinko-Schule
(Gutzwiller 1983), the honkyoku is viewed as transmitted within a single tradition,

6
rather than through a number of related but quite separate traditions. Within that
single tradition are a number of diverse transmission lines, ranging from single
individuals to large organizations such as the ryû.

Chapter 4 presents a history of the piece “Reibo”, giving as much detail as the
available evidence will allow. Included in this chapter is a piece-specific genealogy
chart of shakuhachi players who have featured in the “Reibo” transmission process
from the turn of the 20th century.

Chapter 5 looks at the transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku from three perspectives:

what is being transmitted; how the transmission occurs; and the ways that what is
being transmitted and how the transmission occurs affect each other. The “what” of
the transmission is addressed with discussions on the ontology of transmission, and on
the dialectical relationships between subjectivity and objectivity and between interior
and exterior. Theories of orality and how they relate to honkyoku are explored. The
relationships between documents and performance are also discussed. The “how” of
the transmission is examined though the formal elements of transmission: lineage,
lesson, notation and performance. The element of performance includes timber, pitch,
and rhythm. By examining the ideologies of a number of major figures in the tradition
with regards to the transmission of the honkyoku, the final part of this chapter
demonstrates some of the ways in which the “what” and the “how” interact.

Chapter 6 discusses issues surrounding transcriptions and analyses of classical

honkyoku and makes note of analyses found in the literature which are pertinent to the
topic of this thesis. The methods of the transcriptions and the analyses adopted in this
thesis are explained. Transcriptions are analyzed of ten performances, by players
listed in the genealogy chart in Chapter 4, of two versions or groups of the piece
“Reibo”. References are made to issues raised elsewhere in the thesis, particularly
those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

Finally, Chapter 7 presents conclusions that can be made from this study. It points out
what can and cannot be shown by the scholarly approach of this thesis and why.

The subject, object, and the objective of this thesis, then, is transmission, specifically
the transmission of honkyoku, in particular the piece “Reibo”, one of the “original
pieces” of the shakuhachi, Japan’s classical bamboo flute.

It should be noted that unless otherwise specified, in discussions of fingerings and

pitch, the pitches produced by the standard length instrument (1.8 shaku) will be used.
The pitch produced by fingering “all holes closed” is d-natural above middle c. Also,
throughout the thesis, proper names will be written in the standard order in which they
occur in their culture; Japanese family names are written before given names. Finally,
there are a number of romanization systems in use in Japan. For proper names, the
romanization favoured by the person, organization, etc., is adopted wherever known
(eg., “Syakuhati kenkyû kai” instead of “Shakuhachi kenkyû kai” and “Tukitani”
instead of “Tsukitani”). In all other cases, the Hepburn system is used.

7
 CHAPTER 1
THE INSIDER/OUTSIDER PARADIGM
1.1 Concepts and Problems with Insider/Outsider Paradigms

The dichotomy of the insider and the outsider is germane to the present study because
of the importance given it by the members of the shakuhachi tradition (see below
p.15). Concepts of insider and outsider have also influenced how that tradition has
been and is being transmitted, in ways that will be described below. Consequently, a
description of the shakuhachi tradition might best begin with a discussion of the
concept of insider/outsider.

The usefulness of the distinctions of insider and outsider in a description of the

tradition of the shakuhachi depends in part on the extent to which one can clearly
define “being a member of the shakuhachi tradition” and “not being a member of the
shakuhachi tradition”, that is, how clearly one can define ‘insider’ and the ‘outsider’
in this context. Even though differentiations between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ in the
ethnographic literature have in many cases been influenced by particular political and
cultural agendas and have in recent years come under increasing scrutiny from
ethnomusicologists and ethnologists, it is important to the present study to evolve
some kind of concept of membership to the shakuhachi tradition.

The concept of insider/outsider presents a number of problems in the context of

writing about any musical tradition or culture or people. A typical paradigm which
has been adopted by many ethnographers and ethnomusicologists until recently
consists of the ‘outside’ writer who has ‘inside’ information about a group of people
he or she is studying. Within this research paradigm, the researcher locates
him/herself in the following ways: he/she writes to a readership who has no ‘inside’
knowledge; obtains ‘inside’ knowledge from the people who are, of course, ‘insiders’
to their tradition; invests in him/herself the authority to write about the people being
studied, partly by claiming ‘outsider objectiveness’ (which the people under scrutiny,
it is assumed, do not have) and partly because of the ‘inside’ information the writer
possesses but the reader does not. The researcher/writer may even believe that his/her
knowledge gives him/her the right to a kind of authority or power over the people or
tradition that he/she is studying (see Said 1978:3,34).

What may not be acknowledged or even recognized is that the writer, the act of
researching, the act of writing about the research and the resultant writings, all operate
within a larger cultural and political context in which the writer and his or her readers
become the ‘real insiders’ to the single hierarchically superior culture (the Western
literate one), with the people being researched forever relegated to being ‘outsiders’ to
that superior culture (see Crapanzano 1986:51-76). Another problem with this type of
paradigm is that it treats the peoples, culture, or musical tradition being studied as
objects who have little interaction with the rest of the world or with the writer, who
operate outside of the context of time and change. As Clifford (1986:10, 18) has
pointed out, such peoples, cultures or traditions do not exist. The weaknesses of this
kind of writing and possible strategies in which they can be overcome, and other
related issues are discussed in Writing Cultures (Clifford and Marcus ed.:1986) and
elsewhere.

8
1.2 Insiders and Outsiders to the Shakuhachi Tradition
It remains a fact, however, that whatever the problematics of insider/outsider
definitions in wider ethnographs, the concept of the ‘insider’ versus ‘outsider’ plays a
pervasive role within the shakuhachi tradition. It is likely that the primary motivation
many shakuhachi players in Japan have in learning to play the instrument and in
continuing to be active in the tradition is the desire to identify with and be loyal to
other members of the tradition as insiders (see Nakane 1970; Dore 1958:387; Vogel
1968:147-158).

The definition of ‘insider’ held by many shakuhachi players would most likely begin
with their own ethnic group (Japanese) (cf. the beliefs of Inoue, a prominent member
of the shakuhachi tradition, pp.288-291). The opinion seemingly shared by many
Japanese, including shakuhachi players, is that in the case of the shakuhachi, and in
fact all things related to Japanese culture, a prerequisite to being an ‘insider’ is to be
born a Japanese. A non-Japanese is an ‘outsider’. Gaijin (外人) is the most commonly
used word in Japan for any non-Japanese, and is commonly translated by the English
word, foreigner. The two Chinese ideographs which make up the word gaijin literally
mean ‘outside’ and ‘person’.

The word ‘foreigner’ does not accurately convey the meaning of the word gaijin.
There can be relative degrees of ‘foreigness’; a person can be seen as more or less
foreign to one’s own group. This in turn implies a potential to become more or less
foreign in changing circumstances. In contrast, the words ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ are,
like black and white, absolute opposites allowing no degree of relativity. One is either
inside or outside. Since one is a Japanese only if born a Japanese, people who are
gaijin are by definition complete and permanent outsiders. Gaijin shakuhachi players
are likewise never ‘insiders’ to the shakuhachi tradition in the minds of many
Japanese. These absolute definitions of insider and outsider are rejected in this thesis,
and are replaced with less ethnocentric definitions presented below.

It should be stressed that there are always exceptions to the views described above,
which like all writing, can never present nor represent reality, but at best evoke it (see
Tyler 1986:122-140). There are Japanese who do not subscribe to the above
‘insider/outsider’ differentiation. Likewise, such differentiations are by no means a
uniquely Japanese trait. Many members of Western literate cultures have always seen
and continue to see themselves as the dominant world culture, politically,
economically and socially.

1.3 Definitions of Insiders and Outsiders to the Shakuhachi

Shakuhachi Tradition

For the purpose of this discussion, I will provisionally define a shakuhachi ‘insider’
by three criteria. A member of the shakuhachi tradition is one who: 1) actively
participates in the tradition and has a significant role in shaping the way the tradition

9
is transmitted, and; 2) has gained some kind of recognition of doing so within the
tradition, and finally; 3) identifies him or herself with the tradition as an ‘insider’. Of
the three criteria, the first is given the most weight; the doing is the being.

“Who actively participates” needs to be further defined. The most obvious meaning
would be one who plays the instrument. There is the problem, however, of what the
exact meaning of ‘to play’ is. One who has had several years of casual lessons on the
instrument does not ‘play’ the instrument in the same way as one who has performed
professionally for most of his 1 adult life.

On the other hand, according to the above definition, any enthusiastic beginner
shakuhachi student, Japanese or non-Japanese, could be considered an ‘insider’ by
actively and regularly practicing the instrument; by being recognized as a ‘beginner’;
and by identifying with his new activity. The idea that the beginner occupies an
important position within a tradition is not unique to the shakuhachi, being common
throughout much of Japanese traditional culture. The term ‘beginner’s mind’ (初心,
shoshin) is commonly used to describe the “innocence of the first inquiry”, a state of
mind that is, in fact, desirable to maintain, however advanced one might become
through years of practice: thus the aptly named book Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind
(Suzuki:1970).

If the only method of actively participating in the tradition is to perform the

instrument, where does this put the shakuhachi scholar? Is the beginner performer
more of an insider than a scholar who has studied in depth various aspects of the
tradition for decades but who has never actually played the instrument? Such a
scholar participates actively in the tradition, albeit in ways other than performing the
instrument. A scholar whose major areas of research include some aspect of the
instrument, by actively researching the instrument and by being recognized as a
shakuhachi scholar by insiders to the tradition, will therefore be regarded an insider in
this thesis, especially if the scholar considers him or herself to be one.

There is also the question of the non-performing ‘patron’ of the shakuhachi tradition,
who through substantial financial and other contributions greatly affects the tradition
and its transmission. Because such patronage often has a decisive role in determining
which pieces, performers and/or lineages succeed in terms of transmission from
generation to generation, certain patrons in the context of this thesis will be regarded
as insiders.

Thus, “one who actively participates” is one who is engaged in at least one of the
following three areas: 1) performing and teaching; 2) scholarship; and 3) patronage.
All three methods of active participation can lead to a significant role in shaping the
tradition. An insider to the tradition then is one who actively participates in one or

1
Attempts have been made to write this thesis in as non-sexist language as possible.
The shakuhachi tradition in Japan is, however, almost totally a male domain, due to historical
and social determinants. Even though these determinants do not operate outside Japan, in this
thesis in general, the male gender will be used.

10
more of the above methods and fits the second and third criteria of the original
definition, that is, being recognized as an insider and identifying oneself as such.

Conversely, an ‘outsider’ will be defined as one who does not actively participate in
the tradition, is not recognized as an insider by others in the tradition, and/or does not
identify with the tradition. For example, one who may have studied the instrument in
the past but stopped doing so while still a beginner, that is, before receiving any sort
of license or other recognition, would be an ‘outsider’. He would no longer be
actively participating in the tradition. Furthermore, he would have no recognition
within the tradition, and also would probably not consider himself a member of the
tradition either. He would thus fail to meet all three of the criteria.

1.3.1 Layers of Insiders Within the Shakuhachi Tradition

The above definitions outline only a single, gross differentiation between the
shakuhachi insider and the outsider. The shakuhachi tradition is not as simple as the
single ‘us/ them’ dichotomy implied by the definitions. To be more precise,
hierarchies and layers of ‘insiderness’ can be readily seen operating within the
shakuhachi tradition. For example, most shakuhachi players consider themselves to
be insiders not only to the shakuhachi tradition as a whole, but also to smaller, more
exclusive parts of that tradition, such as the ryû (流, sect or school) or a similar
organization, or an even smaller group, comprised only of students of a single teacher
(see Inoue’s ideology, pp.288-291). For the past century, most of the shakuhachi
tradition has been transmitted within the context of the ryû, at least in terms of
numbers of performers. With a primary meaning of “current, stream, flow”, the word
ryû also has the meanings of “style, fashion, type, form, manner; school, system;
class, order, rate, rank, grade” (Nelson 1974:553). The character is frequently used in
conjunction with another ideograph, ha (派, group party, clique; faction, sect, school)
to form the word ryûha (流派), translated as “school of thought; a system” (Nelson
1974:545; 553-554).

The institution of the ryûha as it exists today is relatively new in the shakuhachi
tradition, dating for the most part from the end of the 19th century. The tendency
towards forming factions or groups, however, can be seen amongst shakuhachi
players from at least the early 18th century. The Kyotaku denki kokujikai (see below,
pp.36-39) written in 1795, lists numerous ha within the Fuke shû which existed
throughout Japan. Since the beginning of the 20th century, most shakuhachi players
belong to a ryû or similar organization, the biggest by far being Tozan ryû (都山流).
Since the 1980s, there has been a trend away from the larger ryû, with a number of
independent performers gaining prominence. A number of factors have contributed to
this, such as the greater use of staff notation in place of ryû specific notation (see Lee
1988), and the trend of many performers to view their instrument no differently from
western musical instruments, that is, not belonging to any one particular ryû.
Nonetheless, even in the 1990s, one of the first questions asked when one shakuhachi
player meets another is to what ryû does one belong, usually followed by the
question, who is one’s teacher.

11
1.3.2 Location of Author within the Shakuhachi Tradition

It is necessary to locate the author of this thesis within the shakuhachi tradition in
terms of the above definitions and descriptions. That location partially determines the
validity of this thesis, and helps to answer the question, how entitled am I to write
about the shakuhachi tradition.

Trimillos has addressed the issue of entitlement and other related issues from his
unique perspective as an ethnomusicologist, a member of a minority culture
(American-born Filipino) and a non-native performer (non-Japanese koto player).
Though still an “unresolved issue”, he implies that entitlement is related to one’s
sense of cultural identity and commitment. Both, according to Trimillos, are
unavoidably stronger in a person who is born into a particular culture than in one who
has adopted that culture (Trimillos 1990:9-11).

However true the latter statement may be, differentiations between insiders and
outsiders that are determined primarily by birth implies a distinction that is too
absolute to reflect reality accurately. For example, the “individual diversity” which
Ryan finds in all Australian music groups (Ryan 1988-1989:15) certainly exists in the
shakuhachi tradition as well, the homogeneity of the Japanese notwithstanding. Few
‘insiders’ of the shakuhachi tradition are ‘inside’ to exactly the same degree, despite
the absolute distinctions implied in the words inside and outside, as discussed above.

A detailed description of the layer of ‘insiderness’ to which I belong is as follows. I

became associated with Tozan ryû when I began shakuhachi lessons in 1971 with a
teacher of that ryû, Hoshida Ichizan II (二世星田一山). I officially became a member
of that ryû after being awarded ‘beginners rank’. The position and status of my
‘insiderness’ could be categorized as being inside the shakuhachi tradition as a
member of Tozan ryû, inside Tozan ryû as a student of Hoshida and inside the ranks
of Hoshida’s students as a beginner. Being a student of Hoshida, even as a beginner,
contributed slightly to my rank as insider because Hoshida was one of the higher
ranking teachers of Tozan ryû in the Kansai district.

About eight months after beginning shakuhachi lessons, I changed teachers, having
been introduced by a fellow shakuhachi player to a teacher who taught classical or
koten honkyoku, a genre of music not in the Tozan ryû repertoire. The new teacher,
Sakai Chikuho II (二世酒井竹保), was at that time the iemoto or head of Chikuho
ryû.

By changing teachers, I also changed my position as an insider within the shakuhachi

tradition. First of all, though still an insider to the tradition as a whole, I became an
outsider to Tozan ryû. This left me no longer a member of the largest fraternity of
shakuhachi players in Japan. On the other hand, by becoming the student of the son of
the founder of Chikuho ryû and its then head, the relative level of my ‘insiderness’
within my new ryû increased compared to the level I had had within Tozan ryû. By
studying with a teacher of a lineage possessing classical honkyoku, I also became an
insider to that part of the tradition, an important consideration even in the minds of

12
many members of Tozan ryû, who are conscious of being outsiders to that most
traditional genre of music in the shakuhachi tradition.

In the early 1980s, after Chikuho II became ill and no longer taught the shakuhachi, I
began taking lessons from Yokoyama Katsuya. As with Chikuho II, Yokoyama is also
the head of a shakuhachi organization, Chikushinkai (竹心会, Spirit of Bamboo
Group). Yokoyama’s father was a relatively well-known figure in Kinko ryû which,
unlike Chikuho ryû and Tozan ryû, is not a single organization with one iemoto, but
rather is a school (as in a “school of art”) or style, delineated by a notation system and
repertoire as transmitted by Kurosawa Kinko I 2 and his students. Though not called
ryû, Chikushinkai functions as one. 3

Membership in the Chikushinkai is not given the importance of membership in Tozan

or Chikuho ryû, or even one of the bigger Kinko ryû branches such as Chikuyûsha
(竹友社). Being a student of Yokoyama or one of his students is what is stressed.
This is in part because Yokoyama’s repertoire originates from three distinct sources,
Kinko ryû through his father, Myôan honkyoku as uniquely transmitted by Watazumi
dôso and what is known as Azuma ryû (吾妻流), as espoused by Fukuda Randô
(福田蘭堂), Yokoyama’s third teacher. Yokoyama’s teaching and performing
repertoire, which also contains a high percentage of modern compositions not
affiliated with any ryû, exemplifies the ecletic nature of many of the shakuhachi
performers active from the 1970s. With Yokoyama and others a trend towards the
reduction in the numbers of layers and hierarchy of ‘insiderness’ in the shakuhachi
tradition can be observed. The layer of insider/outsider created by the ryû and a
hierarchy based on the status of oneself and one’s teacher within the context of a ryû
is being rejected by some insiders to the shakuhachi tradition for a more universal
hierarchy based in part upon musicianship as defined in western terms.

Despite the myriad of problems with the types of differentiations arising from the
dichotomy of insider/outsider, that dichotomy is relevent to the present study due to
the importance given it by the members of the shakuhachi tradition. In this study, an
ethnocentric definition of the concepts of insider/outsider as described above will be
replaced by definitions that attempt to be more universally applicable.

This chapter presented a discussion of the concepts of the insider and the outsider. It
described some of the problems which may arise with the use of these concepts,
especially in the researching and writing of ethnographic studies. The pervasiveness
and manner with which the insider/outsider dichotomy exist in Japanese culture in
general and in the shakuhachi tradition in particular were discussed. Finally,
definitions and clarification of the concepts of insider and outsider to the shakuhachi
tradition as they will be adopted for this thesis were presented. Chapter 2 surveys the

2
Kurosawa Kinko I (黒沢琴古, 1710-1771), credited with originating the Kinko style of
shakuhachi playing (see Chapter 3 p.96).
3
There is room for argument with Gutzwiller’s assertion (1983:242) that only two branches
of Kinko ryû (one of which being the branch of Gutzwiller’s teacher) perform all of the
functions of a ryû, that is “making of instruments, teaching, organization of concerts, printing
and publishing of its music, etc.” Chikushinkai does all of the above except for publishing its
own music. This last function loses its importance when the predominately oral means of
transmission employed by Yokoyama and his teacher Watazumi is considered.

13
literature of the shakuhachi tradition within four categories relating to transmission
processes, which are determined by the concepts of insider and outsider.

14
 CHAPTER 2
SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE
2. Four Types of Literature

In the previous chapter, the insider/outsider paradigm was discussed and defined in
the context of the shakuhachi tradition. Four main types of literature can be delineated
by applying the insider/outsider criteria to a discussion of the tradition, and by
examining the role of various types of writing in reference to the question of
transmission. Dividing the literature into four categories based upon the
insider/outsider criteria facilitates the discussion of their relevances to the theme of
transmission in a number of ways (see below). The four types are: 1) literature written
by insiders to the tradition for other insiders to the tradition; 2) literature written by
insiders to the tradition, but addressed to people who do not belong to the tradition; 3)
literature written by outsiders to the tradition aimed primarily at insiders to the
tradition; and 4) literature written by outsiders to the tradition for other outsiders. In
adopting the four categories I am not unaware of the problematics of defining insider
and outsider. These have been addressed in Chapter 1.

The first three categories are comprised of literature that is directly implicated in the
transmission of the shakuhachi tradition. The first type, literature written by insiders
to the tradition for other insiders to the tradition, serves primarily to define aspects of
the tradition for its members and strengthen their sense of “membership” and thus the
tradition itself. Examples of this type are musical scores written in notation specific to
the shakuhachi, some types of primary historical sources, limited edition publications
and certain kinds of scholarly publications (see pp.27-44).

The second type of literature, that written by insiders but addressed to people who do
not belong to the tradition, functions to increase the number of persons who belong to
the tradition and to improve the image held by the general public of the tradition and
its members. Literature that is directed in any way to outsider readers will be included
in this type, even if it is mostly read by insiders. Examples of the second category are
some types of books and publications, most scholarly publications, beginner manuals,
descriptive notes included in commercial recordings and concert programme notes
(see below, pp.44-55).

The third type of literature, written by outsiders but primarily aimed at a readership
who are insiders to the tradition, serves to help establish, and more importantly,
broaden the scope of the tradition as well as the sense of identity held by its members.
Examples of this category include many modern compositions for the shakuhachi and
government documents (see pp.56-58).

The fourth category, namely literature written by outsiders to the tradition for other
outsiders is the smallest of the four categories. It is nevertheless useful in the study of
the transmission of the tradition since literature of this type indicates how the tradition
is viewed by outsiders, that is, literate members of the society in which the
shakuhachi tradition exists. This type frequently offers data on the tradition not found
in literature of the other three categories. Examples of this type are certain historical
sources and some scholarly publications (see below, pp.58-59).

15
Finally, it must be understood that not all of the literature on the shakuhachi falls
strictly into a single category. Much of the literature is read by both “insiders” and
“outsiders” to the tradition. For example, many of the critical reviews written by
music critics and published in newspapers and magazines have a readership that
represents every degree of “insiderness” and “outsiderness”. In this study, the
classifications given to individual items of shakuhachi literature are generalizations
based on the readership to which the writer is primarily addressing him/herself. For an
intended readership to be considered insiders, it must consist entirely of insiders. For
example, by definition scholarly publications are intended to be read by scholars, who
may be insiders to the world of scholarship but are not insiders to the shakuhachi
tradition. Even though some scholarly publications on the shakuhachi might be read
primarily by insiders, they still belong to the second type of literature.

The following survey of shakuhachi literature, divided into the above four categories,
is not meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive list. Rather it is intended to give a
general idea of what kinds of literature exist, as well as provide from each type of
literature specific examples that are of particular interest.

2.1 First Type of Literature: Authored and Read by Insiders

Included in the first type of literature are musical scores written in shakuhachi
notation, historical written documents such as Kyotaku denki kokuji kai
(虚宅伝記国字解), limited edition publications by members of the shakuhachi
tradition, periodicals and possibly certain articles in publications. Literature whose
intended readership encompasses outsiders as well as insiders, even if the actual
readership may be almost exclusively insiders, is not included in this type.

2.1.1 Musical Scores in Shakuhachi Notation

The most common example of the first type of literature, that written by members of
the shakuhachi tradition for other members, is the musical score written in shakuhachi
notation. As will be discussed in Chapter 5 (p.210), there are numerous notation
systems for the instrument, all of which are believed to have been in common use for
no more than 200 years. The scores are written by shakuhachi players for other
shakuhachi players. Shakuhachi scores, though written for insiders by insiders,
perform a number of distinct functions within the tradition, as follows.

First of all, almost all scores of traditional shakuhachi honkyoku do not share the
prescriptive and/or descriptive functions typical of music scores used in other
Japanese music traditions, including those of other shakuhachi music genres. 4 For
the most part, shakuhachi notation systems, especially in the case of the classical
honkyoku, are very skeletal and are neither prescriptive nor descriptive (see Lee 1988,
1991). This is to be expected in a primarily oral tradition. Because of this, “authentic”
realizations of historical scores, that is, performances of the pieces that correspond to

4
Prescriptive notation instructs or dictates how the music is to be performed. Descriptive
notation records or delineates the performance of the music (see Nettl 1983:68-27).

16
performances at the time of composition, are impossible. 5 That is to say, it is highly
unlikely that a performance today of a honkyoku based upon the interpretation of a
shakuhachi score will ever reproduce performances of the piece as they were realized
at the time of their notation, regardless of how informed the interpretation might be.

Shakuhachi notation systems function primarily as memory devices that aid in the
learning and subsequent performance of the honkyoku. Both standardized published
scores and non-standard manuscripts function in this way. The major shakuhachi ryû
all use printed (and consequently standardized) scores today and have done so since
the turn of the 20th century. At the same time, there has always been, and still is, a
large part of the shakuhachi tradition in which written notation does not and never has
played an important role in the process of transmission (see below, p.231).

The most prominent examples of standardized published scores of koten honkyoku are
those of the Kinko ryû, which usually number thirty-six pieces. Of the four major
publishers of Kinko style shakuhachi music, Chikuyûsha (竹友社), Kinko
shuppansha (琴古出版社), Chikumeisha (竹盟社) and Dômonkai (童門会), only the
latter three publish honkyoku; the first publishes only gaikyoku. The largest of the four
groups, Chikuyûsha, publishes the notation of the Kawase Junsuke (川瀬順輔)
lineage. Chikuho ryû publishes scores of sixty koten honkyoku, the largest number of
any ryû, but very few shakuhachi players perform Chikuho honkyoku, compared with
the large number of Kinko performers. There are also published scores of the Myoan
taizan lineage. Of the four published scores mentioned above, Kinko scores are
generally the most detailed and consequently result in the most standardized
transmission of the pieces. Chikuho ryû scores are fairly standardized, but are much
less detailed than the Kinko scores, and retain many inconsistancies (see Lee 1991:27-
33). The Myôan taizan scores are the most skeletal in form of the three groups of
published scores. 6

In many cases, notation used in the transmission of honkyoku is not in the form of
standardized, printed scores. The student may be left by the teacher to notate the piece
for himself as he learns it. Yamaue writes of his habitual practice of notating what he
had learned of a new piece on lesson day while on the train returning home from his
lesson (Yamaue 1986:4). Figure 1 7 shows an example of Yamaue’s notation. Students
might also rely on scores which have been written out previously by other students.
This is a common occurrence amongst the students of Yokoyama, the majority of
whom rely on notation written by Furuya, one of Yokoyama’s most senior students
(see Figure 2). When Yokoyama began teaching me a new piece, he would frequently
give me a photocopy of a score written by Furuya, but would qualify its use by saying
that it contained some errors. Such imperfect scores are nonetheless sufficient to help
learn and remember the piece.

5
The concept of “authenticity” is relatively simple when applied to visual arts, for example in
determining the authenticity of a painting attributed to Monet. Problems arise when attempts
are made to define and/or realise an “authentic” performance of a piece of music. See
Taruskin (1984), Leech-Eilkinson (1984), and Temperley (1984) for a discussion of
authenticity.
6
See NOD 1989:333 for examples of six different published shakuhachi notations.
7
All figures are in Volume 2 of this thesis.

17
A number of systems of shakuhachi notation and/or scores written in shakuhachi
notation serve other completely non-musical functions. One such non-musical
function is that of certifying transmission of the piece. Once a teacher deems that a
person has learned a piece (without the use of notation) and can perform it correctly,
he will write out the score of the piece, and present it to the student. Scores in this
case function as a symbol of the accomplishemt of the transmission of the honkyoku.
The score certifies that the student now possesses the piece.

An example of this can be seen in a score for the well-known piece “Shika no tône”
(鹿の遠音, ‘Distant Call of the Deer’), written in Japanese black and red ink by Araki
Kodô II (荒木古童) in May, 1853 (Figure 3). This original score is typical of scores
of that time. It is in the collection of the San’in Shakuhachi Dôjyo (山陰尺八道場),
which belonged to the late Kowata Suigetsu (小幡水月).

The name Hirose Mochiku (廣瀬茂竹), for whom the score was written, appears at
the very left hand side, that is, the very end of the score. The name Araki Kodô II
(荒木古童) is found immediately to the right and below Mochiku’s name (Figure 3,
no.1). Mochiku was a shakuhachi player from Izumo, a student of Kondô Sôetsu
(近藤宗悦), the founder of the Kansai Sôetsu ryû (関西宗悦流), which, interestingly
was not known for honkyoku, but rather for its repertoire of gaikyoku (外曲, ensemble
pieces typically for koto, shamisen, voice and shakuhachi). This particular score was
written by Kodô II in May in the year Kaei 6 (1853) (Figure 3, no.2).

The musical notation takes up only one-half of the sheet of paper on which it is
written (Figure 3, no.3). The second half documents the transmission of the piece
from Kodô to Mochiku (Figure 3, no.4). The complete text is as follows:

出雲の茂竹ぬしこたひ此地に遊暦[歴]し
□□わが茅舎をたつね本曲をこはるゝ故に
予もまた外曲をこふとともに其曲濃
たへなるを感しこのかたの奥秘
鹿の遠音といへる曲を伝へ畢
東京尺八指南
二代目
荒木古童
嘉永六ツのとし
癸 丑五月
廣瀬茂竹雅君

Izumo no Mochiku nushi kotahi kono chi ni

yûrekishi
[tamahi] waga bôoku wo tatsune honkyoku wo
koharuru yue ni
yômo mata gaikyoku wo kofu to tomo ni sono
kyoku nô
tahenaru wo kanshi kono kata no ôhi
Shika no tône to iheru kyoku wo tsutahe yufu
Tôkyô shakuhachi shinan ni dai me

18
 Araki Kodô
Kaei mutsu no toshi
Mizunoto ushi go gatsu
Hirose Mochiku Gakun

“On this occasion, Mr. Mochiku of Izumo, making a walking tour to each
district, visited my humble abode in this district [Edo]. He asked of me [to
play] a honkyoku, and so at that point I also requested of him [to play] a
gaikyoku. I felt that the performance of that piece was superior beyond words.
And so I transmitted, to its completion, a secret piece from this side [Kinko
ryû], a piece called ‘Shika no Tône ’”.

Tôkyô Shakuhachi Instructor

Second Generation
Araki Kodô
In the Year Kaei 6 [1853]
10th Calendar Sign, Fifth Month of the Ox
Hirose Mochiku, Esquire

(translation by Lee)

The score certifies that Mochiku went to Tokyo, where he taught Kodô a gaikyoku
and, in exchange for this piece, was taught the “secret” piece “Shika no tône” by
Kodô. It is interesting that this exchange occurred despite their belonging to two
different and, in a sense competing, sects.

As noted above (p.28), an “authentic” historical reading of the score is virtually

impossible. A musical interpretation of the notation based upon careful research,
though quite problematic, is possible. The Syakuhati kenkyûkai (尺八研究会)
presented one interpretation of Kodô’s “Shika no tône” notation in 1990, at the 4th
Symposium of the International Musicological Society. 8 Kodô’s score was realized in
the following way. First of all, the piece was performed on instruments made at
around the same time as the score. Major differences between the construction of such
historical instruments and modern instruments result in major differences in sound
(see p.278), and in the manner in which the instruments are played 1991:642).
Secondly, comparisions made between the score in question and five other scores of
the piece, written between 1826 and 1929 led to conclusions as to which phrase was
performed by which of the two performers. Finally, conclusions as to which pitches
would be produced were made in light of the nature of the historical instruments, and
in consultation of old documents about fingerings, such as Shakuhachi hikki
(尺八筆記, ‘Notes on the Shakuhachi’). 9 The resultant performance was not intended
to be an “authentic” performance, but rather a musically plausible realization based
upon what information is available today on the performance practices of the time.

8
The historical interpretation of the piece made by the Syakuhati kenkyûkai was performed by
Simura Satosi and Riley Lee on 23 July 1990 at the Ôtsuki Nôgakudô (a Noh theatre in
Osaka).
9
Shakuhachi hikki was originally written by Miyaji Ikkan 宮地一閑, edited by Yamamoto
Manzu 山本萬津, and published in 1816.

19
What is important to note here is that Kodô’s score was written after Kodô had
transmitted the piece to his satisfaction to Mochiku, that is, it is a certificate of
transmission. The sheet of Japanese paper with its black and red brush strokes
materially symbolizes the ability to perform the piece, just as the written characters of
the score symbolize the various series of musical events that make up that piece.

Many honkyoku scores have a political function in that they establish or enhance the
authority of a particular teacher or lineage. Though the primary function of published
shakuhachi scores is that of a mnemonic device (see above, p.28), all published scores
also function politically by standardizing and disseminating the performance style of
the publisher at a rate and degree far exceeding non-published scores.

A specific example of the political function of honkyoku scores can be seen in the
case of Sakai Shôdô. Shôdô took over the position of head (iemoto) of Chikuho ryû
from his eldest brother, Chikuho II in 1985 in the following sudden and controversial
manner. In 1981, Chikuho II fell ill, which forced his then 88 year old father, Chikuho
I, out of retirement. Immediately after Chikuho I’s death in October 1984, Shôdô
announced that in accordance to his father’s last wishes, he had become the third
iemoto of Chikuho ryû. Chikuho II was too ill at the time to voice an opinion. A
number of senior members of the school who claimed to be present at the time,
disputed Shôdô’s interpretation of his father’s last wishes. Soon after Shôdô became
iemoto, most of the former students of Chikuho I and Chikuho II, that is, nearly all of
the senior members of the school, either quit or were expelled. A majority of these
members regrouped in 1986 to form a new school of shakuhachi, called Myôan
Shakuhachi Dôyûkai (明暗尺八道友会, ‘Organization of Friends of the Way of the
Myôan Shakuhachi’) (Lee 1986:82-85). 10

Shôdô prefers to use the scores written by one of his teachers, Jin Nyodô (who did not
belong to Chikuho ryû) when performing and teaching honkyoku, even when there are
scores of the same pieces written in the notation system of his own school, Chikuho
ryû. The scores in Chikuho notation, which are published by Chikuho ryû were,
however, written by Chikuho II. Shôdô questions the authenticity of these scores and
asserts that they reflect to an unacceptable degree the editorial and artistic
idiosyncrasies of Chikuho II, who wrote them while he was iemoto. According to
Shôdô, because they do not adequately represent the pieces as originally taught by Jin,
he was forced to make the rather drastic decision of using Jin’s notation instead of the
published scores of his own school.

Simura has suggested that Shôdô’s decision may have been more politically than
artistically motivated. If Shôdô’s performances of honkyoku become recognized as
being authentic, while his predecessor’s versions are thought of as impure
transmissions, his authority as iemoto will increase (Simura OC1989). As described
elsewhere (Lee 1986:82-86), many members of the school felt that at the time of his
becoming iemoto, Shôdô lacked authority. Figure 4 compares part of a Chikuho score
with the corresponding Jin notation used by Shôdô.

There are a few exceptional honkyoku scores which are intended to function as
prescriptive learning devices. These scores are usually handwritten transnotations of

10
See Lee 1986:82-85 for a complete description of this event.

20
scores of pieces not found in the repertoire of the writer’s lineage. Such scores are
written in a notation system different from that of the scribe, and are used in an
attempt to learn a honkyoku without being taught by a teacher. Since the advent of the
cassette tape, this type of score is usually used in tandem with one or more recordings
of the piece as performed by one or more members of the lineage from which the
piece originated.

Frequently, scores on which the transnotations are based are standardized versions
printed and published by a ryû, themselves most likely derived from earlier
handwritten scores. The printed notations are converted once again in manuscript
form but in a different notation system. In the case of Tozan ryû, such manuscripts
have frequently gone the full circle of standardization by being published (privately)
in a Tozan transnotation format. The demand for such transnotations is high due to the
complete lack of classical honkyoku in the Tozan ryû repertoire. For comparison,
Figure 5 presents the same part of two published scores of the honkyoku “Kyûshû
reibo”, in the original Myôan notation system, and then as transnotated into the Tozan
notation system. The process described above is one way in which numerous
variations and changes occur in honkyoku scores.

It is not unusual to find the existence of numerous and inconsistent manuscript scores
for a single koten honkyoku. The scores typically vary in content, notation system,
function and date of creation. Manuscript scores of koten honkyoku are not limited to
historical documents. They continue to be written and used today, and contribute to
the variation and change that has always occurred in much of the honkyoku repertoire.
An example of this is the case of the piece “Reibo”, upon which this thesis focuses
(see Chapter 4).

Recently, a number of collections of honkyoku scores have been published in book

form by shakuhachi enthusiasts or organizations. These collections feature facsimiles
of hand written scores of pieces either of a single lineage (for example, the collected
scores of the Kimpû ryû honkyoku) (Uchiyama 1989), or of one individual (for
example, that of Yamaue Getsuzan) (1982). Included in some of these collections are
personal histories, anecdotes, photo charts, genealogy charts and in at least one case
(Uchiyama 1989), fairly detailed explanations of the scores. The form that these
explanations take is explored in Chapter 5.

2.1.2 Other Written Historical Documents, Including the Kyotaku denki kokuji
kai

Music scores in shakuhachi-specific notation are by no means the only written

sources of the first type of literature, that is, sources written for insiders by insiders.
Kyotaku denki kokujikai (虚鐸伝記国字解, ‘The Legend of the Empty Bell
Translated and Interpreted in Japanese’), written in 1795 by Yamamoto Morihide
(山本守秀), is a document of primary importance to the shakuhachi tradition and is
one of the earliest examples of this kind of literature. This book contains what is
claimed to be a copy of a 13th century Chinese book entitled Kyotaku Denki
(虚鐸伝記, ‘The Legend of the Empty Bell’), and an annotated translation into
Japanese. It describes the origins of the shakuhachi tradition and its founding and

21
patron saints. 11 Though its description of the genesis of the tradition has been proved
fictitious rather than fact by Nakatsuka Chikusen (中塚竹禅 1887-1944) (1979), it is
the single most influential work in the literature in defining the identity of almost all
shakuhachi honkyoku players.

The document is divided into two sections. The first section, written in kanbun (漢文,
Chinese script), describes the beginnings of a shakuhachi-playing Zen Buddhist sect
in China in the 9th century and the subsequent introduction of the shakuhachi into
Japan three centuries later by the historical figure Kakushin Hattô Zenji
(覚心法燈禅師, also known by the honourary title Hattô or Hottô Enmyô Kokushi
法灯円明国師). Hottô founded the temple Saihôji 西方寺 (present day Kôkokuji
興国寺 in Kyôto) in 1254, which still houses numerous documents and writings by or
about him.

The second section, written in 18th century Japanese, is a commentary on the first
section of the document. It briefly describes the history of the Fuke sect (the Edo-
period Zen Buddhist sect which had shakuhachi as the focal point of its spiritual
practices) in Japan and the state of its affairs at the time of writing. Nakatsuka, a
student of Kawase Junsuke I (川瀬順助) and thus a member of a major branch of
Kinko ryû, sought to find a factual basis for the legend of the origins of the
shakuhachi and the Fuke sect as presented in Kyotaku denki kokuji kai.

After an exhaustive search through Hottô Zenji’s writings, which did not turn up a
single mention of the shakuhachi or the Fuke sect, Nakatsuka began to question other
parts of Kyotaku denki. Further research by Nakatsuka led him to conclude that there
was no factual basis for the first section of the document. Nakatsuka was said to have
died before completing his research. But in 1989, a cache of his writings which had
not been previously published was found. These writings were presented to the son of
Nakatsuka’s shakuhachi teacher, Kawase Junsuke II, who has in turn allowed the
ethnomusicologist Kamisangô to examine them (Kamisangô 1988:40-43)). The
contents of these papers have not yet been made public.

In addition to presenting a legendary account of the origins of the honkyoku tradition,

Kyotaku denki kokuji kai also includes lists of temples of komusô 12 in existence at the
time it was written, and commentaries on various pieces performed by the komusô of
the day. It is thus a valuable primary source not only for its presentation of what is
now believed to be the legend of the origins of the honkyoku tradition, but also for the
insight it gives into the world of the komusô during the mid-Edo period.

11
Briefly, the legend describes how the death of Fuke (普化, Chinese: Ouhua), a Chinese Zen
priest of the 9th century, inspired his disciple, Chôhaku (張伯, Chinese: Zhâng Bô) to fashion
the first shakuhachi and perform the first honkyoku, thus creating a new shakuhachi playing
Zen Buddhist sect, and how this sect was brought to and established in Japan.

12
Komusô (虚無僧, ‘priests of nothingness’) were shakuhachi playing Zen Buddhist priests
who were active throughout Japan during the Edo period (1600-1868) and briefly beyond
until the Fuke sect was abolished in 1871. See Chapter 3 (p.103).

22
Another document similar to Kyotaku denki kokujikai is Keichô no okitegaki (慶長掟,
‘Written Decree of the Keichô Era’) (see p.115). This document sets out the purposes
and privileges of the newly formed Fuke sect and, like Kyotaku denki, is of great
historical significance. As with Kyotaku denki, the original does not exist, and in all
likelihood, there never was an “original” (Kurihara 1918:144-151). False claims were
also made as to its date of composition (1612) and its author (the shogun Tokugawa
Ieyasu). This document will be discussed more fully in Chapter 3 (pp.115-122)

The unreliability of documents such as Kyotaku denki kokujikai as historical sources,

and the origin legends on which they are based can be seen not only in the case of the
shakuhachi, but in other Japanese music traditions as well. Three examples of
traditions with similar written sources containing myth origins are found within the
guilds of blind musicians, tôdô-za (当道座), goze (瞽女) and môsô biwa (盲僧琵琶)
(Fritch 1991:147-152). As Fritch has pointed out, despite their unreliability in
documenting historical events, these types of sources have functioned well as a
method by which the members of the music traditions bolster their sense of self-
confidence. They also served to lessen the adverse effects of a society at large that
was frequently hostile to or exploitative of the guilds. Forgeries like Keichô no
okitegaki and Kyotaku denki are not limited only to Japanese music traditions, but
occurred throughout Japanese society. Examples of forgeries in other areas of
Japanese society, such as commerce, are described in the aptly named article,
“Forging the Past; Medieval Counterfeit Documents” (Tonomura 1985:69-96).

Representative of other historical sources that belong to the first type of literature, and
perhaps the most symbolically significant of such documents, are the three documents
or “seals” of the Sangu san’in (三具三印, ‘Three tools, three seals’). Sangu
san’in were presented to a person who had officially attained komusô status (see
Chapter 3, p.122). The most important of the “three seals” is the Honsoku juyo
(本則授与, ‘Conferment of the Original Rules’), which states the tenets of the Fuke
sect and certifies that the bearer is officially a komusô. The other two documents or
seals of the komusô are the kaiin (会印, an identity card, renewable every six months)
and the tsûin (通印, a pass). The latter allowed the bearer to travel freely throughout
the country. This privilege, first stated in Keichô no okitegaki (see above), was unique
in what was then a country with severe travel restrictions (see Sanson 1931:448 and
1963:105). In general, travel was discouraged both by the lords of individual fiefs as
well as by the Shogunate in Edo. The travel restrictions applied to all strata of society.

This type of literature also includes the many directives issued to the rank and file
komusô by the three head temples of the Fuke sect (Ichigetsuji 一月寺; Reihôji
鈴法寺; and Myôanji 明暗寺). In 1694 the Fuke temple in Kyôto, Myôanji, issued
the document Honsoku deshi e moshi watasu sadame (本則弟子へ申渡定,
‘Declaration of Rules for Disciples’). Around the same time, Myôanji also issued the
document Kakun sanjûsanka jô (家訓三十三ケ条, ‘Thirty-Three Rules of the
House’). According to Kamisangô (1974:18), these documents indirectly indicate that
as early as the late 17th century, the Fuke sect acknowledged the fact that shakuhachi
were performed by commoners. They also indicated that the professed spiritual
intentions of the members of the Fuke sect sometimes differed from their real, more
musical intentions (see Chapter 3, p.142). Other such documents issued by the
administration of the Fuke sect to its members can be found in such sources as the

23
Komusô shiryô shûhôzan kôkokuji myôanji kankei bunshû
(虚無僧史料驚峰山興国寺明暗寺関係文集, ‘Komusô Historical Documents;
collected works concerning the Myôan temple of the Shûhôzan Kôkoku temple’) 13
(Iwai 1983) and Nakatsuka’s Kinko Shakuhachi Shikan (1979).

The above discussion covers the most important historical written sources that were
authored by insiders to the shakuhachi tradition for a readership of insiders.

2.1.3 Limited Edition Publications

A number of books on the shakuhachi could be included in either the first or third
type of literature. Though possibly written for both members and non-members of the
tradition, in practice most of these books are published in limited editions and are of
interest primarily to a select group of shakuhachi “insiders”. They usually include,
moreover, jargon and technical descriptions exclusive to the shakuhachi tradition, as
well as descriptions of pieces and people which assume insider knowledge on the part
of the reader. These books will therefore be treated as belonging to the first type of
literature, written by and for insiders.

Examples of these books are the biography of Tani Kyôchiku (Inagaki 1985);
普化宗史、その尺八奏法の楽理 (Fukeshûshi, sono shakuhachi sôhô no gakuri, ‘A
History of the Fuke Sect; Theories of the Playing Methods of the Shakuhachi’,
Takahashi 1979); and a book on the Myoan shakuhachi (Tominomori 1979). Other
books and sources of this nature have been written by Inagaki (1976);
Inagaki/Izui/Takahashi(1981); Izui/Takahashi (1984); Takahashi (1971); Toya
(1984); Ishibashi/ Kanda (1981); Tomimori (1975, 1979, n.d.); and Uchiyama (1989).

Much of this type of literature is anecdotal or is based on the personal opinion of the
author or the official line of a particular school or lineage and/or on popular legends.
One of the primary roles of these books is to attempt to define the tradition. Written
primarily by members of the shakuhachi tradition, they sometimes show the
preconceptions of the authors, i.e., that a particular lineage, school or teacher is, for
certain historical reasons, superior or inferior to others. Examples of this are found in
books about Uramoto Setcho (浦本浙潮) (Inagaki, ed. 1985) and Takahashi Kûzan
(高橋空山) (1979). The shakuhachi player Konashi Kinsui (小梨錦水) is credited by
Uramoto with a highly authoritative lineage, while Takahashi, who represents a
different lineage, asserts that Konashi has little if any authority at all. A detailed
discussion of this is presented in Chapter 4 (pp.185-187).

Sources of this type may be of limited use as historical sources, due to the strong
personal bias of the author. On the other hand, personal bias can also be viewed as a
strength insofar as it provides insiders’ views of the tradition. Furthermore, these
sources are frequently the only information on certain aspects of the tradition.
Documents of this type are, for example, the main sources for the shakuhachi
tradition between the Meiji era and the 1960s.

13
These exist as facsimiles of a series of ten volumes.

24
2.1.4 Non-scholarly Periodicals and Articles

Other examples of the first type of literature are periodicals published solely for
members of the shakuhachi tradition. These include Ichi on jo butsu (一音成仏, ‘One
Sound, Buddhahood’), published by 虚無僧研究会 (Komusô kenkyû kai, ‘Komusô
Research Organization’) since 1981 and ten issues of Shakuhachi hyôron (尺八評 論,
‘Shakuhachi Review’), published biannually by 尺八評論同人会 (Shakuhachi
hyôron dôjin kai, ‘Fraternity of Shakuhachi Reviewers’) from 1982 until 1990.

Newsletters of individual ryû are also regularly published. For example, a newsletter
for members of Chikuho ryû, Chikuho ryû shakuhachi gaku hô (竹保流尺八楽報,
‘Report on the Shakuhachi Music of Chikuho Ryû’) was published from 1929 until at
least 1985, with a total of 103 issues. Chikushinkai (竹心会, ‘Soul of the Bamboo
Organization’), the organization of Yokoyama’s students, has periodically published a
newsletter since 1986. The newsletter, originally of the same name as the
organization, was changed in 1988 to Chikuin (竹韻, ‘Bamboo Poetry’). The many
such publications of this type are usually distributed only to members of the
organizations which publish them.

There are also a few examples of periodicals in English by and for shakuhachi
players. The most prominent of these are Take no Michi (竹の道, ‘The Way of
Bamboo’, 1979-1981), the “British Shakuhachi Society Newsletter” (1983-1984), the
“International Shakuhachi Society Annals” (1990) and “Chikuho Ryû, Hawaii
Newsletter” (Lee, ed.1981-1986; Herr, ed. 1986-1992), the most long-lived of these
publications.

A number of periodicals publish articles written by members of the shakuhachi

tradition for a readership of shakuhachi players which also contain articles about
other instruments. Articles in these periodicals generally are written for outsiders as
well as insiders to the shakuhachi tradition. Even the articles which seem to be written
specifically for shakuhachi players, such as discussions of playing techniques or
interpretations of pieces for the shakuhachi, are actually written for both insiders and
outsiders, insofar as these articles are written for a readership which includes firstly
the editor of the periodical, usually an outsider to the shakuhachi tradition, and
secondly readers of the periodicals which are also not members of the shakuhachi
tradition. Such periodicals will be classified as literature of the second type, and will
be discussed in detail below.

One of the earliest examples of this type of periodical is Sankyoku (三曲, literally,
‘Pieces for Three’, the term for the popular chamber music genre composed for the
shamisen, koto, shakuhachi and voice), published between 1921 and 1944. The
periodicals Nihon ongaku (日本音楽, ‘Japanese Music’), Kikan hôgaku (季刊邦楽,
‘Traditional Japanese Music Quarterl’) and Hôgaku (邦楽, ‘Traditional Japanese
Music’) are other examples of this type of literature.

25
2.2 Second Literature Type: Authored by Insiders for Outsiders

The second type of literature, authored by insiders to the shakuhachi tradition for a
readership which includes outsiders, is the largest of the four types. This type of
literature plays an especially important role in the transmission of the tradition,
particularly as a means of creating and/or projecting a sense of identity and for
attracting adherents to the tradition. The tradition thus in part defines itself by
describing itself to the outside. Literature belonging to the second type of literature
includes historical documents, books and other publications, scholarly publications,
articles in periodicals, beginner manuals, descriptive notes included in commercially
released recordings and concert program notes.

2.2.1 Historical Documents

A number of Edo period documents were written by the adminstrators of Ichigetsuji

and Reihôji, the head temples of the Fuke sect, and were addressed to the Edo
government. As such they belong to this type of literature. They were frequently
answers to official queries from the government (see pp.57-58), or petitions to the
government. For example, in one such petition, Ichigetsuji protested the arrest of one
of its member komusô named Yûga (友鵞). The petition resulted in the famous
Sengoku sôdô (仙石騒動, ‘Sengoku Disturbance’) trial, in which the special legal
status of the komusô was upheld. The person responsible for the arrest was beheaded.
(Mikami 1902:63-66).

2.2.2 Books and Other Publications

An early example of published books of this type is Kurihara Kôta’s (栗原広太)

Shakuhachi shikô (尺八史考, ‘An Historical Consideration of the Shakuhachi’). This
book, originally published in 1918, is the first comprehensive history of the
instrument. Based upon meticulous research and quoting from extensive historical
primary sources, Shakuhachi shikô was reprinted in 1975. A more recent example of
literature of this type is Shakuhachi no rekishi (尺八の歴史, ‘A History of the
Shakuhachi’) by Ueno Katami (上野堅實) written in 1983. Although both books are
widely read by insiders to the shakuhachi tradition, they present the history of the
shakuhachi in terms that can be understood by the outsider.

Possibly the first book by a shakuhachi player about the shakuhachi that was written
especially for the general public and published by a major publishing house is
Shakuhachi gaku no miryoku (尺八楽の魅力, ‘The Fascination of Shakuhachi
Music’), written by Yokoyama Katsuya (横山勝也) 14 in 1986. Writing largely about
his own experiences as a professional shakuhachi performer, Yokoyama wrote this
book partly as a result of the popularity of a number of magazine and newspaper

14
Yokoyama will feature prominantly in this study as one of the leading
performer/transmitters of two of the three main lineages of the piece “Reibo”.

26
articles that he had written, including a series entitled Take no oto kara (竹の音から,
‘From the Sound of Bamboo’), which was published from at least 1988 until 1990, in
the Nihon keizai shinbun (日本経済新聞, ‘Japan Financial Newspaper’), one of
Japan’s major newspapers (Yokoyama 1988-1990). These and other articles, together
with the book Shakuhachi gaku no miryoku, probably makes Yokoyama the most
widely published insider writing about the shakuhachi.

Mention should be made here of the two books by Nishiyama (1982a, 1982b).
Though the books are about the iemoto or the Japanese music guild system in general,
both contain sections specifically about the shakuhachi tradition as it relates to the
iemoto system.

2.2.3 Scholarly Publications

In this thesis, all scholarly publications are considered as being written for outsiders
to the tradition. By definition, scholarly writing is addressed to other scholars, who
are insiders to their particular field, in this case musicology, but who are, for the most
part, not insiders to the shakuhachi tradition. Certain authors of scholarly articles,
theses and other publications written in Japanese might, however, be considered
insiders to the shakuhachi tradition; since these scholars are particularly prolific in
their publications on the shakuhachi tradition, they are considered by both members
of the shakuhachi tradition and themselves to be “insiders” whose activities have had
a significant role in the tradition. The most prolific of these authors are Tukitani and
Kamisangô. On the other hand, until recently, scholarly articles and publications
written in English were less likely to be of this type because of the author’s lack of
active participation and recognition within the shakuhachi tradition.

Although early examples of scholarly publications written in Japanese about the

shakuhachi do exist, for example, Mikami’s article on the Fuke sect (1902), it was in
fact not until the late 1960s that the shakuhachi was deemed a worthy subject of
research by Japan’s community of musicologists. Moreover, musicology in general
(including the study of European art music) has only recently become an acceptable
area of study in Japan. As of 1990, Osaka University was the only major university
(in contrast to universities of fine arts or music colleges, the Japanese equivalents of
music conservatories) in Japan that had a chair or professorship in musicology. All
other universities which offer courses on musicology rely on the expertise of visiting
or part-time teachers, who are frequently from nearby fine arts universities or music
conservatories.

With musicology being relegated to a comparatively low level of importance in

Japanese universities, the study of Japanese music, or hôgaku (邦楽), has been
afforded an even lower status, and is considered merely a specialized area within the
domain of ethnomusicology, which in itself is a sub-branch of musicology.
Furthermore, with certain exceptions such as Kamisangô and Tukitani, very few
hôgaku specialists have concentrated upon the study of the shakuhachi. Indicative of
the low regard most Japanese scholars have had for the shakuhachi is the contents of
the book Nihon ongaku no rekishi (日本音楽の歴史, ‘The History of Japanese

27
Music’) (Kikkawa 1965). In this five hundred and twelve page volume, only one short
(six page) section is devoted to the hitoyogiri (一節切, an obsolete type of
shakuhachi), and less than ten brief references (each little more than a sentence or
two) are devoted to all aspects of the shakuhachi. In contrast, numerous sections in
many of the chronologically divided chapters are devoted to the koto and the
shamisen.

Another indication of the quantity of shakuhachi research being undertaken in Japan

is the Ongakubunken yoshi mokuroku (音楽文献要旨目録, ‘Annotated Bibliography
of Music Literature in Japan’, published by the RILM National Committee of Japan).
Between the years 1975 and 1989, (excluding 1977 and 1979), twelve volumes of the
bibliography totaling 766 pages were published. Of these, 203 pages are devoted to
Japanese music, which is divided into sixteen categories. The shakuhachi shares a
category with sôkyoku (箏曲), jiuta (地歌), kingaku (琴楽) and minshingaku
(明清楽). A total of 1,860 publications are listed under the sixteen Japanese music
categories in the twelve volumes. Only 49 listings pertain to the shakuhachi.

The most prolific authors of scholarly publications on the shakuhachi as found in the
Ongakubunken yo-shi mokuroku from 1976 until 1989 are Tukitani, Kamisangô and
Iwata. For a more complete listing, please refer to the bibliography of this thesis.
Among the authors of the shakuhachi listings in this important musicology
bibliography are entries written by performers (e.g., Kawase and Kitahara), amateur
shakuhachi enthusiasts or collectors such as Inagaki, graduate students (e.g., Tatsumi
and Yukino) and scholars, such as Kikkawa, who are not insiders to the shakuhachi
tradition as defined in this study.

There are in fact only a few Japanese ethnomusicologists whose specialty is the
shakuhachi. As mentioned above, the two most frequently cited names are Tukitani
Tuneko and Kamisangô Yûkô. Of these, Tukitani is by far more prolific. Since
writing her M.A. thesis on the shakuhachi, Tukitani has written nearly twenty articles.
English translations of articles by her are to be published in the British journal
“Contemporary Music Review” (Tukitani et al., 1991). Furthermore, unlike most
shakuhachi scholars, Tukitani has dealt with the shakuhachi tradition as a whole
rather than concentrating on a single lineage, music genre, or other aspect of the
tradition.

Some of the scholarly articles and theses on the shakuhachi written in languages other
than Japanese are also examples of this type of literature. Most authors of non-
Japanese literature on the shakuhachi written before the mid-1970s (e.g., Malm 1959,
Harich-Schneider 1973) were not insiders to the tradition. Not surprisingly, these
sources contain numerous errors.

It is appropriate to elaborate on examples of these errors here because of the singular

place both Malm’s and Harich-Schneider’s books have in both public and reference
libraries throughout the English speaking world, as the sole general resources
attempting to cover all of Japanese music and all of the history of Japanese music
respectively. Malm’s book in particular is usually the initial and frequently the only
source referred to by a beginning student of any genre of Japanese music.

28
An example of such errors which occur in writing about the shakuhachi is a chart for
notation symbols belonging to, according to Malm, “the three major schools”, which
he lists as Meian (明暗) [also read Myôan], Kinko and Tozan (Malm 1959:270-271).
In fact, these are names for three completely different entities. The first, Meian, a
term given a variety of meanings, usually refers to the style of honkyoku performance
more closely associated with the Kyôto and other “country” districts than with the
Edo district. The second term, Kinko, denotes a number of “schools” which are
completely separate organizations but partly share a common lineage back to a single
founder. Only the third, Tozan, correctly identifies a single “school” in terms of a
hierarchical organization.

There is an organization which is known as the Meian Taizan “school”, which is

classified under the broader Meian style mentioned above. Malm confuses the issue,
however, by giving as the notation system for the Meian school an old notation
system (the fu-ho-u system) used today (and in the 1950s) by only a few individuals
and groups within the Meian style. 15 The Meian Taizan lineage uses a system similar
to that of the Tozan ryû. The final complication occurs where Malm incorrectly gives
the Meian symbol for the second finger hole position as ロ (ro) rather than ホ (ho).
The conspicuousness of this error is made apparent with the name of this notation
system, called the fu, ho, u system after the symbols for the first three finger holes.
Another similarly transparent, though less serious error is the reference to the book,
Gosenfu kara shakuhachifu no torikata (五線譜から尺八譜のとり方) (Tanaka Inzan
1956). Malm states that the book “explains how to transcribe shakuhachi notation into
Western script” (1959:284), yet the title of the book clearly translates as: ‘A Method
of Obtaining Shakuhachi Notation from Staff Notation’, not the other way around. 16

Other authors, including those writing after the mid-1970s (e.g., Berger 1969, Keeling
1975, Kudo 1977, Stanfield 1977, Tsuge [1977, 1982, 1983], Weisgarber 1968),
participated in the shakuhachi tradition only temporarily and could be considered
insiders only during their brief period of participation.

Articles in English which belong to this type of literature, insofar as the authors are
insiders to the tradition, have been written by Blasdel (1981, 1984a, 1984b, 1988),
Fritch (1978, 1979, 1983), Gutzwiller (1974, 1983, 1984, 1991), Lee (1974, 1976,
1980, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992) and Howard (1991, 1992a, 1992b). English
translations of articles on the shakuhachi in general and the honkyoku in particular,
written in Japanese by Tukitani, Simura and Seyama (Tukitani, et al., ed. 1991), are
soon to be published in the well-known British periodical, Contemporary Music
Review. A major monograph written in German was published in 1983 (Gutzwiller
1983).

Two authors recently writing in English are Howard (1991, 1992a, 1992b) and
Takahashi (1990). Howard makes use of his experience as a Zen Buddhist practitioner
in articles about the connection between the honkyoku tradition and Zen. Takahashi,
in his Ph.D. dissertation, presents major contributions to the literature available in
English on the shakuhachi, particularly its history. Though his primary interest is in

15
The only “schools” to use this notation system today are the numerically tiny
Chikuho ryû and its even smaller offshoots.
16
See pp.320-321 for a critique of Malm’s transcription and analysis of a honkyoku.

29
the Tozan ryû (which has no classical honkyoku in its repertoire), Takahashi does
discuss and analyze a few honkyoku.

Finally, mention should be made of the numerous entries on shakuhachi in the two
major reference works in Japanese on traditional Japanese music, Hôgaku hyakka
jiten (邦楽百科辞典, ‘Encyclopedia of Traditional Japanese Music’, Kikkawa, ed.
1984) and Nihon ongaku daijiten (日本音楽大辞典, ‘Japanese Music Dictionary’,
Hirano, et al., ed. 1989). Written primarily by Tukitani and Kamisangô, they therefore
may be categorized as literature written by insiders for an outsider readership. Similar
such entries can be found in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
(v.9:532-534) and the New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments (v.3:357-360),
though it could be argued that the authors, Berger and Hughes, are not insiders to the
shakuhachi tradition as defined by this thesis.

2.2.4 Non-scholarly Periodicals and Articles

As discussed above (see p.43), a number of periodicals about traditional Japanese

music contain articles about the shakuhachi not written by musicologists. Though
some appear to be written by shakuhachi players solely for other shakuhachi players,
most of them are directed to a readership that includes outsiders such as koto and
shamisen players as well. The names of these periodicals clearly suggest a readership
beyond that of insiders to the shakuhachi tradition. Articles about the shakuhachi in
these periodicals will therefore be included in the second category of literature.

A major source of this type of shakuhachi literature was a periodical entitled

Sankyoku (三曲, literally ‘Pieces for Three’). Sankyoku was published monthly from
1921 until 1944 by Fujita Reirô (藤田鈴朗). All forty-four issues were reprinted in
1976. As its name suggests, this publication concerned itself primarily, though not
exclusively, with the ensemble music of the three instruments, koto, shamisen and
shakuhachi and included articles on the activities of individuals and organizations,
announcements and reviews of concerts and occasional scholarly articles. Outstanding
among the contents of Sankyoku were the above mentioned (see p.44) series of
articles by Nakatsuka (1936, 1939; reprinted in Hirano et al., 1979) which first
presented his findings and theories on the Kyotaku Denki.

From 1944 until 1973, the periodical Nihon ongaku (日本音楽, Japanese Music) was
published. The series was reprinted in 1983. Kikan hôgaku (季刊邦楽, ‘Traditional
Japanese Music Quarterly’) is an important journal for traditional Japanese music,
published quarterly since 1974, that regularly includes scholarly articles, interviews
and essays on the shakuhachi. Volumes 5 (1975) and 10 (1977) were devoted entirely
to the shakuhachi.

A monthly magazine entitled Hôgaku (邦楽, ‘Traditional Japanese Music’) that is

very similar in content to the old Sankyoku has been published in Japan since 1987.
Its focus, which includes all of the traditional Japanese music traditions, and potential
readership is, however, greater than that of Sankyoku. Less scholarly than Kikan

30
hôgaku, Hôgaku regularly publishes articles specifically targeted at shakuhachi
players, for example, detailed discussions of performance techniques.

Six issues of a periodical in English, also entitled Hogaku (邦楽), were published
between 1983 and 1989 by a small group in New York City called “The Traditional
Japanese Music Society”. Most issues contained at least one article about some aspect
of the shakuhachi tradition. Many of the articles in the English language Hogaku are
scholarly in style.

An extensive catalogue for shakuhachi instruments, accessories, sheet music,

recordings and books has been published and widely distributed by Monty Levenson
in Willits, California since the mid-1970s. Included in recent editions of the catalogue
is one of the most extensive lists of shakuhachi teachers operating outside of Japan 17.
Levenson’s catalogue and his shakuhachi instruments are notable particularly in terms
of transmission of the shakuhachi tradition to the West.

2.2.5 Beginner Manuals

Insofar as they are addressed to people who have no knowledge of the tradition,
beginner manuals, of which there are many, could also be considered to belong to the
second type of literature. Although it is debatable at what point a beginner becomes
an insider, it is safe to say that beginner manuals are written by those who believe
themselves to belong to the tradition, for readers who are not yet “insiders” but have
the potential of becoming so.

There are numerous beginner manuals for the shakuhachi that are frequently called
tebiki (手引, literally ‘hand pulling’). Every shakuhachi ryû publishes a beginner
manual, such as the Chikuho ryû no tebiki (竹保流の手引, ‘Chikuho Ryû Beginner
Manual’) (Chikuho ryû:1971). Such manuals are usually intended to be used by the
beginning student when he first begins lessons with a teacher of a particular ryû. In
addition, individual shakuhachi players also publish beginner manuals which, in
contrast to the manuals published by the ryû, are usually intended to be used by those
who do not want or do not have access to a teacher, as “teach yourself” material. One
such manual, appropriately entitled “Easy Shakuhachi Primer” (やさしい尺八入門,
Yasashii shakuhachi nyûmon) (Ishitaka 1977), attempts to instruct the beginner on the
basics of shakuhachi playing using cartoons. Some manuals are geared specifically
for enthusiasts of a particular genre of music, for example, min’yô (民謡, Japanese
folk songs) or enka (演歌, popular love songs).

Since the mid-1970s, at least six publications for the beginning shakuhachi student
who does not have ready access to a teacher have been published in English (Abbot
1980; Blasdel 1988; Deaver 1976; Grous 1978; Koga 1978; Neptune 1978; Taniguchi
1983). The most recent of these, The Shakuhachi: A Manual for Learning (Blasdel
1988) is the first to be published and distributed by a major publishing house. One
half of the book is devoted to an English translation of a major scholarly article in
Japanese (Kamisangô 1974) on the history of the shakuhachi. Because of these two

17
The 1993 catalogue listed 33 teachers.

31
factors, it became the first English language beginner’s manual to be reviewed in the
journal “Ethnomusicology” (Lee 1990:179-181).

2.2.6 Descriptive Notes Included in Commercial Recordings

Written with the insider in mind but read primarily by the outsider, LP, CD and
cassette jacket notes are important sources of data on the shakuhachi tradition. In
Japan there is a tradition of releasing double or triple albums of shakuhachi and other
traditional Japanese music with extensive notes on the lineage/performer/history of
the pieces in the recordings as well as on the shakuhachi tradition in general,
frequently in the form of scholarly articles commissioned from noted
ethnomusicologists or high ranking members of the tradition. Genealogies of and
interviews with the performer(s), scores of the pieces in traditional shakuhachi
notation and transcriptions of performances in staff notation are also commonly
included. These notes are sometimes considered more valuable than the recordings
themselves, the latter being purchased as much for the notes as for the performances.

Notable examples of recordings of classical shakuhachi honkyoku which include

extensive written material are 尺八、神如道 (Shakuhachi, Jin Nyodô) (Jin 1980);
Suizen: Chikuho ryû ni miru fuke shakuhachi no keifu (吹禅：竹保流にみる
普化尺八の系譜, ‘Blowing Zen: The Fuke Shakuhachi Lineage According to
Chikuho Ryû’, Sakai 1974); Sangai rinten (三界輪転, ‘Three Worlds Rotation’,
Yokoyama 1980); Shakuhachi koten/gendai besuto 30 (尺八古典／現代ベスト３０,
‘The Best 30 Shakuhachi Classical and Modern [Pieces]’, descriptive notes edited by
Hirano Kenji 1984); and Kinko ryû shakuhachi honkyoku
zenshû (琴古流尺八本曲全集, ‘Complete Works of the Shakuhachi Honkyoku of the
Kinko School’, Yamaguchi 1985). One recording with substantial descriptive notes in
English is Shakuhachi Honkyoku: Japanese Flute Played by Riley Kelly
Lee (Folkways Records 1980).

2.2.7 Concert Programme Notes

Finally, programme notes for the audiences of concerts and recitals also belong to this
type of literature. Though by nature terse, programme notes frequently provide useful
descriptions of pieces, biographical material on the performers and concise histories
or general discussions of the repertoire. Furthermore, they give accurate indications of
which pieces are popular at any given time. An example of particularly ample
programme notes is the thirteen page booklet published for a concert produced by the
Hôgaku kanshô kai (邦楽鑑賞会, ‘Traditional Japanese Music Appreciation Society’)
on November 30, 1985 in Hiroshima, which included explanations of the pieces and a
general article on the shakuhachi written by Tukitani.

32
2.3 Third Type of Literature: Authored by Outsiders for Insiders

Only two major types of literature may be categorized as being authored by outsiders
to the shakuhachi tradition and written for insiders. These are modern compositions
and government documents. Nonetheless, this category of literature plays an
important role in the transmission of the shakuhachi tradition and the processes of
change that occur within it.

2.3.1 Modern Compositions

Literature written by outsiders of the tradition for a readership that belongs to the
tradition encompasses compositions for the shakuhachi written in staff notation by
western trained composers who do not themselves perform on the instrument. There
are, to my knowledge, very few examples of this type of composition from before the
1960s. Since then, their number and popularity have steadily increased. One of the
earliest successful examples of this type of composition is Chikurai
Gosho (竹籟五章, ‘Five Pieces for the “Wind in the Bamboo”’, i.e., the shakuhachi),
written in 1964 by the western-trained composer, Moroi Makoto (諸井誠) (Moroi
1967). Takemitsu Tôru (武満徹) is perhaps the most well-known composer of works
by an “outsider” for the shakuhachi. One of his works, a double concerto for
shakuhachi, biwa and orchestra entitled “November Steps” (1967), has probably done
more to introduce the two traditional Japanese instruments to more people outside
Japan than any other single thing or activity. Because these compositions influence
people outside the tradition, they exert more influence on the tradition than
compositions written in traditional shakuhachi notation by members of the
shakuhachi tradition. 18 In a forthcoming special issue of the British “Contemporary
Music Review” devoted entirely to the shakuhachi, a comprehensive list of American
and British compositions for shakuhachi will be included.

2.3.2 Government Documents

Other examples of this type of literature are the edicts and other communications
written by the Japanese government and addressed to members of the shakuhachi
tradition. Especially important are numerous documents addressed to the Fuke sect by
the Edo military government. These documents are concerned with giving the sect a
legal monopoly over the use of the shakuhachi, and other privileges, in exchange for
the acceptance and enforcement of certain conditions (see Chapter 3, p.162). A
number of documents were written by the government and addressed to the Fuke sect
regarding the enforcement of the conditions demanded of the sect. The counterparts to
these government documents, written by the officials of the Fuke sect and addressed
to the government, belong to the second type of literature, written by insiders for
outsiders (see above, pp.44-45). Both types of documents are invaluable in the study
of the history of the shakuhachi tradition during that period.
18
See Lee (1987:71-79) regarding the many effects staff notation has on
the shakuhachi tradition.

33
According to Kamisangô (1974:19), in 1847, the government wrote to the Fuke sect
asking, “The playing of shakuhachi with shamisen and koto occurs; is this all right
with the temples?” The temples’ unambiguous reply was “It is deplorable and very
bothersome.” An earlier reply by the Fuke temples to a similar question by the
government was more resigned in tone: “It really was something which should not be
done. The people are misbehaving, but they are doing it privately. We cannot hear it,
so we cannot say whether it is good or bad” (Kamisangô 1974:19). From these
documents and the rather evasive replies made by the Fuke sect, it is evident that
secular ensemble playing took place at that time, even though shakuhachi was
supposed to be used solely within the spiritual context of honkyoku performance.
Kamisangô (1974:19) mentions another telling government document addressed to
the Fuke sect, dated 1774, which states that severe steps would be taken by the
authorities if the sect did not control the extortionists and law breakers who hid
behind the guise of the komusô. These and numerous other government documents
give a sense of realism to the idealized picture of the shakuhachi-playing Zen
Buddhist sect painted by such documents as the previously mentioned Kyotaku denki
kokujikai.

2.4 Fourth Literature Type: By Outsiders for Outsiders

The final type of literature, written by outsiders for outsiders is the least common
type. By definition, literature of this type has little effect upon the transmission of the
shakuhachi tradition, especially at the time it is written. Its usefulness in studies such
as this thesis, arise from the indication it gives of how the tradition is viewed by
outsiders and how the tradition functions within society at large.

2.4.1 Historical Sources

There are relatively few primary sources on the shakuhachi dating earlier than the late
1700s; most of these are, however, of the fourth type of literature. These include brief
mentions of the instrument in official lists, and short entries in personal diaries or
commentaries. Kamisangô refers to the majority of these sources in his
comprehensive histories of early shakuhachi developments (1974, 1977). For
example, a government report entitled Dajôkanfu (太政官符) written in 809 lists
among the court musicians of the time, one shakuhachi player. The books Kojidan
(古事談, 1215) and Taigenshô (体源鈔, 1512) both state that the noted Buddhist
priest Jikaku Taishi Ennin (慈覚大師円仁), upon his return from China in 847 played
the shakuhachi instead of chanting. Other primary sources of this type are treated in
Chapter 3 in the discussion of the historical background of the shakuhachi.

34
2.4.2 Scholarly Publications

Many of the scholarly publications on the shakuhachi, particularly those in English,

are written by outsiders for a readership of outsiders. As mentioned above (p.51), the
substantial entries on the shakuhachi under the heading “Japan” in the New Grove
Dictionary of Music and Musicians (v.9:532-534), and in the New Grove Dictionary
of Musical Instruments (v.3:357-360) are written by Berger and Hughes, English
speaking ethnomusicologists whose areas of expertise include Japan, but who are not
insiders to the shakuhachi tradition. In addition, the many references to the
shakuhachi in the monumental work A History of Japanese Music (Harich-Schneider
1973) are written by an outsider to be read predominantly by outsiders. Shakuhachi
Zen, the Fukeshû and Komusô (Sanford 1977) is another example of this category of
literature.

35
 CHAPTER 3
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SHAKUHACHI AND
HONKYOKU
Throughout history, a number of reedless, end-blown bamboo flutes with from five to
as many as nine fingerholes have appeared in Japan. Made from pieces of bamboo of
varying lengths having one, three, or more nodes, they are all thought of as belonging
to the same family of instruments, that is the shakuhachi. The mouthpiece in all the
Japanese end-blown flutes is made by first cutting the bamboo perpendicular to the
pipe at a node or joint of the bamboo and then further cutting a small, wedge shaped
piece from one side of the end, that is obliquely, but outwards, thus forming the
blowing edge (Illustration 1). Though the blowing edge of one of the end-blown
flutes, the tempuku (天吹, see below), differs slightly from the other flutes in that it is
much smaller and shallower and filed inward toward the bore, it is characteristically
cut outward as well. It is primarily because of the distinctive shape of their
mouthpieces that these instruments are classified as a single family of flutes.

According to Tukitani et al., (1991:1), there are no other examples of the outward
facing type of blowing edge found anywhere in the world, including China. In
contrast to the Japanese end-blown flutes with the blowing edge bevelled outward,
other end-blown flutes have a blowing edge that is either merely cut perpendicularly
(e.g., nose flutes), or that is rounded slightly at the perpendicular cut (e.g., the nei and
the kaval). The flutes most closely resembling the shakuhachi such as the present-day
Chinese dongxiao (洞簫, Japanese: dôsho), are made by cutting or shaving the pipe
towards the inside of the bore rather than towards the outside.

Japanese bamboo flutes have been given various names. Each of these names has
been applied to slightly different instruments at different points in their history.
Generally speaking, the term shakuhachi has been used as a generic term to denote all
of the end-blown flutes of Japan. In addition, the term hitoyogiri (一節切, literally
‘cut from one node’) has been used since the 17th century (Tukitani et al. 1991:3) to
denote a shakuhachi made from a piece of bamboo with only one node and with five
fingerholes, and the term tempuku, (see above) denotes a very small shakuhachi
(approx. 28 cm. in length) that has three nodes, five fingerholes and a very shallow
blowing edge.

The way these and other terms have been applied is, however, arbitrary and at times
contradictory or confusing. This will be discussed in more detail below (pp.86-102).

36
37
3.1 The Shakuhachi of the Nara (646-794) and Heian (794-1185)
Periods

The history of shakuhachi in Japan dates back to the latter half of the seventh century,
when the shakuhachi and other musical instruments were brought from China to
become part of a court ensemble fashioned after that of the Tang dynasty. The music
of this court ensemble became known in Japan as gagaku (雅楽) and was only one of
many elements of the Chinese culture that were adopted by the Japanese during this
and later times. According to the Tang dynasty document Jiu Tang shu (旧唐書,
Japanese: Kutôjo, ‘Old Tang History’, the older of two major histories of the Tang
dynasty), the flute with the outward facing blowing edge was invented by the person
Lucun (呂才, Japanese: Ryosai) between 627 and 649 A.D. (Kamisangô 1974:10,
Ueno 1984:46, Tukitani et al. 1991:1). It is probable that an instrument of this type
was introduced into Japan with the gagaku ensemble and remained a part of that
ensemble for several centuries. Therefore, the shakuhachi of the Nara and Heian
periods are generally known as gagaku shakuhachi. It was performed for, and
frequently by, the nobility of ancient Japan from the time of their introduction from
China until at least the 12th century.

3.1.1 Shakuhachi of the Shôsôin and Hôryûji

Eight specimens of gagaku shakuhachi have been preserved in the Shôsôin (正倉院),
a repository built in 756 for the treasures of Tôdaiji, an important temple in Nara
housing the daibutsu (大仏, ‘great Buddha’), the largest statue of Buddha in Japan
inside a building, completed in 749. 19 Four of these flutes are recorded in Tôdaiji
kenmotsu chô (東大寺獻物帳, 758) (Ueno 1984:9), a catalogue of the items that had
belonged to Emperor Shômu (聖武天皇, r.724-749) donated to Tôdaiji in 756 by
Empress Kômyô (光明皇后) after the death of her husband. These flutes were gifts
from a king of the Paekche Kingdom of mid-8th century Korea. A catalogue dating
from that time states that Emperor Shômu had been particularly fond of the four
instruments (Harich-Schneider 1973:59). In view of what is known about shakuhachi
of this period, it is possible that the remaining four flutes were also imported into
Japan, but this cannot be concluded with certainty.

Of the eight shakuhachi in the Shôsôin collection, only five are made of bamboo. The
remaining three flutes are made of jade, ivory and stone. One of the bamboo flutes
and the stone flute are completely covered with delicate patterns carved on their
surfaces. All but one of the instruments are quite playable, with the jade instrument
said to be especially so (Harich-Schneider 1973:61). The jade, stone and ivory flutes
are carved to imitate the nodes of bamboo.

19
It is highly likely that the shakuhachi was used in the “Eye Opening Ceremony” of the
Great Buddha (大仏開眼会, daibutsu kaigen e) in 752. Unfortunately the records of the event
(in the Tôdaiji yôroku東大寺要録) do not detail the actual instrumentation of the music
ensemble used.

38
Whereas shakuhachi from around the 14th century until the present time have only
five fingerholes, and a variable number of nodes, all of the flutes perserved in Shôsôin
have six fingerholes and three nodes, not counting the uppermost node on which the
blowing edge is cut. Although a number of hypotheses concerning the extra
fingerhole of the shakuhachi of the Nara period have been put forward, the reason for
the difference in the number of fingerholes between the gagaku shakuhachi and later
shakuhachi has never been conclusively shown (see below).

The lengths of the flutes in the Shôsôin vary from 437mm. to 343.5mm and the
diameters of their bores vary from 12mm. to 16mm. 20 A more detailed description of
these flutes and their measurements can be found in the book Shôsôin no gakki
(正倉院の楽器, ‘The Musical Instruments of Shôsôin’, 1967). Though pitches
obtained by playing each instrument have also been recorded, the data cannot be
regarded as definitive because it is not known how the instruments were originally
played. Reconstructing the performance practices of the gagaku shakuhachi and the
pitches used by the performers at the time is particularly problematic due to the
variability of pitch production possible with the shakuhachi mouthpiece.

Finally, a ninth specimen of the gagaku shakuhachi of similar date to those preserved
in the Shôsôin is on permanent loan to the Tokyo National Museum from the Nara
temple, Hôryûji (法隆寺). Made of bamboo and similar in proportions to the Shôsôin
shakuhachi, the Hôryûji shakuhachi also has six holes. A commonly told legend is
that this instrument was used by Shôtoku Taishi (聖徳太子, 574-622), the founder of
Hôryûji and the first princely patron of Buddhism in Japan. Furthermore, the 13th-
century book Zoku kyôkunshô (續教訓抄) written by Koma no Asakuzu (狛朝葛) in
1270, and the Taigenshô (體源鈔), an authoritative reference on Japanese music
written in 1512 by Toyohara no Muneaki (豊原統秋), both state that Prince Shôtoku
used the instrument to perform the piece “Somakusha” (蘇莫者) to accompany the
dance of a celestial maiden who had appeared before him (Kurihara 1918:36-41;
Ueno 1984:39). There is no factual basis for either the legend or the written account
(Kamisangô 1974:10; Ueno 1984:39). 21 The association of Prince Shôtoku and the
shakuhachi is an example of the frequent occurrence of important historical figures
having been given central roles in their origin myths, in traditional Japanese musical
genres and other traditional Japanese arts.

The shakuhachi instruments preserved in the Shôsôin repository and by Hôryûji are
the only extant instruments of their type in the world and are therefore of great value.
Unfortunately, no documents such as manuscripts, treatises or musical notation for the
gagaku shakuhachi survive from the Nara and Heian periods. Besides the actual
instruments themselves, the only additional data are mentions of the instrument in a
few lists and government reports, and some pictorial evidence showing its use.

20
In contrast, the standard dimensions of the modern shakuhachi are 545.4mm in length with
a bore diameter ranging approximately from 15mm to 21mm, that is, greater in both length
and bore diameter than the Shôsôin flutes.
21
Kamisangô (1974:10) quotes Kyôkunshô instead of Zoku Kyôkunshô. Also, according to
Tsukitani, Harich-Schneider’s reading “Sumiaki” (1973:714) is incorrect.

39
3.1.2 Pictorial and Written Evidence of the Nara and Heian Shakuhachi

According to Gutzwiller (1974:6), an acquisition list at Hôryûji includes several

shakuhachi among a set of instruments purported to have been brought from China to
Nara during the reign of the Chinese Emperor Wen (r. 581-604). The records of the
dedication of the Shôsôin, written in 756, list the extant shakuhachi preserved in the
depository, mentioned above. Also, the Saidaiji shizai chô (西大寺資材帳), another
list of instruments imported from Tang China written in 780, record a single patterned
bamboo shakuhachi (斑竹尺八) and eight other shakuhachi (Kurihara 1918:48).
Gutzwiller (1974:7) points out that the shakuhachi mentioned in the Hôryûji and
Saidaiji lists are clearly of Chinese origin. In addition the Shôsôin instruments that are
made of ivory and jade, and possibly the bamboo ones as well, were also most
probably imported into Japan either directly from China or via Korea.

A representation of the gagaku shakuhachi being played can be seen on one of the
panels of a large bronze temple lantern made around 752 which is prominently
located in the centre of the open courtyard in front of the steps leading to the main
entrance of the Hall of the Great Buddha (東大寺) in Nara. Each panel on the lantern
depicts a Bodhisattva dancing or playing a musical instrument amidst swirling clouds
.

The Shôsôin repository also contains pictorial evidence of the shakuhachi from the
Nara era. In the collection of articles donated by Emperor Shômu is a dankyû (弾弓),
a longbow made of bamboo said to be of Japanese manufacture and dated 730.
Realisitic figures of musicians, dancers and other performers are painted on the bow.
On the lower end of the bow, together with twenty-eight other figures, is a dancing
man playing a wind instrument which, according to Harich-Schneider (1973:55) is
“held vertically like a hichiriki (篳篥) or a shakuhachi”. The length of the instrument
being played (the bottom end is nearly at waist level) and the angle at which it is
being held suggest that it is a shakuhachi rather than a hichiriki, or the longer and now
obsolete ôhichiriki (大篳篥). The fact that the figure is dancing might, however,
indicate that the instrument being played is a hichiriki, as the mouthpiece of the
shakuhachi would make simultaneous dancing and playing extremely difficult. There
is no way of knowing with certainty what instrument is in the drawing.

On the upper part of the bow, near the middle, is a group of nine musicians, eight of
whom are squatting or sitting cross-legged. One of the musicians is playing what
seems to be a shakuhachi. It is interesting to note that the shakuhachi player is the
only one sitting in the seiza (正座) position. Though seiza is the customary and most
formal way of sitting on the floor in Japan today, in the gagaku ensemble tradition,
almost all of the musicians customarily sit cross-legged or squat rather than sit seiza.
Finally, a standing performer of a shakuhachi-like vertical wind instrument can be
seen on the longbow (Ueno 1984:125). The musician is dressed in the same Chinese
manner as the seated musician, wearing robes and headgear that were fashionable
during the early Heian period or earlier (Harich-Schneider 1973:142).

40
The musicians, dancers, acrobats and other performers painted on the dankyû
illustrate two forms of secular music of the Nara period, namely gigaku (伎楽) and
sangaku (散楽). Gigaku was a masked dance form accompanied by drum, gong and
flute, originating in South China and developed by Mimashi (味摩之), an important
figure in ancient Japanese music, who was from Kudara (百済), a kingdom of the
Korean peninsula (HHJ 1984:269). Sangaku refers to miscellaneous public
entertainment including acrobatic dances imported from Tang China and popular in
Japan from the Heian through the Kamakura periods (HHJ 1984:442).

The following pictorial evidence clearly illustrates the part the shakuhachi played in
both sacred and secular music during the Nara period and later (Illustration 2).

Another iconographic source from the Nara-Heian period is a scroll entitled Shinzei
Nyûdô kogaku zu (信西入道古楽図, ‘Shinzei Nyûdô Ancient Music Drawings’). It
contains the oldest and most complete drawings of bugaku (舞楽, dances associated
with the court), sarugaku (猿楽, a popular drama related to sangaku and an
antecedent to nô drama) and acrobatic acts that were a popular part of court
entertainment during the Heian period, and the musical instruments that accompanied
them (Harich-Schneider 1973:142). Shinzei, the Buddhist name of Fujiwara no
Michinori (藤原通憲, d. 1160), amassed a large collection of historical material of all
sorts. Though the precise role played by Prince Shinzei in compiling the material in
the Kogaku zu is not known, the sources used by the creators of the scroll date from
the Nara or the early Heian period. These sources include the Nara dankyû, discussed
above.

The original of the Shinzei kogaku zu scroll no longer survives but at least five copies
exist, including one in the Tôkyô National Museum and another dating from 1449
(HHJ 1984:548) in possession of the Tôkyô University of Fine Arts. There are
fourteen illustrations of musicians each playing a different instrument, the names of
which are clearly labeled. Eight illustrations closely resemble drawings found on the
Nara dankyû, one being a kneeling shakuhachi player

41
42
(Harichi-Schneider 1973:148). Finally, the shakuhachi can be seen in a drawing of an
ensemble of ten musicians and flag bearers (Harich-Schneider 1973:171). This
illustration is of interest because the shakuhachi player is standing, in contrast to the
kneeling position shown in almost all of the previously mentioned illustrations
(Illustration 2).

In addition to these iconographic data, a number of written sources survive. On March

21, 809, twenty-nine years after the Saidaiji list was compiled and well into the early
Heian period, a government report states that there was to be one shakuhachi
musician among the twelve official musicians of the court. A similar report dating
September 23, 848, states that the number of shakuhachi players was to be reduced
from three to two. Both reports are reproduced in full in Kurihara (1918:50-52). This
is the last documented mention of official shakuhachi musicians as part of the official
court ensemble. The ensemble was in fact radically changed around the time of
Emperor Nimmyô (仁明天皇, 833-850) (Kikkawa 1965:63). The 848 government
document proves that the shakuhachi survived at least until then.

Thereafter the shakuhachi continues to be mentioned infrequently in court contexts,

though not specifically as an instrument used in the gagaku ensemble. The book
Ryûmeishô (龍鳴抄, 1133, a comprehensive treatise on the ryûteki) states that the
fourth son of Emperor Seiwa (清和天皇 r.858-876), Nangû Sadayasu no Shinnô
(南宮貞保親王 870-924) 22 transcribed or reconstructed the tôgaku (唐楽) 23 piece
“Ôshôkun” (王昭君) from shakuhachi notation to ôteki (横笛, read ôjô in the Heian
period; a traverse flute) notation (Kurihara 1918:52-53). This event is subsequently
recorded in the Taigenshô (體源鈔), an authoritative reference on Japanese music
written in 1512. The Taigenshô also states that Sadayasu was one of the five best flute
players (Toyohara 1933:561). Finally, the Zoku yôkunshô (1270) states that Sadayasu
played the shakuhachi (Kurihara 1918:53). These three sources strongly suggest that
the shakuhachi was still very much associated with the musical tradition of the court
at least up until the late 9th or early 10th century. Evidence suggesting that the
shakuhachi was used in the court beyond that time is given below.

Another reference of this same period is the well-known Tale of Genji (源氏物語), a
“novel” written around the beginning of the 11th century by Lady Murasaki Shikibu.
In Chapter 6, “The Safflower”, Lady Murasaki mentions the playing of the
“sakuhachi (sic) no fue” (さくはちの笛, ‘sakuhachi flute’) (Yamada 1934:179),
indicating that the instrument could still be heard within the courtly circles of late
Heian period.

22
Sadayasu is mistakenly read Teihô by Gutzwiller (1974:8).
23
Literally “Tang music”, tôgaku is a type of court music imported from Tang China during
the Nara and early Heian periods. From the middle of the Heian period tôgaku referred to
music originally from China that had become Japanese in flavour, in contrast to music from
Korea known as komagaku.

43
Imagakami (今鏡), a collection of historical stories written in 1170 by Fujiwara no
Tametsune (藤原為経, entered the priesthood in 1143) (Ueno 1984:119) mentions
that towards the end of the Heian era, in the year 1158, Emperor Go-Shirakawa
(後白河天皇) commanded that for the New Year’s celebration an attempt be made to
revive the shakuhachi (Kamisangô 1974:10; Tukitani et al. 1991:3). This incident is
also mentioned in Zoku kyôkunshô (1270) (Kurihara 1918:57). A third reference to
Go-Shirakawa’s request for shakuhachi music, found in Taigenshô (1512), states that
at the time, the shakuhachi “was played long ago, but not recently”. Upon Emperor
Go-Shiragawa’s request, the son of the commander of the Left Guards played the
instrument using old notation (Toyohara 1933:629).

This incident is particularly significant because it indicates the shakuhachi had fallen
into disuse by the mid 12th century, and that a royal request was required for it to be
revived. It is interesting to note that old notations for the shakuhachi were used for the
revival. One may conclude from this event that even though the instrument was in
need of reviving, it had not been totally abandoned and forgotten by the nobility of
Japan in the year 1158. This, however, is the last documentary record of shakuhachi
performance within the context of the Japanese court.

The reason the shakuhachi was excluded from the official list of gagaku instruments
sometime after the mid-9th century is unknown. Harich-Schneider (1973:131)
suggests that shakuhachi was eliminated from court music early on in favour of the
transverse bamboo flute (yokobue, ôteki, ryûteki), “the volume of which matched the
other instrumental groups better”. She further suggests that the above-mentioned
Prince Sadayasu (see p.70) initiated this elimination (1973:195). More likely, the
gagaku shakuhachi may have fallen into disuse, together with other instruments such
as the u (竿, a large sho 笙) and the ôhichiriki (大篳篥, a large hichiriki), as part of a
general change in the instrumentation of the gagaku ensemble that took place in the
9th century (Kikkawa 1965:63; Kamisangô 1974:10).

The reduction in the number of musical instruments in the gagaku ensemble may have
been a practical and/or economical decision. Contact between Japan and the mainland
virtually ceased during this period, after which the music ensembles of the court
became self-reliant and had fewer instruments (Kikkawa 1965:61-62). Additionally,
the late Heian court simply may not have had the resources needed to maintain a court
ensemble as large as had been originally imported from China.

Kikkawa (1965:61-64) states that the elimination of some of the instruments used in
the court ensemble was primarily due to the music played. Modes were changed to
suit Japanese aesthetics, which, of course, are uniquely different from the aesthetics of
the mainland courts.

Whatever the reason the instrument was eliminated from the roles of the court
musicians, in the Kamakura (鎌倉) or Minamoto (源) era, only sixty years after the
last documented performance within the court, the shakuhachi once again surfaces in
historical sources.

44
3.2 The Shakuhachi of the Middle Ages (1185-1600)

Historical references (see below) suggest that at least from the early 13th century, the
shakuhachi was performed by commoners, and was also associated with the
performance of sarugaku. In the mid-14th century it was still being played, however,
by at least one member of a palace musician family and, as late as the early 15th
century, a member of the royal family was playing the instrument. In the early 15th
century, it was used in the courts in performing sôga (早歌, vocal music of the
period).

The first mention of the shakuhachi in the Kamakura era (1185-1333) is in Koma no
Chikazane’s (狛近眞) book, Kyôkunshô (1233). We are told that at the time of
writing, the instrument was played by mekura hôshi (盲法師, blind priests), and as
accompaniment to sarugaku. Chikazane refers to the shakuhachi as tanteki (短笛,
‘short flute’). This is the first reference to the shakuhachi being used by commoners
outside the context of Imperial courts. It is no longer an instrument solely of the
Japanese aristocracy, though the shakuhachi continues to be played by the nobility for
at least two more centuries (Kurihara 1918:; Kamisangô 1974:10; Ueno 1984:121;
Tukitani et al., 1991:4).

Between the latter 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century there is very
little mention of the shakuhachi. According to Ueno (1984:140), virtually all that can
be said about the instrument in the 14th century is that one of the four families of
palace musicians, the Toyohara family (豊原家) appears to have taken over the
instrument. Toyohara no Muneaki wrote in Taigenshô that his ancestor Toyohara no
Kazuaki (豊原量秋, d.1441), was skilful at the shakuhachi (Toyohara 1933:629).

The Yoshino shûi (吉野拾遣, ‘Gleanings of Yoshino’, 1358), a record of events that
occurred during the brief Imperial court of Emperor Go-Daigo (後醍醐) in the
Yoshino mountains, states that a son of Emperor Go Daigo, Prince Kanenaga Shinnô
(懐良親王) played the shakuhachi well (Kurihara 1918:60). This suggests that the
instrument was still popular with at least one of the nobility in the mid-14th century,
exacty two hundred years after the last performance in the contexts of the court
documented in Taigenshô. The type of music either Toyohara no Kazuaki or Prince
Kanenaga played and the context of their performances are unknown.

Half a century later, the diary Yamashina no Noritoki Kyô (山科教言郷日記) states
that on the 24th of March, 1408, Emperor Go-Komatsu (後小松) was entertained by a
shakuhachi ensemble playing sôga (Kamisangô 1974:10, Ueno 1984:141).

The shakuhachi was a favourite instrument with performers of dengaku (田楽,

literally ‘field music’), a popular genre of entertainment dance and music between the
14th and 16th centuries. The association between dengaku and the shakuhachi is
mentioned in the Taigenshô (Toyohara 1933:629): “In the house of Toyohara,
Kazuaki (the author’s great-grandfather) excelled in the shakuhachi (see above, p.73).
He was a student of Toyohara no Atsuaki (豊原敦秋) of the collateral family line, as
was Zoami (15th c.) the dengaku performer. Now, there is no truth behind what
dengaku players say when speaking of the shakuhachi being their own instrument...”

45
(translation by Blasdel 1988:78). Kamisangô notes that this passage suggests that both
members of the gagaku tradition, such as Kazuaki, and dengaku musicians valued the
shakuhachi to the point of disputing ownership of the instrument (1974:10).

The first graphic representations of a shakuhachi in which the number of fingerholes

are clearly indicated do not appear until 1512, in the authoritative music
encyclopedia, Taigenshô. These sketches are in fact the first indication of the number
of fingerholes and nodes in the bamboo since the preserved Nara period instruments
mentioned above. There are seven simple sketches of the instrument in Taigenshô.
One sketch clearly shows the four front and one back hole, with each fingerhole given
a name (Illustration 3). Though the sketch ends before showing the bottom of the
instrument, only one node of the bamboo can be seen in the drawing. The shakuhachi
illustrated in Taigenshô are therefore different from the gagaku shakuhachi preserved
in Shôsôin and Hôryûji both in the number of fingerholes and bamboo nodes, the
latter having six fingerholes and three bamboo nodes.

Five different lengths of shakuhachi are illustrated in Taigenshô. In the book, these
lengths are associated with the pitches hyôjô (平調, E); sôjô (雙調, G); ôshiki
(黄鐘調, A); banshiki (盤渉調, B); and ichikotsu (壹越調, D).

Another drawing of the shakuhachi of this period can be found in the book
Nanajûichiban shokunin uta awase (七十一番職人歌合, ‘A Collection of Seventy-
one Craftsmen’s Songs’), written by Tosa no Mitsunobu (土佐光信) sometime
between 1504 and 1521. This picture depicts what is called a biwa hôshi (琵琶法師, a
biwa-playing priest, typically blind) performing in the usual kneeling position
(Illustration 4). In front of him on the ground can be seen his wooden clogs and
walking staff, a set of panpipes and a shakuhachi (Ueno 1984:148). The biwa hôshi
are most famous for their performances during the Kamakura era of the epic tales of
the Heike monogatari (平家物語), and may have used the shakuhachi as preludes or
interludes to their recitation of the Heike stories.

As was the case with the 13th century reference in Kyôkunshô, the shakuhachi is here
not being played by a person of noble birth, as was the case of the gagaku
shakuhachi, but rather by a member of one of the lowest classes of Japanese society,
blind beggar priests.

46
3.2.1 Literary References to the Shakuhachi in the Middle Ages

47
There are several references to the shakuhachi in collections of poetry written during
the 15th and 16th centuries. The poet Ikkyû Zenji (一休禅師, 1394-1482), whose
relationship with Buddhism and the shakuhachi will be discussed below, frequently
refers to the shakuhachi in his poetry. In one of his waka (和歌), Ikkyû writes:

Shakuhachi wa hito yo to koso omoishi ni

Ikuyo ka oi no yo to nariken
「尺八はひとよとこそ思ひしに
幾夜か老いの友となりけん」
Even though I thought the shakuhachi a friend just
for one night,
It has remained my friend many nights into old age

(Kamisangô 1974:12)

In this poem, the term hitoyogiri appears to be alluded to, though not actually used, in
a clever word play making use of the two meanings of “hitoyo”: “one night” (一夜),
and the instrument hitoyogiri (一節切, cut from one [bamboo] node). The actual term
hitoyogiri first appeared in a collection of songs, Ryûtatsu bushi (隆達節, 1593)
(Tukitani et al. 1991:4). Collected by Takasabu Ryûtatsu (高三隆達), the collection is
also known as Ryûtatsu kouta (隆達小唄). The poem in Ryûtatsu’s kouta (小唄),
short songs usually accompanied by the three-stringed instrument the shamisen
(三味線), uses the same word play as that of Ikkyû, but in a more romantic sense:

Shakuhachi no hitoyogiri koso ne mo yokere

Kimi to hito yo wa ne mo taranu
「尺八のひとよぎりこそ音もよけれ
君とひとよは寝も足らぬ」
The tones of the shakuhachi ‘hitoyogiri’
may satisfy for one night,
But sleeping with you just one night is not enough

(Kamisangô 1974:12, translation by Blasdel 1988:86).

The shakuhachi is featured in another earlier collection of poetry of the period, the
Kangin shû (閑吟集, 1518). The poems in this collection are the lyrics of songs of the
period, mostly kouta. The editor of the collection writes in his preface that the
shakuhachi is his friend (Kamisangô 1974:11; Ueno 1984:173). One of the poems in
Kangin shû suggests the playing of the shakuhachi as a meditation, a function
common throughout much of its history:

21 Dengaku

48
 I take out the shakuhachi from
beneath my sleeve,
to blow it while waiting and
The wind through the pine-
scatters flowers as though a dream
How much longer will I have to play
until my heart is quiet again?

(Translated by Frank Hoff, in Blasdel 1988:81)

Two other poems in Kangin shû use the shakuhachi with two universal themes:

177 Kouta

My shakuhachi is blameless yet

I toss it at the pillow.
It makes a sound katari as it hits
the wood rim,
Yet even the sound does not make it less
lonely nor less sad
to sleep alone.

276 Kouta

I blow you while I wait

I blow you later in my disappointment too-
Worthless Shakuhachi!

(Translated by Frank Hoff, in Blasdel 1989:81)

Other references to the shakuhachi during this period in Japanese history will be
discussed separately in the following section as evidence of the connection between
the shakuhachi and Buddhism.

3.2.2 The Shakuhachi and Buddhism in the Middle Ages

Although few specifics are known about the shakuhachi between the 13th and 16th
centuries, evidence of the instrument’s association with Buddhism, especially Zen
Buddhism, can already be detected during this period. One of the earliest references to
this association is found in the book Kojidan (古事談, 1215), and is repeated in
Taigenshô three centuries later (Kurihara 1918:53-54; Kamisangô 1974:10). Both
state that the Buddhist priest Jikaku Taishi Ennin (慈覚大使円仁, 794-864), who is
credited with bringing the shômyô (声明) chant of the Tendai (天台) sect from China,
performed the chant “Inzei no Amida kyo” (引声の阿弥陀経) on the shakuhachi due
to a weak voice. Harich-Schneider (1973:315) also states that Ennin “used the
practical method of playing Chinese hymns on a shakuhachi in order to transmit the
melodies correctly”, but does not specify her source. Kamisangô (1974:10) points out

49
that though there is no proof of Jikaku Ennin actually doing this, inasmuch as both
references to him were written well after he lived, the fact of an early association
existing between the shakuhachi and Buddhism cannot be denied.

In this context, it should be noted again that in Taigenshô we are told that Toyohara
no Kazuaki (量秋, d.1441), the great-great grandfather of the author of Taigenshô,
was a skilled shakuhachi player. Kazuaki’s teacher, Toyohara no Atsuaki (豊原敦秋),
also taught Zôami (増阿弥, ca.1400) (Kamisangô 1974:10), a central figure in the
development of nô drama who was strongly influenced by Zen Buddhism. Although
this is only indirect evidence of the connection between Buddhism and the
shakuhachi, it does suggest the pervasive influence Buddhism has had for centuries
on many of the performing arts in Japan, of which the shakuhachi is one.

A very important historical figure of the time who had a much more apparent
connection with the shakuhachi is the Zen priest, Ikkyû, mentioned above in his
capacity as a poet. Ikkyû clearly states in his poetry, in particular in the collection
Kyôunshû (狂雲集), the role of the shakuhachi in a spiritual context as an instrument
“that urges cognition” (Blasdel 1984:215). Himself enlightened by sound (in this case
the call of a crow), he seemed to have had difficulty communicating to others the
enlightening quality of sound in the shakuhachi. In the last line of one poem, he
lamented, “No one understands the wondrous tone of the shakuhachi”. In another
called “Shakuhachi”, he referred to himself as a barbarian blowing fruitlessly on his
flute (Blasdel 1984:216). The following is one of Ikkyû’s poems about an earlier
shakuhachi-playing priest named Tonami:

The incomparable Tonami, who roams the heavens and

the earth
Playing the shakuhachi; one feels the unseen worlds
In all the universe there is only this song
Our flute player pictured here.

(Translation by Blasdel 1984:216)

This poem clearly shows the importance Ikkyû placed on the playing of the
shakuhachi. It also expresses one of the central tenets of later shakuhachi devotees:
that of ichion jôbutsu (一音成仏), that is, the attainment of Buddhahood is inherent in
a single sound, “the only song in the universe”. The relationship between the
shakuhachi and Zen Buddhism becomes even more evident in the centuries following
Ikkyû, especially during the Edo period (see below, p.110 and pp.201-203).

Printed on the published score of “Murasakino Reibo” (紫野鈴慕), one of the pieces
in the Chikuho ryû repertoire of Fuke pieces, is the footnote that this particular piece
has been transmitted through the centuries from Ikkyû himself. Though Murasakino is
an area in which Ikkyû was said to have lived, there is no evidence either proving or
disproving the connection between this piece and Ikkyû.

Besides the poetry of Ikkyû, one of the earliest concrete indications of an association
between the shakuhachi and Buddhism is a scroll drawing by Shôkei (祥啓, also
known as Kei Shoki 啓書記), a priest at the temple Kenchôji (建長寺) during the

50
Muromachi period. The scroll is said to have been painted sometime between 1469
and 1487, the dates during which Shôkei was at Kenchôji (Seyama and Tukitani
1990:9,13), and thus predates both Taigenshô and Nanajûichiban shokunin uta awase
by about twenty-five years. It is entitled Rôan suiteki ga (朗庵吹笛画), translated as
‘Picture of Rôan Playing the Flute’ (Illustration 5). Above the drawing is an ode to
Rôan, which is dated 1477. The drawing is of a wandering monk, complete with
bedroll, playing an end-blown flute while apparantly walking. The number of
fingerholes in the flute depicted in the drawing is unclear.

Rôan (also written 蘆庵, read Roan), though quite possibly a legendary character,
figures prominently in a number of sources, written in the early Edo period, of the
origins of the shakuhachi as an instrument used in a Buddhist context (Ueno
1984:159-162). Rôan, said to have been a foreigner and a friend of Ikkyû, is often
credited with either bringing the hitoyogiri tradition to Japan, or founding the komusô
tradition, or both.

Tanabe (1963:147-149 and 1964:299) claims that the hitoyogiri was brought from
Fuzhou province (福州, J. Fukushû) of southern China in the mid-Muromachi era
(1469-1487) by the Zen Buddhist priest Rôan who, with the encouragement of Ikkyû,
made religious pilgrimages while playing his flute.

In his Edo period book Yôshûfushi (雍州府志, 1691), Kurokawa Dôyû (黒川道祐)
claims that Rôan was at Kyûkôan (吸江庵), a hermitage in the Uji district near where
Ikkyû was living, and that the two became friends and fellow shakuhachi players.
Kurokawa further claims that Rôan took the name Fûketsu dôsha (風穴道者, Person
of the Way of the Wind and Holes), and was the first komusô. Virtually the same
thing can be read in the following books: Shiojiri (塩尻, 1711-1716) by Amano
Sadakage (天野信景), Zoku Edo sunago onkomeisekishi (続江戸砂子温故名跡志,
1735) by Kikuoka Senryô (菊岡沾涼), Hakubutsu sen (博物筌, 1770) by Yamazaki
Ransai (山崎蘭斎) and Shûi miyakomeishozue (拾遺都名所図会, 1786) by Akisato
Shunpuku (秋里舜福) (Ueno 1984:161). The annals of the komusô temple in Kyoto,
Myôanji (明暗寺, also Meianji), maintain that Rôan was in fact the founder of the
temple, and thus was the same person as Kyochiku Zenji (虚竹禅師) (Kamisangô
1974:11; Seyama and Tukitani 1990:13). Despite the abundant references to Rôan in
the Edo period, there is no mention of him in sources contemporary with him other
than the ode written above the “Rôan suiteki ga”.

51
52
One cannot assume that Shôkei’s drawing is an actual protrait of Rôan, especially as
there is little proof that Rôan ever existed. On the other hand, though the drawing may
not actually portray Rôan, it is nonetheless a drawing of a shakuhachi-playing
Buddhist monk. Assuming that the drawing was not just a figment of Shôkei’s
imagination, it indicates a tradition of shakuhachi-playing mendicant priests in Japan
that is more than five hundred years old.
In the mid-16th century collection of poetry and illustrations entitled Sanjûniban
shokunin uta awase (三十二番職人歌合 ca. 1539) is a poem entitled “Komosô”
(薦層). Two lines in the poem read:

Hanazakari fuku tomo dareka itofubeki

Kaze ni wa aranu komo no shakuhachi
「花ざかり吹くとも誰かいとふべき
風にはあらぬこもの尺八」
Amidst spring flowers who should care
that the wind blows?
It is not the wind, but the shakuhachi
of the komo

The accompanying critique states: “Komosô no sanmai...kisen no monko ni yorite

shakuhachi o fuku hoka ni wa betsu no waza naki mono ya”
(薦層の三昧...貴賎の門戸によりて尺八を吹くほかには別の業なき者にや): ‘The
komosô are absorbed in visiting the houses of both rich and poor, begging and playing
shakuhachi - that is all they can do’ (translations by Blasdel 1988:82).

This is the first reference to komosô (薦層), beggar priests who played the
shakuhachi. These mendicant shakuhachi players are the immediate predecessors to
the komusô (虚無僧) of the Edo period (see below, pp.102-110). The term komosô
comes from the word komo (薦), a woven straw mat used by beggars as protection
from the elements. Kamisangô lists a number of words that have been used to refer to
such beggar priests in Japan, for example, boro (暮露), boroboro, boronji, bonji
(梵字) and kanji (漢字), all of which imply a sense of religious poverty, with
somewhat more emphasis on the poverty than religion. These beggar priests are
mentioned in the fourteenth century collection of essays by Yoshida Kenkô
(吉田兼好, 1282-1350) entitled Tsurezure gusa (徒然草, ‘Essays in Idleness’), but
not as playing the shakuhachi.

Two words, one in the above poem and one its commentary, tell us something about
the komosô of that time. First of all, in the title, the characters usually used to write
the word “komosô” (薦層, ‘straw mat priest’) are not used. As mentioned above,
these characters emphasize the beggar more than the priest. In the title to this poem,
the characters ko 虚 (‘emptiness’) and mo 妄 (‘illusion’) are used instead of komo 薦
(‘straw mat’), conveying a much greater sense of other-worldliness and spirituality.
Secondly, the word sanmai 三昧, translated by Blasdel as “absorbed in” is, in fact, the
Sanscrit word samdhi, and has the fuller meaning of ‘a perfect state of spiritual
concentration’ (Masuda ed. 1983:1437). As Blasdel (1988:83) comments, the above
two words indicate that by the time of the writing of the poem, the komosô “were not

53
just the Japanese Middle Ages’ equivalents to wandering hippies, but were actually
involved in Buddhist disciplines”.

Illustrating the above poem in Sanjûniban shokunin uta awase is a drawing of a

komosô playing a shakuhachi while seated cross-legged, his straw mat or komo and a
circular food container at his back (Illustration 6). Little can be seen as to the type of
instrument being used. Ueno (1984:205), in an attempt to classify the instrument in
the drawing, claims that it is a long (長管, chôkan) shakuhachi, that is, an instrument
longer than the standard 1.8 shaku (about 54 cm.). In fact, chôkan were and continue
to be used to perform shakuhachi pieces associated with Buddhism, low tones
produced by these instruments being considered conducive to meditation. It is easy to
conjecture that the komusô inherited from the earlier komosô not only a similar name,
lifestye and the religious practice of flute-playing, but a similar instrument as well.

Nevertheless, one cannot classify the instrument of the komosô by the length of the
shakuhachi in the drawing mentioned above, nor can one conclude any relationship
between the types of instruments used by the komosô and the komusô, other than that
they were both shakuhachi. The shakuhachi in the drawing is, for example, of similar
length in proportion to the body of the performer as a gagaku shakuhachi in a drawing
in the 12th century scroll Shinzei kogakuzu (信西古楽図) (Illustration 2), even though
all of the extant gagaku shakuhachi are less than 1.8 shaku in length. Furthermore, the
inaccurate placement of the hands (much too high in relation to the length) makes
suspect the accuracy of the artist in portraying any dimension of the flute, including
length and diameter. Other attempts at classifying the various shakuhachi appearing
in historical sources over the centuries are discussed below.

3.2.3 Classification of Shakuhachi of the Middle Ages

The shakuhachi instruments of the eras prior to the 13th century reference in the
Kyôkunshô are considered by a number of Japanese scholars to differ from the
shakuhachi found in references of the next three or four centuries (Kamisangô 1974;
Ueno 1984; Tukitani et al. 1991). Chikazane’s reference is thought of as the first to
indicate this difference. The earlier, pre-Chikazane instruments are called gagaku
shakuhachi. The shakuhachi of the middle ages are frequently referred to in general
as chûsei shakuhachi (中世尺八) by these and other scholars, who further classify the
instruments mentioned in the sources of this period using such terms as hitoyogiri,
tempuku and proto-Fuke shakuhachi.

Reasons given for these classifications are differences in the construction of the
instrument, in the music performed on it and in the social classes who played it. The
difference in construction, i.e., the reduction of the number of fingerholes from six to
five that is assumed to have occurred sometime during or after the Kamakura era, is
given particular importance by these scholars. In some cases, the reduction of bamboo
nodes from three to one is also noted.

Kamisangô (1974:10) states, “In contrast to the shakuhachi used in gagaku, the
shakuhachi of the Middle Ages was five-holed” (trans. by Blasdel 1988:77).

54
Kamisangô also quotes from what he calls the Boro no shuki (暮露の手記,
‘Handbook of Boro Monks’), written in 1628,24 which states that the shakuhachi of
the komosô had five holes and three nodes, i.e., not a 6 hole gagaku shakuhachi.
Tukitani, et al. (1991:4) states “The syakuhati of the middle ages can be thought of as
being, in general, instruments with one node and five finger holes (hitoyogiri), with
flutes with three nodes and five finger holes (tempuku and an early huke syakuhati)
existing as well”. Kishibe states that the Nara period shakuhachi disappeared in the
Heian period. He further asserts that in the Muromachi period (ca.1392-1568) another
flute from China, the hsiao, was brought to Japan and modified into the hitoyogiri,
which “was first favored by mendicant friars and later came into fashion among the
lower class Samurai and merchants” (Kishibe 1984:79).

In fact, there is little evidence for the clear-cut differentiation between shakuhachi
existing in the middle ages and the shakuhachi of the preceding eras suggested by
Tukitani and Kamisangô, and no evidence at all to back up Kishibe’s claims. The
Kyôkunshô reference above does point to a diffusion of the instrument both in terms
of the social classes that used it and the type of music performed on it. It should be
remembered, however, that sources before the Kyôkunshô prove only that the
shakuhachi was indeed found in the Imperial court of Nara and Heian Japan. The lack
of any reference to the shakuhachi being used by other social classes is not proof that
it did not occur; the instrument may well have been played by other classes of
Japanese people before the Kamakura era.

Also, the shakuhachi was still performed by the nobility as late as the mid-14th
century (see above). Though the type and number of fingerholes of the shakuhachi
used by the nobility at this late date is unknown, it is just as likely that it was similar
to the six-hole gagaku shakuhachi of earlier centuries as it was a five-hole
shakuhachi.

On the other hand, though there is documentation of the shakuhachi being played by
nobility well into the Kamakura era, it is not known what type of shakuhachi they
used. There is no evidence of a six-hole shakuhachi being used later than the Heian
period. In the intervening eight hundred years between the 7th or 8th century, the date
of the instruments preserved in the Shôsôin and Hôryûji, and the early 16th century,
with the illustrations found in Taigenshô, there appears to be no indication of the
number of fingerholes of any of the instruments mentioned in the historical sources of
the time.

In any case, the illustrations found in Taigenshô of shakuhachi with five holes do
mark a change in construction, from the six holes and three nodes of the gagaku
shakuhachi to an instrument with five fingerholes and one bamboo node. Likewise,
the Kyokunshô reference indicates a change in the function of the instrument and
social circles in which it was played. Such references as Kyôkunshô and Taigenshô do
not shed any light, however, on the question of exactly when and how the changes in
construction, social standing and function did occur, nor does any source of the period
point with certainty to the clear-cut change that is implied by the terms gagaku
shakuhachi and chûsei shakuhachi.

24
There is some controversy concerning the name of this document (Tukitani 1985).

55
The sketches of shakuhachi in Taigenshô illustrate the confusion that can occur in the
arbitrary classification of an historical instrument. Kamisangô (1974:11) states that as
the flutes pictured in Taigenshô have five fingerholes and one bamboo node, they are
hitoyogiri because, of the various types of shakuhachi that exist today, only the
hitoyogiri has the same number of fingerholes (five) and bamboo nodes (one). Ueno
(1984:130) also writes that the Taigenshô shakuhachi were clearly the same thing as
the hitoyogiri of later eras. Tukitani, et al., (1991:4) states that the the shape of the
Taigenishô shakuhachi is distinctly that of the hitoyogiri.

Kamisangô (1974:11) continues by clarifying that the Taigenshô shakuhachi are in

fact only hitoyogiri in a broad sense. Two reasons are given as to why they are not
“true hitoyogiri”. Firstly, according to Kamisangô, the term did not exist at the time.
This assumption is questionable, however, because, though the term hitoyogiri is not
found in Taigenshô, it is used, or at least strongly implied, in poetry that Ikkyû
composed well before Taigenshô was written (see above p.77.)

The second reason Kamisangô gives for not considering the Taigenshô shakuhachi to
be true hitoyogiri is their being drawn in at least five different lengths. In contrast, the
hitoyogiri found in later sources as well as the instrument that is today known as a
hitoyogiri, are always in one pitch only (ôshiki, A). Kamisangô elaborates by stating,
“In Japan, the term ‘hitoyogiri’ is often used to refer to all the shakuhachi flutes of the
Middle Ages, regardless of pitch. Strictly speaking, however, ‘hitoyogiri’ indicates
only the A shakuhachi of the mid-16th century on.” (trans. Blasdel 1988:85). In short,
according to this classification, the Taigenshô shakuhachi are not exactly shakuhachi
nor are they hitoyogiri as these terms are narrowly defined today, but are both
shakuhachi and hitoyogiri in more general terms.

Rather than attempting to classify the type of vertical flute that is illustrated in
Taigenshô, suffice it to say that author Chikuzane calls it shakuhachi, and that it
differs from the shakuhachi of the Nara era preserved in Shôsôin and at Hôryûji in the
number of both fingerholes and nodes. Likewise, it is safe to conclude from the
written and pictorial sources of the time that changes in the social class, the function
and the construction of the shakuhachi did occur between the 12th and 16th centuries,
during which time “a rather complex situation can be seen” (Tukitani, et al., 1991:4).

In contrast to Taigenshô, a number of sources in the Edo period (1600-1868) and later
use the term hitoyogiri. By then, a variant of the shakuhachi instrument known
exclusively by the latter term had become quite popular. A discussion of the
hitoyogiri as depicted in the sources of the period, as well as that of another type of
shakuhachi of the period, the tempuku, will begin the following section.

3.3 Types of Shakuhachi in the Edo Period

From the Edo period and onwards, the types of shakuhachi instruments, the music
performed on them and the kinds of people playing them can be seen more clearly
than during the preceding centuries of the middle ages. In a discussion of the
shakuhachi during the Edo period, it is therefore expedient to make use of the terms
for the different forms of the instrument. For example, the use of the term hitoyogiri is

56
questionable in a discussion of the shakuhachi instruments of the middle ages. Such is
not the case after the early 17th century, when a type of shakuhachi distinct from
other forms of the instrument and specifically called hitoyogiri came into vogue
(Kurihara 1918:61-79; Kamisangô 1974:12-13; Ueno 1984:159-197; Kishibe
1984:79; Tukitani et al., 1991:4-5).

By the end of the 19th century, the hitoyogiri form of the shakuhachi had virtually
died out, being supplanted by the form of the shakuhachi called the fuke shakuhachi.
This instrument was used by the komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) and is the
predecessor of the modern shakuhachi (Kamisangô 1974:12). A third type of
shakuhachi, the tempuku, existed in the Edo period, about which little is known but
which still survives in the hands of a few enthusiasts. The following history of the
shakuhachi during the Edo period begins with a short history of the hitoyogiri.

3.3.1 The Hitoyogiri

As stated earlier, the hitoyogiri literally means ‘cut from [bamboo with] one node’.
Today the term refers to a shakuhachi instrument with five fingerholes, made from a
piece of bamboo with only one node, and of a length that produces the pitch A,
typically about 33.5 cm. The circumference of a typical hitoyogiri is approx. 10 cm.
Because of this relatively small circumference, as well as the small size of the
blowing edge itself (Illustration 5), it is extremely difficult to execute what is called
the meri-kari technique. This technique lowers or raises the pitch by changing the
distance and the angle between the lips and the blowing edge, and is essential in
performing both modern pieces and pieces that have been handed down by the
komusô for centuries. In a similar fashion, the size of the fingerholes of the hitoyogiri,
quite small in comparison with the modern shakuhachi, makes finger positions
incorporating partially covered holes impractical. Such finger positions are also
essential in performing both modern and traditional shakuhachi pieces.

Shakuhachi made with only one bamboo node and five fingerholes have existed at
least from the beginning of the 16th century, as evidenced by Taigenshô. These early
“one-node” shakuhachi, however, came in various lengths, in contrast to the
standardized length implied by the term as it is used today. According to Kamisangô
(1974:12), the standardization of the length and thereby the pitch of the fundamental
occurred towards the end of the 16th century. Tukitani et al., (1991:5) state that this
standardization occurred from the end of the 17th century.

Sources before the mid-17th century such as Taigenshô and Tanteki hiden fu
(短笛秘伝譜, ‘Secretly Transmitted Scores for the Short Flute’), written in 1608 and
attributed to Ômori Sôkun (大森宗勲, 1570-1625) do not use the term hitoyogiri,
even though the instruments being discussed are clearly made with a single node. The
term is implied, however, in poetry dating from the late 15th century, and is first used,
again in poetry, in the late 16th century (see above p.77).

According to Tukitani et al., (1991:4), the earliest use of the term hitoyogiri no
shakuhachi to denote a distinct form of the instrument in a written source other than
poetry is found in Shichiku shoshinshû (糸竹初心集, ‘Collection [of Pieces] for
Beginners of Strings and Bamboo’), a teach-yourself book for hitoyogiri, shamisen

57
and koto written in 1664 by Nakamura Sôsan (中村宗三). It is also the oldest
Japanese publication of printed musical scores. In his book, Sôsan differenciates
between the hitoyogiri tradition and a longer komusô shakuhachi (虚無僧尺八, i.e.,
fuke shakuhachi). Unlike the one node hitoyogiri, the latter instrument was made from
a thick piece of bamboo with three nodes. Sôsan’s need to differentiate between the
shakuhachi no hitoyogiri and the fuke shakuhachi (普化尺八, the instrument of the
Fuke sect and predecessor to the modern shakuhachi) proves that the latter existed at
least before 1664 (Tukitani et al 1991:5).

Shichiku shoshinshû records that the hitoyogiri tradition was founded by a man named
Sôsa Rojin (宗佐老人, ‘Old man Sôsa’, also 宗左). Sôsa is similarly credited in two
books written by Murata Sôsei (村田宗 清), Dôshô Kyoku (洞簫曲, 1669, ‘Pieces for
the Dôshô’, [“dôshô” being an alias for the hitoyogiri]) and Ikanobori (紙鳶, 1687, a
collection of hitoyogiri pieces). None of these three sources gives any information
about Sôsa (Kurihara 1918:63). Ikanobori was later published in a larger publication
Shichiku taizen (糸竹大全) in 1699 25 (Nihon koten ongaku bunken kai dai
日本古典音楽文献解題 1987:174). All three publications include folk songs, dance
accompaniments and ensemble pieces for the hitoyogiri, koto and shamisen, and
indicate the popularity enjoyed by the hitoyogiri at the time (Kamisangô 1974:12).

Tanteki hiden fu (短笛秘伝譜, ‘Secretly Transmitted Scores for the Short Flute’),
written by Ômori Sôkun (大森宗勲, 1570-1625) in 1608, predates Shichiku
shoshinshû by over half a century and, as the oldest extant book on the hitoyogiri, is
very important both historically and in terms of transmission of the shakuhachi
tradition (Kamisangô 1974:12; Tukitani et al., 1991:4). Sôkun is credited with
popularizing the instrument amongst the general public, though he never used the
term hitoyogiri. He also wrote a fingering chart entitled Shakuhachi tekazu mokuroku
(尺八手数目録, Inventory of Fingerings for the Shakuhachi, 1624).

In Tanteki hiden fu, Sôkun uses a notation system with the katakana fu, ho, u,
(フ，ホ，ウ), etc. The notation is thought to be the oldest documented notation system
for the shakuhachi family of instruments (HHJ:888), though other shakuhachi
notation systems are likely to have existed in much earlier times, possibly in
connection with the gagaku shakuhachi (see discussion of Sadayasu, p.70). Sôkun’s
notation is similar to shakuhachi notation systems still in use today, a primary
example being that of the Chikuho ryû (竹保流) (Hirano et al., ed. 1989:333).

Tukitani et al., (1991:4) state that during the middle ages, the hitoyogiri was used
mainly by Buddhist priests and hermits of samurai birth. Sôkun himself is a prime
example of the latter. Shichiku shoshinshû tells us that Sôkun was from a very old
samurai family, being related to Ômori Hikoshichi (大森彦七), a retainer of the first
Ashikaga Shôgun Takauji (initially 高氏, later changed to 尊氏, 1305-1358). Sôkun
was retainer to the important general Oda Nobunaga (織田信長, 1534-1582). After
his lord’s death Sôkun withdrew from public life and became a hermit, devoting

25
The publication Tôryûshichiku taizen (当流糸竹大全, 1692) may predate by seven years
the extant publication Shichiku taizen (Nihon koten ongaku bunken kai
dai 日本古典音楽文献解題 1987:174).

58
himself to the study of the hitoyogiri (Kurihara 1918:70-71). As further evidence,
Kamisangô (1974:12) points to the names of persons said to have lived during the
middle ages and listed in the three hitoyogiri books mentioned above. These names
are associated with priests and bushi (武士, persons of samurai birth), and have an
aura of hermitages about them.

Pictorial evidence of the hitoyogiri supports at least the use of the instrument by
persons of high social standing. A drawing of a hitoyogiri practice session in
Ikanobori and another drawing of a hitoyogiri performance in Jinrin kummôzu shû
(人倫訓蒙図集, ‘Drawings of Professionals’, 1689) both show well-groomed
samurai, some wearing swords, the symbol of their status. From the tatami mat rooms
in which they are playing can be seen examples of the sculptured trees of the high-
maintenance Japanese garden (Illustration 7).

The society in which the hitoyogiri was found contrasts sharply with that of the
shakuhachi playing itinerant street performers, called komosô (薦層, ‘straw mat
priests’) at the time. As discussed above (p.84), the komosô were beggar priests and at
the opposite end of the social ladder from Sôkun’s class. A drawing in the Kanden
kôhitsu (閑田耕筆, by Ban Kôkei, 1733-1806) shows a komosô whose simple dress
and long, rough hairstyle are accentuated by the straw bedroll seen tucked under his
arm (Illustration 8).

Unlike Ueno’s interpretation (see above p.85) of the illustration of a komosô in

Sanjuniban shokunin uta awase, it is much easier to accept Kamisangô’s assessment
of the Kanden kôhitsu drawing (1974:12). Kamisangô believes that the proportions of
the instrument depicted in the latter drawing is made of a thick piece of bamboo more
like the fuke shakuhachi of the later komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’), rather
than the thinner, shorter hitoyogiri.

59
60
Despite being played by two different social classes, a number of similarities can be
found in the notated music of the two instruments, suggesting to Tukitani et al.,
(1991:5) some kind of musical exchange. For example, the pieces in the Shichiku
shoshinshû are divided into two types: rangyoku (乱曲), either pieces accompanying
vocal or ensemble pieces performed with other instruments, and te (手), solo
hitoyogiri pieces. These two categories of pieces correspond exactly to the two
classifications of fuke shakuhachi pieces used after the Meiji period (1868-1912),
gaikyoku (外曲) and honkyoku (本曲).

More importantly, titles of pieces can be found that are common to both the hitoyogiri
and the fuke shakuhachi. Tukitani cites the following as examples of titles of pieces
found in both hitoyogiri and fuke shakuhachi repertoires: the numerous Shishi (獅子)
pieces such as “Shishi no kyoku” (獅子の曲), “Azuma jishi” (吾妻獅子), “Kumoi
jishi” (雲居獅子), “Sakai jishi” (堺獅子, also written “Sakae jishi” 栄獅子), etc.;
the Sugagaki (菅垣) pieces such as “Sanya sugagaki” (三谷菅垣), “Koro sugagaki”
(転菅垣) and “Akita sugagaki” (秋田菅垣); the title “Rinzetsu” (りんぜつ); and
finally pieces with the word Reibo (鈴慕) or Renbo (恋慕) appended to the title, such
as “Renbo nagashi” (恋慕流し).

According to Tukitani et al., (1991:6), who believe that the melodies of the hitoyogiri
changed over a long period of time due to the transmission processes, the same sort of
correspondence cannot be found in the melodies of pieces of the two traditions. She
lists, but does not give evidence of, the following three ways in which the hitoyogiri
pieces differ from the fuke shakuhachi pieces, even those of the same name. Firstly,
the mode or scale changed from the anhemitonic pentatonic ritsu (律) scale, (e.g., D,
E, G, A, C) to the miyako bushi (都節) scale, which has semitones, e.g., (D, E-flat, G,
A-flat, C). Secondly, the hitoyogiri pieces have a discernable beat while the fuke
shakuhachi pieces characteristically have free rhythms. Finally the performance
techniques of the latter pieces are more complex than those of the former. In addition,
some of the melodies themselves seem to have changed. This is not to say that
musical interchange did not occur at all between the hitoyogiri and fuke shakuhachi
traditions, but that the interchange that did occur is manifested elsewhere (Tukitani et
al., 1991:6).

The hitoyogiri experienced its greatest popularity during the early Edo period, a time
noted for its artistic freedom. Surprisingly, very few people were performing it by the
middle of the 18th century, and by the early 19th century the tradition had almost
become extinct. Dispite prolonged and concerted efforts in the 1820s and 1830s by
Edo physician Kamiya Juntei (神谷潤亭) to emulate Sôkun’s success in popularizing
the instrument two centuries earlier, the hitoyogiri was never again played by more
than a handful of enthusiasts. The eventual demise of the instrument is related to the
inability of the hitoyogiri player to perform the meri-kari and the partially covered
fingering techniques mentioned earlier. Such techniques became essential in playing
pieces for the shakuhachi, especially after the scale or mode changed in much of the
music performed in Japan between the mid-16th and mid-17th centuries (Kamisangô
1974:12-14).

61
3.3.2 Tempuku

The most enigmatic, least known and least discussed of all of the end-blown bamboo
flutes of Japan is the tempuku. Kurihara, in his book Shakuhachi Shikô (尺八史考,
‘Shakuhachi History’, 1918), does not mention the tempuku. Ueno (1984:227-233)
devotes a mere six pages to the instrument in his three hundred and thirty-three page
book Shakuhachi no rekishi (尺八の歴史), compared, for example, with forty-eight
pages to the hitoyogiri. Malm (1959:137) devotes only eleven words to the tempuku
in a section on the biwa, and does not refer to it at all in the section on shakuhachi,
other than including it in a photograph of types of shakuhachi.

The tempuku is considered a member of the shakuhachi family because its

mouthpiece is similar to all other types of shakuhachi, that is, the gagaku shakuhachi,
hitoyogiri, fuke shakuhachi and modern shakuhachi. But the greatest variation in
mouthpiece construction among these instruments is found in the tempuku. The
blowing edge is made not only by filing the outside of a portion of the top edge of the
bamboo, as with the shakuhachi, but also by filing slightly on the inside of the
bamboo as well, as with the Chinese dongxiao (see Illustration 1, p.61). Kamisangô
states that the mouthpiece is the same shape as the dongxiao (1974:11), but this is not
entirely correct, as the outer edge of the tempuku is also filed away at the blowing
edge, which is not the case with the Chinese flute. The five fingerholes of the tempuku
are very small, even smaller than those of the hitoyogiri. The fingerholes are
positioned so that the distances between them increase progressively from the lower
to the higher holes; this too occurs with the hitoyogiri, but to a lesser degree. The
tempuku is about 30 cm long and is made from a piece of bamboo of the species
called in Japan hotei chiku (布竹). It has three nodes, the same number as some of the
early fuke shakuhachi. The circumference is much smaller than either of the latter two
instruments, being approximately 7-8 cm.

The tempuku seems to have reached its zenith in popularity in the latter 16th century
in Satsuma province (薩摩) on the island of Kyûshû (九州). In the book Tempuku
(天吹 1986, ed. Tempuku dôkôkai; a collection of essays and articles by various
authors) are found illustrations drawn in a style typical of the Edo period (Illustration
9). Though no explanations of or references to these illustrations are given, they show
members of the samurai class playing what appear to be tempuku together with the
satsuma biwa, another instrument popular in the province (Tempuku dôkôkai
1986:xi,xii,127,174). The first reference to the name tempuku might be in the Nippo
jisho (日葡辞書), an encyclopedia published in 1603 (Tukitani 1986:4). There is also
the story of Kitahara Hizen no Kami (臣北原肥前守), the highest ranking retainer of
the Shimazu (島津) clan. Captured during the famous battle of Sekigahara in 1600 by
the Tokugawa (徳川) forces, Kitahara requested permission to play his tempuku one
more time before being executed. Permission was granted. Kitahara’s performance so
moved his executioners that his life was spared (Shirao 1986:18-19).

62
63
Shirao (1986:120-126) lists ten early references to the instrument, including the
Kitahara reference. The earliest of these references is the Nippo jisho (日葡辞書,
1603), mentioned above. In a personal communication, Tukitani stated that in the
edition, the word tempuku is translated into the standard Japanese language by using
the characters tempuku (天吹), which were taken from a standard Japanese language
dictionary. It is possible that at the time of publication of the original edition, these
characters were not used in the dialect of Japanese of Nagasaki, the place of
publication.

It is widely accepted that the last performer of the tempuku was Ôta Jôichi (太田良一,
1888-1957), who was also a skilled biwa player (Ueno 1984:227; Shirao 1986:4). Ôta
taught only seven short pieces to Shirao Kunitoshi (白尾国利, 1920- ), who makes
the instrument and who both Ueno (1984:227) and Kamisangô (1974:11) claim is the
sole remaining member of the tradition. If this is the case, then Shirao’s seven pieces
are all that remain of the traditional repertoire of the tempuku. Their titles,
traditionally written only in the Japanese syllabary katakana (片仮名吾) rather than
in kanji (漢字) as is customary, are as follows: “Shirabe” (シラベ), “Anoyama”
(アノヤマ), “Tsutsune” (ツツネ), “Takane” (タカネ), “Ichiyana” (イチヤナ),
“Tennoshiyama” (テンノシヤマ) and “Senpesan” (センペサン). The durations of
these pieces range from thirty seconds to four minutes. The first three are solo pieces,
while the remaining four were performed with songs. The lyrics to the songs are still
known but the melodies are not; it is not known whether or not the tempuku pieces are
in fact these melodies or just the accompaniments to the songs (Tukitani et al.
1991:7).

As with the hitoyogiri, a connection between the tempuku and the fuke shakuhachi,
the predecessor to the modern shakuhachi, can be seen in two ways. Firstly, a
connection can be seen in the two categories of pieces used to describe their
repertoires. Both the tempuku and the fuke shakuhachi were used to play pieces that
were strictly classified as either solo pieces or ensemble pieces. Secondly, a
connection can be seen in the titles of the tempuku solo pieces. All three of the solo
piece titles are also used in the fuke shakuhachi tradition, though not always as titles.

For example, there is no specific piece in the fuke shakuhachi repertoire entitled
‘Takane’ as there is in the tempuku repertoire. Instead, the word takane (高音,
literally ‘high sound’) denotes a particular section found within a number of pieces in
the fuke shakuhachi repertoire. Shirabe (調, ‘searching’, ‘melody’, ‘tuning’) is either
the title of or part of the title of a number of fuke shakuhachi pieces as well as the
name of a section of some pieces, which acts as a prelude or introductory section to
the main body of those pieces (Tukitani et al., 1991:7).

Finally, Tukitani claims that the outlines of the structure of the melodies of the three
solo tempuku pieces show a number of correlations to the fuke shakuhachi piece
“Sanya no kyoku” (三谷の曲, ‘Three Valleys Piece’) (Tukitani 1986:20). Tukitani et
al., (1991:7) further speculate that similar connections between the titles of the
remaining tempuku solo pieces and certain names or terms found in the fuke
shakuhachi tradition, as well as those connections mentioned above between the
hitoyogiri tradition and the fuke shakuhachi tradition, suggest that the solo pieces of

64
the tempuku and hitoyogiri in some cases may have acted as prototypes for pieces in
the more recently developed fuke shakuhachi solo repertoire.

The tempuku tradition was almost entirely an oral one. There are no traditional scores
for the tempuku in existence, though modern transcriptions of the remaining pieces
exist, in both staff notation and traditional shakuhachi notation. Despite the dearth of
traditional pieces and of teachers and performers, there exists in Kyûshû an active
society of tempuku enthusiasts, maintained largely through the efforts of Shirao. In
1986, the society published a book entitled, simply, Tempuku. It includes the writings
of a number of authors and is the best single source on the instrument. The
expression, “old traditions never die out completely in Japan” appears to hold true in
the case of this enigmatic instrument of southern Japan.

3.4 From Komosô (薦僧) to Komusô (虚無僧)

Three developments occurred in the shakuhachi tradition during the early Edo period.
Firstly, the life of low class flute-playing beggar priests, the komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat
priest’), was embraced by many of the increasing number of rônin who had been
made masterless by the consolidation of power through the wars of the Tokugawa
military govenment (Kamisangô 1974:16).

Secondly, the term for the wandering flute-playing priests changed from the lowly
komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) to the Zen Buddhist inspired komusô (虚無僧,
‘priest of nothingness’). 26 The latter name may have been favoured by the former
samurai who swelled the ranks of the mendicant flute players as a means of
differentiating themselves from their predecessors, the komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat
priest’), who were typically of lower birth (see above p.84).

Finally, the shakuhachi instrument itself changed from the short, thin flute of the
komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’), made from a non-root-bearing end piece of
bamboo, to a longer, thicker flute made from bamboo bearing roots. The number of
nodes may have also changed from three to five at this time (Kamisangô 1974:14).
Reasons for these changes may have included a desire of the ex-samurai komusô
(虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) to have their instruments double as effective
weapons, and a need for some prominent symbol of their disassociation from the
earlier lowly komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’), who appear in illustrations of the
period performing on a hitoyogiri-like small bamboo flute. These developments will
be described more fully below.

There are several literary references to the komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’), the
mendicant flute players of the 15th and 16th centuries, even after the beginning of the

26
It is common practice, especially in the literature of Zen Buddhism, to replace one of the
ideograms usually used to form a common word with another ideogram of the same
pronunciation but of an entirely different meaning, or to reverse the order of the ideograms.
Either method frequently gives new meaning and insight to a commonplace word or situation.
The 13th century Zen master, Dôgen, was especially fond of this technique. See Kim (1985).

65
Edo period (1600-1868). In a 17th century annotated edition (1621) of Yoshida
Kenkô’s (吉田兼好, 1282-1350) 14th century Tsuregure kusa (従然草, ‘Essays in
Idleness’), Hayashi Razan (林羅山, 1583-1657) refers to Yoshida’s term boroboro
(ぼろぼろ, literally ‘ragged’, i.e., beggar priests) in a footnote, stating that, “Lately,
those called komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) do not look like priests nor do they
appear to be laymen. They carry swords and play the shakuhachi. With a straw mat on
their backs, they walk down the road, stop before people’s gates and beg for things.
This is the tradition that has come down from the boroboro” (Ueno 1984:206).

Ueno (1984:206) points out that Hayashi’s description of the komosô (薦僧, straw
mat priest) is identical to that in a mid-16th century collection of poetry, Sanjûniban
shokunin uta awase (三十二番職人歌合 ca. 1539), except that in the later reference,
they were carrying swords, while in the earlier reference they were not. The
implication of Ueno’s observation is that the ranks of the later komosô (薦僧, ‘straw
mat priest’) of the early Edo period had evolved from the low class beggar monks of
the previous centuries to persons still of a rough look, but presumably from the higher
class of the bushi or samurai, since they alone had the right to carry swords.

A mid-Edo period drawing of a komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) can be found in
Kanden kôhitsu (閑田耕筆), written by Ban Kôkei (伴蒿蹊, 1733-1806). The
drawing shows a man with long hair and his komo (薦, ‘straw mat’) at his side. The
flute in his hands appears to be longer and much thicker than the flute of the komosô
(薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) depicted in the previously mentioned early 16th century
drawing, Sanjûniban shokunin uta awase. Kamisangô observes that it certainly does
not have the short, thin dimensions of a hitoyogiri (Kamisangô 1974:11), and is closer
in appearance to the shakuhachi used by the later komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothingness’).

The term komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) seems to have evolved quite
naturally from the earlier, more earthy term komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) and is
even closer in meaning to the characters used in the 16th century poem Sanjûniban
shokunin uta awase for the word ‘komosô’: 虚妄僧 (‘priest of emptiness and
illusion’). In this reference, the word komosô was written with the characters ko 虚
(‘emptiness’) and mo 妄 (‘illusion’), conveying a much greater sense of other-
worldliness and spirituality than the original word komo 薦 (‘straw mat’). In the book
Keichôkenbunshû (慶長見聞集, ‘Collection of Information of the Keichô Era’,
completed in 1614) the word komusô is written with the characters 古無僧 (literally
‘old nothingness priest’) (Ueno 1984:206). Ban Kôkei (1733-1806) wrote, “People
who play the shakuhachi and beg for rice are called komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothing’) nowadays, but in the collection of poetry Kanjinshô uta awase
(勧進聖歌合) the characters komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) are used” (Kamisangô
1974:11). These sources indicate that in the early 17th century, the komosô (薦僧,
‘straw mat priest’) and komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) were one and the
same group of people.

The book Keichôkenbunshû, mentioned above, is the source of the widely reported
(Kurihara 1918:180; Malm 1959:157; Kamisangô 1974:14; Sanford 1977:437; Ueno

66
1984:206; Blasdel 1988:96), but frequently inaccurately told story of the famous
Ôtori Itsube (大鳥逸兵衛, executed in 1612) meeting a komusô (written 古無僧, ‘old
nothing priest’). Used as an example of ribald Edo humour and sensibilities, Malm,
Kamisangô, Sanford and Blasdel write that Ôtori insulted a komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest
of nothingness’) by taking his shakuhachi and playing it with his rear end. In fact, the
original passage as quoted by Ueno (1984:206) states that Ôtori, “taking the
shakuhachi from the komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’), turned it upside down
and blew into the end (尻)”, thereby insulting the komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothingness’). The misinterpretation may stem from the use of the ideogragh 尻,
which can mean a person’s rear end as well as the end of a pipe (as in kanjiri 管尻),
the pipe in this case being the shakuhachi.

The Ôtori story does not end there. What follows the description of Ôtori’s rudeness
is historically more important, yet ironically is not mentioned in any of the above
references. It is one of the earliest references made by a komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothingness’) to the ninth century Chinese monk Puhua (普化, J. Fuke). Fuke is the
central figure in the Kyotaku denki legend of the origins of the spiritually oriented
shakuhachi tradition (see pp.36-39), and after whom the religious sect of the komusô
(虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’), Fuke shû (普化宗) was named. The komusô
(虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) in the above story replied to Ôtori’s insult by saying
that in the past he was a fourth generation bushi but now he had become a hermit,
leading the life of poverty and destitution. Following in the footsteps of Saint Fuke
(普化上人), he had become a disciple of the Buddha, and had entered the way of
enlightenment.

Another early reference to Fuke can be found in the book Seisuishô (醒睡笑, ‘Waking
Sleeping Laughter’) dated 1623, which describes a komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’)
agreeing to reply to questions directed at him only after being addressed as a Fuke
priest (普化僧, fukesô). These two references to Fuke indicate that the association of
the shakuhachi playing tradition of the komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) with the
Chinese priest Fuke and its accompanying spiritual connotations were fairly common
knowledge as early as the late 16th or early 17th century (Ueno 1984:206-207).
Nakatsuka (1979:260-262) has suggested that the connection between the 9th century
Chinese monk Fuke and the Buddhist shakuhachi tradition, as manifested in the
komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) and later in the komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothingness’), might have originated with Ikkyû Zenji (1394-1482), one of Japan’s
most revered Zen Buddhist priests. Ikkyû’s poetry clearly expresses his fondness for
both Fuke and the shakuhachi (see p.77 for examples of Ikkyû’s poetry).

In contrast to the image of the other-worldly, shakuhachi-playing mendicant “disciple

of Buddha” of the Edo period, are references to extremely worldly qualities possessed
by other characters associated with the shakuhachi. A prime example is the story of
Karigane Bunshichi (雁金文七), found in Katabisashi (傍廂, 1853). Karigane, a
kyôyaku (侠客, literally ‘chivalrous person’, or ‘one who champions the underdog’)
from Osaka was skilful at playing the shakuhachi and taught it to all of his followers.
Eventually he abandoned performing the shakuhachi, but continued to use it in
another way. By changing the length of the instrument, and using the thick root-
bearing bamboo, he created an effective weapon with which to fight (Kurihara

67
1918:185-187). Kamisangô (1974:14) points out that Karigane was beheaded in 1703,
one hundred and fifty years before Katabisashi was written, and suggests that the
details of this mid-19th century story might therefore be suspect. The essence of the
story is nevertheless corroborated by mention in theatrical plays, and in novels of the
period, of the fondness of kyôkyaku for the shakuhachi, and by the existence of the
term “fighting shakuhachi” (喧嘩尺八, kenka shakuhachi).

The growing numbers of shakuhachi-playing wandering monks as well as the

phenomenon of the kenka shakuhachi in the early Edo period can be explained in part
by the state of Japanese society at that time. The Tokugawa military government
consolidated its control over most of the country in the beginning of the 17th century,
at the expense of a number of defeated clans and lords. The professional soldiers of
the defeated armies frequently became “masterless samurai” (浪人, rônin). As
educated members of the highest social class in Japan, for whom work in any other
profession but their own would have been unacceptable, the rônin were suddenly
without employment and without a purpose to live.

Many of the ever-increasing numbers of rônin roaming the country saw no

honourable occupation besides begging. Some were attracted to the spiritual path of
renunciation as Buddhist monks. Others continued using the skills of their original
profession, but illegally as extortionists, thieves and gangsters. The life of the komosô
(薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) or komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) appealed to the
ronin because, as Sanford (1977:413) points out, it offered elements of all three
options, i.e., mendicancy, spirituality and crime. The religious vocation offered a
means of supporting oneself while avoiding humiliation, as religious mendicancy had
been a respected custom in the East for over a millennium. Furthermore, it offered
solace and companionship to those who were sincerely seeking spiritual enlightment.
Those of dubious religious sincerity were attracted by the undemanding lifestyle
compared to the regimentation of one of the established Buddhist sects. Finally,
soliciting alms for the Buddha was a superb cover for those former mercenaries more
inclined to extortion than devout charity seeking.

The instrument used by the early komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) was
changed sometime during the early Edo period, though not necessarily by Karigane,
mentioned above. The shakuhachi instrument before the 17th century was always
made from parts of the bamboo other than the root end. This is true of the 8th century
gagaku shakuhachi preserved at Shôsôin, and the types of shakuhachi known as
hitoyogiri and tempuku. Shakuhachi made from sections of bamboo having no roots
and three nodes seem to be the norm in illustrations depicting the instrument in the
hands of komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) and early komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of
nothingness’). As an illustrative example, Kamisangô (1974:14) also cites a rootless,
three node pre-fuke shakuhachi in a statue of Ryôen Kyochiku Zenji (了圓虚竹禅師),
the legendary 13th century founder of Myôanji, one of the major temples of the Fuke
sect (see below). As Kyochiku himself is historically doubtful (Nakatsuka 1979:142-
143), the historical validity of the shakuhachi depicted in the statue is also
questionable.

It is quite plausible that the not infrequent use of shakuhachi as weapons by beggar
priests or by kyôkyaku in the early Edo period necessitated a change in construction

68
(Kurihara 1918:179-188; Kamisangô 1974:14; Sanford 1977:428). Sanford
(1977:428) also suggests a second reason. As former members of the bushi class, the
masterless samurai who joined the ranks of wandering beggar flute players may have
attempted to disassociate themselves from the earlier low class “straw mat priests”,
who seemed to have favoured smaller shakuhachi made of rootless pieces of bamboo,
e.g., the hitoyogiri. This same reason could have also been the motivating factor in the
changing of the appellation komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) to komusô (虚無僧,
‘priest of nothingness’), the latter name sounding more lofty than the former.

More important than the changes in the name of the shakuhachi-playing priests, and
in the construction of their shakuhachi, was the establishment in the early 17th
century of a religious organization recognized by the bakufu, thus institutionalizing
the tradition of the komusô. This organization was called the Fuke sect and is the topic
of the following section.

3.5 The Fuke sect

During most of the Edo period, the history of the shakuhachi tradition is dominated
by a religious institution called the Fuke sect. Little can be said of the early days of
the sect, though its founders appear to have used deception as one means of gaining
official recognition. In its heyday, it was not only officially recognized by the bakufu,
but also granted a number of highly desirable special privileges. It had three “head”
temples, in Edo and in Kyôto, and numerous smaller temples located throughout
much of Japan. For a number of political and social reasons, explained below, the
19th century saw the decline and eventual demise of the sect in 1871. Three stages—
early history; golden age; and decline and demise—though an arbitrary delineation,
serve as a guide to the history of the most important institution of the entire
shakuhachi tradition.

3.5.1 The Early Fuke Sect

In the early part of the Edo period, the mendicant shakuhachi players organized
themselves into what became known as the Fuke shû (普化宗), a religious sect
eventually affiliatated with the Rinzai sect of Zen Buddhism. This sect and its
members dominated the shakuhachi tradition until the sect was abolished by the
newly established government of the Meiji era (1868-1914). Even today, the lasting
influences of the Fuke shû and its members pervade the shakuhachi tradition,
particularly the honkyoku tradition. Effects which the lifestyle, philosophy and
religious practices of members of the sect have had upon honkyoku can be detected in
the pieces as they are performed today.

The origins and early development of the Fuke sect are surrounded by myth and
legend, with very few substantiated historical sources. The majority of the existing
sources, dating from the latter 17th century, are documents written by the government
and addressed to the Fuke sect, and the written replies of the Fuke sect to those
documents. Lack of evidence concerning the Fuke movement in the early 17th
century prevents a definitive description of the early development of the sect.

69
By some accounts, it would seem remarkable that the Fuke sect was ever conceived or
allowed to exist. As mentioned above (p.108), the tendency towards less than lofty
aspirations by some of the komosô (薦僧, ‘straw mat priest’) and early komusô
(虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) made it at times difficult for the general populace to
differentiate their method of begging for alms from the act of extortion. As a whole,
the mendicant shakuhachi players, even the most sincere of them, were not looked
upon with respect. Until the Fuke sect was granted official status, writes Sanford
(1977:413), the komusô (虚無僧, ‘priest of nothingness’) were merely “a loosely
organized fraternity of wandering beggar-minstrels....whose only connection with
religion was a very nominal claim to the status of Buddhist lay-brother (優婆塞,
ubasoku), a status that functioned primarily to justify their practice of begging for
alms”.

Not all of the rônin were the rough, self-seeking characters typified by kyôyaku such
as Karigane Bunshichi. On the contrary, Sansom (1963:57) points out that though the
trouble-making rônin receive a great deal of attention in the literature of the time, they
were in fact a minority among a group of people belonging to the highest and most
educated class of society in Edo Japan. Most of the rônin quietly lived their lives as
best they could under their new circumstances, some as instructors or tutors in the
various arts of bushidô, or even as small farmers. Other rônin became noted scholars.
It is therefore not surprising that some of these people chose the life of the komusô,
and developed shakuhachi honkyoku into a highly esoteric and spiritual tradition.

However accurate the two above contrasting images of the early komusô might be, the
loose group of begging musicians managed to organize themselves into sixteen sects 27
(派, ha) throughout the country even before official recognition in 1677 (Nakatsuka
1979:272-273). They also established a number of lodges for use as stopovers during
their pilgrimages (Nakatsuka 1979:332, 336). Some of these reststops gradually
became more established, becoming much like small temples, with komusô who
resided at them on a relatively permanent basis increasing in numbers. Kurihara
(1918:124) states that in the beginning of the Tokugawa era there were over 120
komusô temples and sub-temples, and at the end of the Tokugawa era there were still
92 temples, though Sanford (1977:415) believes this to be “a goodly exaggeration”. 28
These temples and the komusô who supported them became the organizational
foundation of what was to become the Fuke sect.

According to Nakatsuka (1979:105), Kamisangô (1974:16) and Sanford (1977:415),

many of the komusô of the time began to see the necessity of organizing themselves
into an acknowledged religous sect. By doing so, they may have thought that the
spiritual practice of the bonefide seekers of enlightenment (themselves) would be
facilitated and that the undesirable elements of the komusô movement could be
eliminated or at least controlled. They also realized that the achievement of their goals
would be determined on a political rather than spiritual level. Therefore, the

27
See Blasdel 1988:108-109 for a partial listing of the sects and temples affiliated with them.
28
Sanford was not familar with Kurihara’s book Shakuhachi shikô, even though his
secondary sources appear to quote it extensively. Sanford calls Shakuhachi shikô “a
traditional source”, and “a late Edo-period work”. Kurihara wrote Shakuhachi shikô in 1918
(Taishô 7), fifty years after the end of the Edo period.

70
legitimization of the movement was of the utmost importance. A temple headquarters
was one of the primary prerequisites.

There are no surviving historical sources that document the founding of the head
temples of the Fuke sect, nor is there clear indication of which temple became the
headquarters for the komusô. There are two possibilities as to which temple became
the first main temple of the early komusô. One possibility is presented by Kamisangô
(1974:16), who writes that the group of komusô instrumental in creating the Fuke sect
initially designated the lodge at Shirakawa (白川) in Kyôto, which they called
Myôanji (明暗寺, ‘Temple of Light and Darkness’), to be the centre from which they
hoped to achieve their goals. Later, in order to circumvent the strict rules of the Edo
government against the founding of new temples, 29 various documents were
contrived to create the impression that Myôanji actually came under the jurisdiction
of the important Kyôto temple, Kôkokuji. As a sub-temple of an already established
temple, Myôanji could claim to be exempt from the prohibition of new temples.
Adding further weight to the claim that Myôanji was not a new temple and therefore
exempt from the prohibition was the claim that Ryôen Kyochiku Zenji
(了圓虚竹禅師, also known as Kichiku 寄竹) founded Myôanji on July 28, 1298.
According to the Kyotaku denki legend, Ryôen was one of Hotto Kokushi’s four
main shakuhachi disciples (Nakatsuka 1979:144)).

According to Kamisangô (1974:16), the government agreed to acknowledge the Fuke

sect on the condition that the headquarters be moved to Edo, where it could be kept
more easily under observation and control. The komusô headquarters were duly
transferred to two temples located on the outskirts of Edo, Ichigetsuji (一月寺)
located in present day Chiba prefecture, and Reihôji (鈴法寺) in western Edo, and
both temples opened offices in central Edo.

Sanford (1977:431-432) differs from Kamisangô by stating that Ichigetsuji and

Reihôji were the two main temples of the Fuke sect from the beginning. Furthermore,
according to Sanford (1977:431), Myôanji, though recognized as one of three major
Fuke temples, was merely a sub-temple of Reihôji until as late as 1767, the year that
Myôanji was redesignated as a sub-temple of Kôkokuji. In this way, Myôanji could
claim a connection with the supposed founder of the Fuke sect, Hotto Kokushi, also
the founder of Kôkokuji.

Sanford further states that the claim that Myôanji was founded in 1298 by Ryôen
Kyochiku was motivated by the rivalry between Myôanji and the two head temples in
Edo. The traditional founder of Ichigetsuji was said to be Kinsen (金先), the disciple
of Pao Fu, who was, with Kyochiku, a disciple of Hotto. The founder of Reihôji was
said to be the famous samurai Kusunoki Masakatsu (楠正勝, fl. c. 1400). 30 Thus by
becoming a sub-temple of the temple founded by Hotto Kokushi, and itself founded
by Hotto’s disciple Kyochiku, Myôanji could claim a lineage which predated both

29
These rules were instigated by the military government of Edo primarily in reaction to
uprisings by Christians (Kamisangô 1974:16).

30
Sanford gives the characters for Kusunoki as 楠木; the second character appears to be
redundant.

71
Ichigetsuji and Reihôji, its two rival temples, thus elevating its own status as one of
the “mother temples” of the Fuke sect.

As stated above, though there appears to be little evidence that definitively proves
which temple was the original “main temple” of the komusô, it should be pointed out
that Kamisangô is considered one of Japan’s primary shakuhachi historians, while
Sanford is not.

3.5.2 The Keichô no Okitegaki and the Ordinance of 1677

The most important document concerning the founding of the Fuke sect is a
government decree known informally as the Keichô no okitegaki (慶長掟書). The
formal title of this decree is Gonyûkoku no migiri ôsewatasaresôrô onokitegaki
(御入国之砌（節）被仰渡候御掟書). 31 It was purported to be a “copy” of an
original, which most likely never existed, and was, ironically, accepted by the
Japanese government as authentic for over two centuries. It officially recognizes the
Fuke sect and defines the privileges and responsibilities of its members. The Fuke
sect claimed that the original had been written and dated Keichô 19 (1612) by the
founder of the Tokugawa shogunate, Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康) himself.

The Fuke sect could not produce the original government issued document, which
would have been imprinted with an authenticating government seal, giving the excuse
that the original had been destroyed in a fire. Moreover, no government record of the
issuance of the original document can be found in the archives of the Edo
government. Between 1677 and 1894, the Fuke sect presented at least six versions of
the decree to the bakufu government. 32 These copies exhibit more inconsistencies
than can be explained by the process of hand-copying an original document. For
example, from eight to twenty-one provisions are listed in various copies.

Doubts as to the authenticity of the document were first recorded by Arai Hakuseki
(新井白石, 1657-1725), a late 17th century scholar (Kurihara 1918:144). Subsequent
research (Mikami 1902:61-76; Kurihara 1918:144-151; Nakatsuka 1979:220-229;
Kamisangô 1977:16; Ueno 1984:234-248; Takahashi 1990:54-74), has stongly
indicated that the various copies of Keichô no okitegaki were all forgeries perpetrated
by members of the Fuke sect, and that the shogunate knew or at least suspected that
this was the case, yet accepted the document as much.

Despite such knowledge of a suspicion, the Shogunate chose to accept the validity of
the document because of a desire to control the ever increasing number of rônin.

31
Takahashi (1990:54) gives the following readings: Gonyûkoku no setsu owatasesôrô
okitegaki. There are discrepancies both in the kanji and the readings given by Sanford
(1977:418).

32
Takahashi (1991:55-67) lists and gives full translations of six versions of the Keicho no
okitegaki.

72
Officially recognizing the Fuke sect was one way of exercising such control, if only
indirectly. Many of the rônin whom the bakufu found difficult to control would be
motivated to join the Fuke sect with its newly acquired privileges. The Fuke sect
could then assert authority over its members, thereby strengthening govenmental
stability.

Consequently, the main provisions set forth in the numerous versions of Keichô no
okitegaki to a large degree defined the Fuke sect and the lifestyle of the komusô
during the period in which the decree was in force, that is from the middle of the 17th
century until the latter 19th century.

Ironically, the number of provisions included in the versions of the document

increased as the position of the Fuke sect weakened. Of the six versions translated by
Takahashi (1990:55-67), the shortest contains nine provisions. The longest has
twenty-one provisions, with other earlier versions containing ten, eleven, seventeen
and twenty provisions. The versions with the least provisions seem clearly to favour
the government, listing obligations of the komusô to the bakufu as well as a minimum
of rights. In contrast, those versions with the most provisions give the members of the
Fuke sect a number of extraordinary privileges not included in other versions. In other
words, the document, which was originally forged to provide the Fuke sect with
official recognition, continued to be tampered with in attempts to maintain
recognition and to increase privileges (Takahashi 1991:67-68).

The first provision of all copies of Keichô no okitegaki defines the community of the
komusô as a religious order whose function is to provide temporary refuge for rônin.
Other main points are the special privileges granted to the komusô: that is, freedom of
travel, a monopoly on the use of shakuhachi, the right to bear arms and the privilege
of being under the direct legal jurisdiction of the bakufu, rather than local authorities.

Below is a version of the document entitled Sadame, found in Kurihara (1918:140-

143). This version contains the greatest number of provisions:

1. The Japanese komusô fraternity is a religious group specially designed to serve

the needs of ronin and samurai who wish to withdraw temporarily from the
world. The temples of the komusô do not pertain to the jurisdiction of the
authorities in which they are located. They are reserved only for the samurai.
2. When the parent temple issues the rules, everyone should abide by them. A
komusô who belongs to a sub-temple will receive penalization from the parent
temple.
3. When a komusô performs itinerancy, he is obeying the laws of his sect.
Therefore, he must be allowed to do it freely.
4. When a komusô is practising takuhatsu [托鉢, religious mendicancy] in a
foreign land, the town’s people cannot molest him according to the laws of
that land. If the komusô is prevented from doing takuhatsu, he should report to
the main temple. If the main temple is not able to handle the matter, it should
be reported as soon as possible to the Edo Bugyô [magistrate].
5. During a komusô’s pilgrimages, within the streets or in the lodging places, he
is not to remove the tengai [天蓋, basket hat] and show his face.
6. A komusô should not carry arms during his takuhatsu. He is allowed to have a
dagger shorter than one shaku (30.3 cm.) and to hide it in his clothing.

73
 7. A komusô is also a samurai who pursues his enemies during his pilgrimages.
He, therefore, should be given free admission to shibai [芝居, theatrical
entertainment], etc., and be exempted from toll fees and boat fares everywhere
he goes.
8. The bansô (priest keeper) should be sent to all the country, to supervise
komusô behavior.
9. If the bansô discovers a false komusô during his expeditions, he should deal
with him according to the laws. If the bansô agrees to be bribed and sets the
false komusô free, he, as well as the false komusô, will be rigorously punished.
Therefore, be on guard and behave yourself!
10. No one is allowed to play the shakuhachi besides a komusô. If a samurai
desires to play the shakuhachi, he should obtain permission from the main
temple. Only samurai are allowed to play shakuhachi and become komusô.
11. If a komusô is aware of a komusô conspiracy, he should report it at once to the
authorities. The participants, including the main temple and the bansô, will be
punished severely.
12. When a komusô is practising takuhatsu, he may have with him no more than
one fellow komusô as his mate.
13. A komusô should not extort donations or lodging accommodation from the
poor. In addition, feasts, banquets and... 33
14. When a komusô chances upon one of his enemies, they should both agree to
ask for permission from the main temple to be relieved from their komusô
status. They should duel on the temple’s grounds. The duelers are not allowed
to receive any external reinforcements. Only samurai are allowed to behave
thus.
15. If a samurai enters the temple’s grounds carrying a sword dripping with blood,
the temple authorities should first interrogate him, and then offer him refuge.
If a samurai has precedents, he should not hide his past deeds, because if his
sins are made known in the future, he will no longer receive protection from
the temple.
16. A komusô may kill his enemies but is not allowed to participate in group-
fighting. He is allowed to have only one fellow komusô with him during the
fight. Only samurai are allowed to behave thus.
17. A komusô is not allowed to ride a horse or use a palanquin during his
itinerancy, in order to avoid facing too many people.
18. When a komusô arrives at the borderland of a country, he should politely
demonstrate his credentials, which were given by the main temple and be
allowed to pass freely. If a komusô avoids passing by the official checkpoint,
he should be interrogated. Be prudent and respect the regulations!
19. When a komusô practices takuhatsu outside his territory in a castle town, he
should not stay there for more than seven days. During his takuhatsu practice

33
Missing kanji in the original Japanese preclude further translation of this provision. A
provision in another version, which begins exactly the same, continues as follows: "In
addition, feasts, banquets and gambling. He should also not accept bribes. A komusô who
transgresses these rules will not be allowed to remain a komusô. His honsoku (credentials)
will be taken away." (Takahashi 1990:58-59)

74
 he should never play secular music or popular tunes. He is not allowed to
participate in any artistic activities.
20. When a komusô is practicing takuhatsu, he should not use a shakuhachi that is
shorter than one shaku (30.3 cm) and eight sun (1/10 of [a] shaku) in length,
nor play different pieces than those prescribed.
21. Komusô discipline has been established for all samurai under the sun. Do not
forget the right path of chivalry, because at every moment a komusô can again
become a samurai. Learn the priest trade, and in your heart enhance chivalry.
Remember that this is a religious sect for the bushido. Hence you are granted
to travel freely throughout the country.

(Translated by Takahashi 1990:55-67)

The first authenticated communication from the Shogunate to the Fuke sect (in
contrast to the unauthenticated Keichô no okitegaki) was addressed to the two temples
Ichigetsuji and Reihôji. Known as the Enpô gonen no hatto (延寶五年の法度,
‘Ordinance of 1677’) (reproduced in Kurihara 1918:155-156), this government
directive was issued in the sixth month of the fifth year of the Enpô era (1677). It is
the first concrete evidence of the recognition by the Edo government of the Fuke sect.
Specifically, the edict recognizes both Ichigetsuji and Reihôji as honzan (本山, ‘main
temple’) of the Fuke sect. By officially recognizing Ichigetsuji and Reihôji with the
“Ordinance of 1677”, the Shogunate confirmed the existence of the Fuke sect though
the sect probably existed well before official recognition was given it in 1677. The
Fuke sect acted as the sole legal representative of all komusô from this date until
abolishment of the sect two centuries later, in 1871.

The “Ordinance of 1677” instructed the Fuke sect in three matters: Firstly, it told the
main and branch temples how they were to choose head priests. Secondly, it
stipulated how new members were to be selected, including what credentials they
needed in order to join the sect. Finally, it dealt with the subject of members breaking
the law, and with the rules of the sect. These three points became the basis of all later
rules of the sect (Kamisangô 1974:17).

3.5.3 The San’in Sangu

After securing offical recognition and patronage from the Shogunate, the Fuke sect
attempted to regulate and control the komusô movement. The primary method of
asserting the govenmentally granted authority over the komusô was with the
conferment of the san’in sangu (三印三具, ‘three seals’ and ‘three implements’), the
certification and tools of the trade needed by komusô. Before receiving the san’in
sangu, a number of requirements had to be met. First of all, proof of samurai status
had to be produced. Also required were a “certification of non-Christian belief”, a
letter of guarantee of one’s birthright from a known member of the samurai class, a
statement giving reasons for the desire to join the Fuke sect, and a written oath that
the laws of the sect be respected. Strict background checks were also made of all
applicants (Sanford 1977:421; Kamisangô 1974:17).

75
The applicant was required to pay a once-only license fee, which varied over time, but
on average totalled three hundred hiki in gold (三百疋, 100 hiki = 25 sen 銭), a
substantial sum of money at the time (Nakatsuka 1979:515). The applicant then
performed a contractual ceremony, swearing his sincerity before the altar of the
founder of the sect. The san’in sangu were then presented as official recognition of
the newly gained komusô status. The “Three Tools” were a shakuhachi, a tengai
(天蓋, a basket hat) and a kesa (袈裟, a Buddhist priest’s stole worn over the kimono)
(Kurihara 1918:158). The “Three Seals” were called honsoku (本則, ‘original rules’),
kaiin (會印 ‘society seal’) and tsûin (通印, ‘passage seal’). Honsoku (reproduced in
full in Kurihara 1918:159-162) outlines the basic philosophy of the komusô and the
symbolism of the shakuhachi instrument. The first part of the document quotes
Chapter 29 of the Chinese classic Linji lu (臨済録, J. Rinzai roku) about the
namesake of the Fuke sect, as follows:

P’u-k’o (Puhua, J. Fuke) was always going about the streets ringing a hand-
bell and saying, “If a bright-head (明頭, J. meitô) comes, strike the bright-
head. If a dark-head (暗頭, J. antô) comes, strike the dark-head. Whatever
direction of quarter it comes from, hit it like a whirlwind. And if it comes from
emptiness, cut it down with a scythe”.

Lin-chi (Linji) sent one of his attendants to have a little talk with P’u-k’o.
When he arrived, the attendant spoke the lines he had been given [by Lin-chi],
“What do you do when absolutely nothing at all comes forth?”

P’u-k’o pushed the question aside saying, “Tomorrow there’s a meager feast
at the Ta-pei yuan” (大悲院, Dabei yaun, J. Daihiin).

The attendant returned to Lin-chi and made his report. Lin-chi said, “I’ve had
my suspicions about that fellow for a long time.”

(translated by Sanford 1977:439)

Honsoku continues with a second section, which encapsulates the philosophy of the
Fuke sect in a description of the instrument and a short poem, as follows:

The shakuhachi is an instrument of the Dharma (法器, hôki). There are

numerous meanings in the shakuhachi. It is made with three nodes (of
bamboo) and always with two sections, long and short. Each of its features
manifests something. The three joints are the Three Powers [Heaven, Earth
and Man]. The two holes, upper and lower, are the Sun and the Moon. The
five holes, front and back, are the Five Elements. It is the profound source of
all creation. Playing [the shakuhachi] imparts the Dharma of the Myriad
Things. One’s ego dissolves into darkness and the objective realm and the
[subjective] heart/mind become oneness.

The tengai (‘basket hat’) is a thing that is endowed with the sublime Body of
the Buddha. Therefore our sect is modeled with that in mind.

76
 Sacred mountain, one moon’s reflection
Illuminating the myriad schools.
Puhua, a solitary wind of virtue
Perfumes the three kingdoms. 34

Shimôsa kuni [province], Katsushika gun [county], Kazahaya sô [village],

Kogane.

Kinryûzan Bairin’in (金龍山梅林院), Ichigetsuji [temple seal]

[Bearer’s] Religious name [Seal] [Bearer’s] Name [Seal]

(translation by Lee)

A translation given by Sanford (1977:422) is the only other English translation of

honsoku of the Fuke sect. There are several major discrepancies in Sanford’s
translation of this important document. In the fourth sentence of his translation,
Sanford adds the following words: “The [differentiation between the four] upper and
[one] lower fingerholes represents the sun and the moon”. He then notes that the four
upper fingerholes being “made to represent collectively the archetypically unitary
sun” is “somewhat forced”.

Contrary to Sanford’s translation, there is no mention of fingerholes in the original

text (上下之二竅者日月也, ‘the two holes, upper and lower, represent the sun and
the moon’). The “two holes, upper and lower” are the top hole (mouthpiece) and the
very bottom hole of the flute. In a diagram of the shakuhachi in the book Shakuhachi
tsûzoku shû (尺八通俗集, ‘Popular Collection for the Shakuhachi’ 1769), by Kinko I,
these holes are labelled heaven and earth (see Illustration 10). An untitled document
of the period states that the top hole of the shakuhachi represents the sun because it is
round, while the bottom hole, when viewed through the middle of the shakuhachi
(looking down the bore of the flute from the mouthpiece,) has the shape of a half
34
Sanford translates the poem as follows:

Above the holy mountain, a singular moon,

Its light reflected in myriad streams.
P’u-k’o [Puhua] was a solitary wind
Whose virtue still perfumes
the three kingdoms.

In the original text, there is no word corresponding to the word “still” included in Sanford’s
translation. Sanford (1977:422-423) explains the meaning of the poem as follows: “The poem
begins with the standard Buddhist metaphor of the moon as a Noumenal Reality which
reflects its image in numberless phenomenal realities, though ‘myriad streams’ no doubt also
refers to the sub-temples and sub-sects of the ‘Single Moon Temple’ (Ichigetsuji). Puhua, like
the moon, is presented as a figure of solitary purity whose essence permeates the world
(sanzhou [J. sanshû], 三州).” See pp.234-235 for another example of moon symbolism
in shakuhachi literature.

77
moon, thus representing the heavens (Nakatsuka 1979:475). With a typically bent or
curved shakuhachi, the bend in the bamboo would create the half-moon shape of the
bottom hole when viewed from the mouthpiece end.

78
Sanford (1977:422) also names the “Five Elements” as Earth, Air, Fire, Water and
Space. He notes that these are the five elements of Indian Buddhism and thus are
more likely in the Zen context of the Fuke sect, though the text uses the words wu
xing (五行, gogyô), which normally signify the five elements of early Chinese
cosmology: Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal and Water. According to Kinko I’s diagram, the
five elements are Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Space (see Illustration 10). Nakatsuka
(1979:475) quotes an untitled Edo document as stating that the front four fingerholes
also represent the four seasons, while the back fingerhole represents midsummer
(土用, doyô).

Finally, it is difficult to understand how Sanford arrived at his translation of the

second sentence of the section concerning the tengai: “The tengai hat is an implement
of adornment of the Buddha-kaya. It is an item of clothing authorized to our sect
[alone]” (Sanford 1977:422). The original Japanese is as follows:
夫天蓋者荘厳仏身之具也。故我門準擬之也。

The second document of the san’in, called the kaiin, documented the identity of the
bearer and certified membership in the Fuke sect. Kaiin had to be renewed every six
months by one of the main temples, making it one of the sect’s primary sources of
authority over the komusô (Sanford 1977:423), as well as one source of income. The
fee for renewing one’s six month licence was twenty momme (匁, 1 momme = 3.75
grams) in silver (Nakatsuka 1979:515). The third document, the tsûin, was a travel
pass which the komusô needed in his journeys throughout Japan. Together with
sangu, the possession of san’in was supposed to be concrete proof that one was a
member of the Fuke sect and not a beggar or thief in disguise (Kamisangô 1974:17;
Sanford 1977:423).

3.5.4 The Organization and Activities of the Fuke Sect

There were originally only two ranks of members of the Fuke sect, kyôgai (境界) and
jûshoku (住職). Most of the members were the wandering komusô, who were called
kyôgai (境界, literally ‘a boundary’; in Buddhist terminology meaning ‘the realm of
objective reality’). Unlike the kyôgai, who were not fully ordained Buddhist priests,
the second rank of members were ordained and lived in the temples. They were called
jûjishoku (住持職, ‘office of the head priest’) or simply jûshoku (住 職) (Kamisangô
1974:17; Sanford 1977:424). 35 Kamisangô (1974:17) lists six other ranks within the
Fuke sect organization besides the jûshoku, as follows: the indai (院代, second
ranking priest and representative of the jûshoku); the shutsuyaku (出役, priest who
made official visits to other temples; the kanshu (看守, also read kansu, a

35
According to Sanford (1977:424), the term kanju (看主) is synonymous with jûjishoku,
even though Imaeda (1962:251) uses kanju as an equivalent to kyôgai. Nakatsuka (1979:514)
differentiates kanju from jûshoku, stating that only the jûshoku could issue honsoku, while
the kanjû could not. Nakatsuka (1979:525) also states that jûshoku had to take the tonsure,
while kanju did not.

79
jailer/disciplinarian); the yakusô (役僧, an officiating priest); the rusui (留守居, the
caretaker); and the montei (門弟，the ‘disciples’, i.e., the komusô).

Sanford (1977:424-425) does not mention these six ranks, but lists five other ranks.
Jizume (寺詰, literally ‘appointment to the temple’) and tsumeai (詰 合, literally ‘co-
worker’) were permanent, lesser resident monks of the large temples. Monks attached
to the temples but residing elsewhere were called honsoku, after the first “seal”.
Finally, there were two designations that were in principle prohibited by law, but were
common nonetheless. Shûen josui (宗縁助吹, literally ‘assistant player associated
with the sect’) were ‘temporary komusô’, commoners who could not join the sect but
wished to study the shakuhachi. The shûen josui were granted temporary, limited
membership permits with specific expiration dates. Kaido (海道, literally ‘ocean
path’) were personal disciples to individual komusô and constituted the second
prohibited rank.

All ranks mentioned above can be divided into two major categories, those monks
who were residents of a temple and those who were, for the most part, mendicant. The
latter constituted the majority of the rank and file members of the Fuke sect. Sanford
(1977:424) suggests that the disjunction between the two and the inability of the
temple establishment to fully control the wandering kyôgai was a major cause of the
eventual demise of the sect.

The monks residing in the temples followed a routine similar to that found in other
Buddhist sects, with an additional focus on playing the shakuhachi as suizen.
Kamisangô (1974:17) describes a typical day in a Fuke temple as follows:

In the morning, before dawn, the yakusô played the piece “Kakusei rei”
(覚醒鈴, literally ‘Awakening Bell’), signalling everyone to awake. All would
gather before the altar, and as a morning ritual, would play the piece
“Chôka” (朝課, ‘Morning Theme’). Then they would do morning zazen
(seated meditation). In the middle of the day, time would be set aside for
shakuhachi practice as well as budôshûren (武道修練, the practice of martial
arts), and begging for alms. In the evening, the piece “Banka” (晩課,
‘Evening Theme’) was ritually performed, followed by evening zazen. When a
secret ceremony was performed in the middle of night, pieces such as
“Shin’ya” (深夜, ‘Deep Night’) or “Reibo” (鈴慕, ‘Yearning for the Bell’)
were performed at the beginning of the ceremony.

(translated by Lee 1986:54)

Certain formalities were to be observed while on pilgrimages. The tengai covered the
entire head of the komusô (see Illustration 11, top, second from left figure), and not
only signified his non-attachment to identity or ego, but allowed him to remain silent
as much as possible. In answer to questions of his destination, the komusô replied,
“the one place of non-dwelling” (一所不住, issho fujû), 36 or “Whatever direction or

36
In Buddhist terms, the phrase “issho fujû” means the ‘state of non-attachment to any
sensory, intellectual or emotional object’ (Sanford 1977:426).

80
quarter”. 37 Questions as to his name or identity were to be answered only with the
name of his temple and his religious name, or with the question “What can you ask of
one who consists of voidness wrapped up in the form of a body, and who carries the
shakuhachi of infinite emptiness?” Further inquiries were to be met by backing away
and waving his flute at those asking the questions (Sanford 1977:426).

Particular pieces were also to be performed while traveling as mendicant priests.

While walking down the road, the piece “Tôri” (通り, ‘Passing’) was performed.
When stopped before a house or establishment in order to beg for alms, the high
pitched piece “Kadotsuke” (門付, ‘At the Gate’) was performed to draw attention to
those within. After pouring the bowl (called hachi 鉢) of uncooked rice into a special
pouch and returning the empty bowl back to the donator, the komusô would perform
the intense piece “Hachigaeshi” (鉢返し, ‘Returning the Bowl’) as an expression of
his intense gratitude for the life-sustaining donation.

The first komusô to see a fellow komusô on the road was to play “Yobitake” (呼竹,
‘Calling Bamboo’) while still walking toward him. The piece “Yobitake” is almost
entirely in the upper register, the high pitches suited to a “calling” piece. The second
komusô was then to reply, also without stopping, with the piece “Uketake” (受竹,
‘Receiving Bamboo’). This piece, in contrast to “Yobitake”, is in the lower register,
and consists of very long and complex phrases, as if in answer to the challenge of the
“caller”. When the two came together, the piece “Gutai kyoku” (遇対曲, ‘Meeting
Face to Face Piece’) was played in unison, with the “caller” playing in the lower
register and the “receiver” playing in the upper register. Requests for lodging at a
komusô temple were to be made by performing the piece “Monkai no
kyoku” (門開の曲, ‘Gate Opening Piece’).

According to Tukitani (1990b:51), pieces performed ritualistically or in the context of

spiritual training differ from pieces played during pilgrimages or free time. Pieces
used in the temples are austere, highly formal and serene, while pieces played on the
road generally are much more elaborate, and have been modified to a greater degree.
Examples of the formal pieces are “Kyorei” (虚霊, or 虚鈴, ‘Empty Bell’),
“Kokû” (虚空, ‘Empty Sky’), and “Mukaiji” (霧海篪, ‘Flute in a Misty Sea’), the
three most venerated pieces in the koten honkyoku repertoire. An outstanding example
of a piece performed on the road is “Reibo” of the Ôshû lineage (see Chapter 4).

The two contexts in which pieces were performed, that is, “a strictly ceremonial
context and the loosely prescribed context of pilgrimage” may explain some of the
variations in the names of the piece “Reibo”. The variant name Reihô, especially
when written with the characters 礼法 (manner+ritual) may refer to the ceremonial
context, and the variant name Renbo (恋慕, ‘Intense Yearning or Longing’) may
connote the non-formal context. The standard name “Reibo” (鈴慕, ‘Yearning for the
Bell’) could be identified with either context, though the history and form of the piece
seems to suggest the context of pilgrimage (Tukitani 1990b:51).

37
This refers to the words of Puhua (J. Fuke) as quoted in Chapter 29 of the Linji
Lu (J. Rinzai roku).

81
The members of the Fuke sect have left us with very little written material elucidating
the philosophy which underlay their playing shakuhachi as suizen, blowing Zen, the
honkyoku presumably speaking for themselves. Kinko I is said to have verbalized the
concept of suizen with short pronouncements such as ichi on jôbutsu (一音成仏,
‘one-sound Buddhahood’), chikuzen ichi’nyo (竹禅一如, ‘bamboo and Zen are one’)
(Gutzwiller 1984:241). The only writings on the subject by a member of the Fuke sect
in existence today (Gutzwillwer 1984:241) are three short essays by Hisamatsu Fûyô
(久松風陽, ca.1790-1845), entitled Hitori kotoba (獨言, ‘Words to Oneself’), Hitori
mondô (獨問答, ‘Questions and Answers to Oneself’) and Kaisei hôgo (海靜法語,
‘Ocean Calm Sermon’). Hisamatsu, a samurai working for the Tokugawa
government, became the main player of the Kinko lineage within the Fuke sect after
the death of his teacher, Kinko III. His two top students, Yoshida Itchô (吉田一調,
1812-1881) and Araki Kodô (荒木古童, 1823-1908), were instrumental in the
survival of the shakuhachi as a musical instrument after the Meiji era (see p.145).

The theme of detachment from this world is evident in the simple manner in which
the komusô was to be be buried if he died while on pilgrimage. In the Kyotaku denki
kokuji kai (see pp.36-39), Kusunoki Masakatsu, the traditional founder of Reihôji (see
p.121) is quoted as saying:

When a fellow-priest [of this sect] dies, he must be seated on his fukusu (副子,
the komusô’s bedroll), covered with a large piece of cloth, tied with a rope,
and buried. His tombstone is to be made of the board called kenkonbari.38
The kyotaku [alias for shakuhachi] will be performed as the funeral service.
This ritual will be the single highest wish for a priest dying in his itinerancy.

(translated by Tsuge 1977:52)

Numerous extant drawings of the komusô during the Edo period help provide a
picture of their appearance and lifestyle (see Illustration 11 for six examples of these
drawings). The evolution of the tengai from a shallow, wide-rimmed straw hat to a
deep, basket-shaped hat which covered the entire face can be seen. Illustration 12
shows a courtesan holding a shakuhachi, and two of what Sanford (1977:425) calls
“komusô dandies”, who appeared in the late Edo period. Dressed only for effect, they
are indicative of the decline of the authority and effectiveness of the Fuke sect as a
political and spiritual organization. The final demise of the sect is discussed in the
next section.

38
乾坤張り, literally ‘heaven earth placard’. The kenkonbari was a small signboard which
the komusô wore on his chest. On one side of the placard was written kenkonbari, and on the other side
were the words fusei fumetsu (不生不滅, non-born, non-dying). This phrase is potent with meaning in
Zen Buddhist tradition. The ‘non-born, non-dying’ can refer to the Buddha-nature that is found
anywhere one may look, including paradoxically, all that is impermanent.

82
3.5.5 The Decline and Demise of the Fuke Sect

Indications of a decline in the official status of the Fuke sect are evident from the
latter 18th century, and into the 19th century, culminating in the complete abolition of
the sect by the bakufu in 1847. Furthermore, an increase in secular activities by the

83
Fuke sect and some of its members is evident during this same period. The decline
and eventual demise of the sect is outlined below.

According to the theory discussed above (p.116), the Tokugawa bakufu granted
recognition and special privileges to the Fuke sect firstly as a method of asserting
indirect authority over the uncontrollable numerous rônin, and, secondly, as a means
of recruiting and placing spies throughout the land. It seems likely that the bakufu was
not deceived by the members of the Fuke sect, who forged documents such as Keicho
no okitegaki (see pp.115-122) and Kyotaku denki (p.36) in order to receive official
recognition and special privileges. Recognition was granted to the sect because it was
politically suitable at the time, not because of any sense of propriety or obligation.

Throughout the history of the Fuke sect, there were bonefide practitioners of suizen
who were continuing a tradition at least as old as 14th century Ikkyû Zenji. The large
repertoire of koten honkyoku (古典本曲, classical honkyoku) 39 and the philosophy
behind them are the legacy of these persons. There were komusô, however, whose
antisocial behavior clearly indicated motivations other than spiritual enlightenment
for their involvement with the Fuke sect. As outlined above (pp.108-109), the
mendicant lifestyle, the special privileges, in particular the freedom of travel, and the
dress and anonymous manner of the komusô, under which one’s identity could be
easily hidden, all contributed to attracting those who might wish to break the law for
whatever reason.

The very nature of the institution of the komusô encouraged individuality and freedom
from outside authority. This made it difficult for the Fuke temples to control even
their own itinerant members, not to mention the increasing numbers of those
masquerading as komusô. Furthermore, after over two hundred years of peace and
stability, the government’s need for the network of spies provided by the sect may
have declined. The sect began to be seen as a liability not worth maintaining. The
sudden increase in frequency and severity of written admonitions issued to the sect by
the government from the late 18th century onwards indicates the problems facing the
Fuke sect at the time.

In one of the first such admonitions, dated 1774, the Shogunate pronounced that it
would take severe measures against extortionists disguised as komusô and against
komusô who did not uphold the law (see Kurihara 1918:167 for a reproduction of the
edict). The Fuke sect responded by attempting to restore some of the discipline that
existed in the past. It was at this point in time that major documents appear in which
the Fuke sect tried to maintain its privileged status and improve its public image. One
such document is the Kyotaku denki koku jikai (Yamamoto 1795), a lyrical
description of a glorified history of the sect. As stated above (pp.37-39), this book
purports to be an annotation of the Kyotaku denki, which was supposedly written in
the early 1600s. Both the book and its annotation, however, were probably fabricated
at the same time (Kurihara 1918:108-109; Nakatsuka 1979:130-131; Nishiyama
1982a:140; Kamisangô 1974:14-16).

39
This term refers to honkyoku that originated with the komusô or their predecessors, in
contrast to “modern” honkyoku, composed during the 20th and 21st centuries.

84
Also written around the time the bakufu began questioning the advantages of
continued recognition of the Fuke sect, were those versions of the Keichô no okitegaki
which list the greatest number of special privileges (Kamisangô 1974:17). These
expanded versions were, like the Kyotaku denki koku jikai, attempts to enhance the
status and authority of the sect in the eyes of the bakufu. Another attempt at public-
relations damage control took place in 1841, when Ichigetsuji and Reihôji made a
submission to the governmental Council of Temples and Shrines, reaffirming the true
spiritual nature of the sect (Kurihara 1918:168).

All of the effort to maintain the official recognition and status of the sect was to be of
no avail. There finally came a time when the benefits to the bakufu were far
outweighed by the disadvantages of allowing the Fuke sect to retain its special
privileges. In 1847, the government issued a furegaki (触書, ‘circulated official
announcements’, frequently posted on public announcement boards throughout the
country), unequivocally stating that the privileges of the Fuke sect, as stated in the
Keichô no okitegaki, were no longer valid and should have never been granted in the
first place. The announcement revoked the rule that only those of samurai birth could
join the sect. Since the Fuke sect was under the auspices of the Rinzai sect of Zen
Buddhism, which anyone could join regardless of birth, it was argued by the bakufu
that the same criteria for membership should apply to the Fuke sect. Furthermore, the
announcement stated that the members of the sect did not require special privileges to
exercise their spiritual practices, but they did need to cultivate charity of the heart
(Kamisango 1974:18).

Without the special privileges and exclusivity granted by the Keichô no okitegaki, the
Fuke sect lost most of its authority and prestige. Attempts were again made to reform
and revitalize the sect, but to no avail. If the bakufu of the Edo period saw little reason
for the continued existence of the sect, the new Meiji (明治) government saw none at
all. In October 1871, three years after overthrowing the nearly three hundred year old
bakufu, the new government issued a dajôkan fukoku (太政官布告, a cabinet decree),
which formally abolished the Fuke sect (Kurihara 1918:175-176). All of the komusô
temples were closed and the priests became lay persons. A year later, begging for
alms became illegal, as was playing the shakuhachi as a spiritual tool (法器, hôki).

The shakuhachi playing komusô and their organization, the Fuke sect, was not alone
in having official recognition abruptly terminated by the new Meiji government.
Other monopolistic guilds, such as the guilds of blind koto and jiuta players, were
also abolished (Kamisangô 1980:100) as part of a rush to modernize and westernize
the country. The heikyoku tradition of biwa playing was effectively destroyed during
this period. The Nô theatre tradition barely survived. There were also attacks on other
establishments of power, including Buddhist temples, that had been patronized by the
old Tokugawa region.

One of the early Meiji slogans was “Sweep aside the Buddha, smash Buddhism”
(排仏釈, haibutsu kishaku). In fact, even from the Genroku period (1688), the
Buddhist establishment had not been popular in Japan, and its continued existence
was mainly due to governmental patronage. It is clear from the contemporary
literature that “the [Buddhist] clergy were disliked among the commoners and

85
despised by men of learning” (Sanson 1952:480). The Meiji Restoration may have
merely allowed long-held sentiments to surface.

Furthermore, as Gutzwiller (1984:240) points out, “whatever the conduct of its

members, no group which had close connections to the bakufu could have survived its
fall and the profound changes which placed the power in the hands of politicians loyal
to the new emperor. Although lawlessness was a general problem during the late
Tokugawa period, it seems that at least some of the offences the Fuke sect was
charged with were a pretext to get rid of an organization with strong ties to the ancien
regime”.

It is clear that a number of elements made the Meiji government’s decision to ban the
Fuke sect inevitable. After the final cabinet decree in 1871, the demise of the Fuke
sect and the komusô seemed complete, especially in the Edo area. Reihôji became an
informal playground and storage depot. Its decayed buildings were destroyed in a fire
in 1893. Ichigetsuji and its landholdings were divided and sold. The temple became
part of the Shingon sect, and the land was eventually purchased by the Sôka Gakkai,
the political wing of a new Buddhist sect (Fujita 1970:6).

3.6 The Shakuhachi as a Secular Musical Instrument

The total collapse of the Fuke sect, the destruction of its temples and the prohibition
of alms begging did not result in the demise of the use of the shakuhachi as an
instrument. On the contrary, its popularity increased after the Meiji proscription of
1871. Two reasons may be given for this. First of all, the shakuhachi continued to be
performed as a secular musical instrument during the Edo era in contravention to the
monopolistic tenets of the Fuke sect, just as it had been used in non-religious contexts
before the Edo period.

It must be remembered that before govenmental recognition of Keichô no okitegaki

and tacit approval of the monopoly claimed by the Fuke sect, the shakuhachi had been
used in secular music contexts from the time of its first introduction into Japan as part
of the gagaku ensemble, and continuing throughout its history in such traditions as
dengaku (see p.74). There is much evidence that the instrument continued to be used
in musical contexts other than spiritual ones and by persons other than members of
the Fuke sect even after such uses became illegal (Nakatsuka 1979:438; Ueno
1984:269)). After the demise of the Fuke sect, its popularity as a secular musical
instrument increased legally and openly.

Literary evidence of the use of the shakuhachi in secular settings can be found in the
book Gayû manroku (雅遊漫録, ‘Random Comments on Elegant Entertainment’,
1755): “Nowadays, typically the shakuhachi is a long, thick instrument. It is tuned
with the shamisen, and in this way, its pitch has become quite low. Its voice is the
height of licentiousness” (Ueno 1984:293). Pictorial evidence can be found in the
book Uta keizu (歌系図, ‘A Genealogy of Songs’, 1782), which contains a drawing of
an on-stage performance of shakuhachi, koto and shamisen, the components of the
sankyoku ensemble (Ueno 1984:292) (see Illustration 13). Also, in the book Yamato

86
kôsaku e shô (大和耕作絵抄, ‘Summary of Yamato Cultivating Pictures’), compiled
in the late 17th century, is a drawing of eight dancers being accompanied by four
musicians playing shakuhachi, shamisen and two drums (Ueno 1984:293). The dress
and position of the dancers, as well as the instrumentation of the music ensemble
indicate a performance of min’yô (民謡, folk music), and accompanying dance (see
Illustration 14).

In 1694, a set of regulations was issued by Myôanji, entitled Honsoku deshi e môshi
watashi sadame (本則弟子江申渡定, ‘Announcement of Regulations for Disciples of
the “First Seal”’) (reproduced in Nakatsuka 1979:166-169). The announcement
clearly forbids the playing of “corrupt pieces” (乱曲, rankyoku, i.e., popular pieces
performed in ensemble with the koto and shamisen) (Nakatsuka 1979:169). According
to Kamisangô (1974:18), that this rule was issued at all indicates that such practices
were widespread.

Two inquiries by the government to the Fuke temples, and responses thereto, further
show the extent of shakuhachi usage in secular music contexts. The bakufu asked the
temples in 1792 if it was a good thing that shakuhachi was being performed together
with shamisen and kokyû (胡弓, a bowed lute). The temples replied, “It really is
something which should not be done. The people are misbehaving, but they are doing
it privately. If we cannot hear it, there is no way for us to scrutinize it”. In 1847, the
government again inquired, “The playing, as entertainment, of shakuhachi with
shamisen, etc., in ensemble occurs; is this all right with the Fuke sect?” The temples
replied, “It is deplorable and very bothersome” (Kamisangô 1974:18).

The second reason for the continued popularity of shakuhachi after the dissolution of
the Fuke sect in 1871 is that the monopoly of its use by the Fuke sect was never
strictly enforced. Despite the claim by the Fuke sect that its members had the
exclusive right to play the shakuhachi, the instrument was, in fact, played by non-
members, including commoners, whether in a spiritual or a secular context. Evidence
of the use of shakuhachi by non-Fuke sect members and even commoners not only
occurring but actually being condoned by the Fuke sect can found as early as 1658, in
a set of regulations issued by Myôanji,

87
88
entitled Kakun nijûsanka jô (家訓二十三ヶ条, ‘Twenty-three Rules of the House’)
(reproduced in Nakatsuka 1979:151-161). 40 One of the “rules” states, “for the
present, there is meaning in making contact with farmers and townspeople who are
not engaging in foul play, to the degree that profit [for the individual] is not the
concern” (Nakatsuka 1979:157). According to Kamisangô (1974:18), this rather
vague statement really meant that the temple sanctioned the teaching of farmers and
commoners if the temple itself also stood to gain financially, through such means as
donations and the selling of licenses.

The previously mentioned set of regulations entitled Honsoku deshi e môshi watashi
sadame (1694) differentiates between komusô living in temples and those residing in
towns, and mentions places other than temples where shakuhachi was taught and
licences were issued, no doubt to non-members of the sect, including commoners.

In 1759, the Shogunate conducted an investigation of the practice of issuing special

licences, called suichiku mei (吹竹名, ‘blowing bamboo name’) or simply chiku mei
(竹名, ‘bamboo name’), to commoners by Reihôji, one of the main Fuke temples
(Kurihara 1918:165-166). The licences were essentially identical to honsoku (see
p.123), except that they could be held by non-priests and commoners, and were an
excellent source of income for the temple. In defense of these licences, Reihôji argued
that they resembled the naming licences given to composers of haiku (俳句, 17
syllable poems) and were therefore acceptable. The government, observing the fact
that Ichigetsuji did not issue such licences, severely reprimanded Reihôji (Kamisangô
1974:18).

There is other evidence that the upper echelon of the Fuke sect, especially at the Edo
temples Ichigetsuji and Reihôji, may have done far less to support the sect’s
monopoly over the use of the shakuhachi than might be expected. According to
Sanford (1977:429), the ability to play shakuhachi was not an important qualification
for acquiring residence status or even becoming head abbot at these two temples.
Furthermore, the establishment of outside teaching locations was a method devised by
the two temples to farm out shakuhachi instruction “so as to avoid being bothered
with this chore any more than was absolutely necessary”.

Kamisangô (1974:18) defends the actions of the temple authorities, stating that it was
natural that some komusô were better players than others, and that these more skilful
players were given the task of teaching the less experienced. Ironically, a
consequence of this delegation of the teaching of shakuhachi by the Fuke temples was
the eventual establishment of teaching studios outside the temple grounds. This in
turn led to the dissemination of the shakuhachi tradition to the general public and,
consequently, to the survival of that tradition after the downfall of the Fuke sect.

The teaching, which involved many of the officiating priests of the temples, was
called fukiawase (吹合, literally ‘blowing together’). 41 At first, teaching was done in
the temples themselves, but as the sect’s restrictions regarding the teaching of

40
Kamisangô (1974:18) incorrectly states that this document has thirty-three rules.
41
The term fukiawase also denoted the teachers themselves.

89
townspeople were lessened, outside teaching locations were established. Whatever the
reason for their establishment, the number of these locations, also called fukiawase or
fukiawase jo (吹合所, literally ‘blowing together places’), increased, so that by 1792,
according to a response to yet another government inquiry, nineteen persons were
listed as living in houses in Edo and teaching shakuhachi.

A directive issued by Myôanji in Kyôto in 1852 entitled Kenbunyaku nari fukiawase

chû e tasshigaki (見聞役為吹合中江達書, ‘Notification for Information Officers in
the fukiawase’) (reproduced in Nakatsuka 1979:211-212) stated that certain
kenbunyaku (provincial representatives of the Fuke sect in charge of taking care of
problem komusô) were also teaching in fukiawase or teaching studios (see below) in
addition to their main duties. The notice continued with, “The fukiawase is an
extension of the temple. Therefore, pieces other than those transmitted by the temple
are not to be taught there. They are not to be called keikojo (稽古所, ‘practice place’),
or shi’nanjo (指南所, ‘instruction place’)”. 42

After the closure of the Fuke temples and with the Fuke priests becoming laymen in
1871, the shakuhachi instructors who were established at the various fukiawase
sho were ideally situated to continue their teaching activities as gainful
employment. There was even more incentive to do so when begging for alms was
prohibited a year later. These instructors, their teaching studios, and their students
became the basis for the resurgence of shakuhachi as a secular musical tradition. Two
men in particular were instrumental in this transition. Both Araki Kodô (荒木古童,
1832-1908) and Yoshida Itchô (吉田一調, 1812-1881) were students of Hisamatsu
Fûyô (see p.132), belonging to a lineage of shakuhachi players who traced themselves
back to Kurosawa Kinko I (黒沢琴古, 1710-1771), himself a teacher at fukiawase jo
outside the temple grounds.

Kinko I, credited with originating the Kinko style of shakuhachi playing, was one of
the skilful players that, according to Kamisangô (1977:18), were given by the head
Edo temples of the Fuke sect the task of teaching novices. As fukiawase for both of
the head temples, Ichigetsuji and Reihôji, Kinko soon attracted a following. His son
Kurosawa Kôemon (黒沢幸右衛門, d.1811) and grandson Kurosawa Masajirô
(黒沢雅十郎, d.1816) became Kinko II and Kinko III. 43

In other words, Kurosawa Kinko I, as well as his son and grandson, were professional
teachers of shakuhachi, who taught the instrument outside the grounds of the temples
of the Fuke sect, in what could even be described as an act of commerce disguised as
religion. The institution of the fukiawase jo gave them and their successors a superbly
suitable foundation from which to continue transmitting their style of shakuhachi
playing even after the destruction of the Fuke organization.

During their time, the Kinko lineage was not an independent school of shakuhachi,
but was a style of playing with a set repertoire, which Kinko I had initiated and his

42
The terms keikojo and shi’nanjo were used to denote places where the koto and/or
shamisen were taught.
43
Sanford (1977:431) incorrectly states that Kinko III was Hisamatsu Fûyô.

90
successors transmitted. This transmission technically occurred within the Fuke sect
until its dissolution. Thereafter, transmission continued within the Kinko ryû.

Soon after the abolition of the Fuke sect, the two previously mentioned shakuhachi
players, Araki and Yoshida, convinced the Meiji government that its further intention
of banning altogether the performing of shakuhachi, even as a secular instrument, was
neither necessary nor desirable (Kurihara 1918:109-110). Arguing that shakuhachi
was worthy of preservation as a secular musical instrument, they encouraged and
developed its use in sankyoku ensemble. Araki also devised the ro tsu re (ロツレ)
notation system, after the three kana symbolizing the first three open-hole finger
positions, which was suitable for notating sankyoku pieces. The ro tsu re notation
system became the basis for the present-day Kinko notation, as well as for the
notation system of today’s largest shakuhachi school, Tozan ryû.

It was probably during this period that the term honkyoku (本曲, ‘original piece’) was
coined to differentiate the spiritually grounded pieces of the old Fuke tradition from
the ever increasing number of shakuhachi pieces played in ensemble with secular
musical instruments such as koto and shamisen. From the turn of the 20th century the
term honkyoku was appropriated, usually by iemoto of various schools of shakuhachi
formed after the Meiji period, to mean solo shakuhachi pieces which they had
composed, e.g., Tozan honkyoku. Consequently, a number of terms were coined by
shakuhachi players wanting to differentiate the original suizen pieces from the newly
composed honkyoku. Among the terms used to denote the pieces that predate the ryû-
specific honkyoku are myôan honkyoku (明暗本曲), tôshô honkyoku (洞簫本曲), fuke
shû kyotaku kyoku (普化宗虚鐸曲), koten shakuhachi honkyoku (古典尺八本曲),
shakuhachi koten honkyoku (尺八古典本曲), fuke shû honkyoku (普化宗本曲) and
dôkyoku (道曲) (Tukitani 1990a:4).

The ensemble pieces, not being honkyoku were called gaikyoku (外曲, ‘outside
pieces’) (Tukitani 1990a:4). In the decades following the end of the Fuke sect, the
popularity of the shakuhachi as a secular instrument used to perform gaikyoku
continued to increase. Indicative of this trend is the founding and growth of the Tozan
ryû, the largest school of shakuhachi players today. 44 In 1896, at the age of twenty-
one, Nakao Tozan (中尾都山, 1876-1956) founded Tozan ryû by opening a
shakuhachi teaching studio in Osaka. He promoted the use of the instrument in
secular musical settings, including its use with western instruments such as the piano
and violin. He also composed a large number of solo, duet and trio pieces, which he
called honkyoku (see above). These pieces were in part based upon western musical
harmonies and appealed to the Japanese public, which was, after two hundred years of
isolation, highly appreciative of things somewhat western in flavour yet still
reassuringly Japanese. Completely excluded from the Tozan repertoire were koten
honkyoku, the original pieces of the komusô, which may have been too representative
of the old order.

44
In 1984, there were 4935 licensed teachers in the largest of three factions of the Tozan ryû.
The second largest faction had 1500 members in 1976, the year it broke away from the main
organization (Takahashi 1990:223). Through a politically motivated adoption and marriage,
two of the factions were reunited in the late 1980s.

91
Nakao’s school did, however, use monopolistic policies for political ends as had been
done by the old Fuke sect and, to an even greater degree, the bakufu. As a rule,
members of the Tozan school were (and in many cases still are) forbidden to learn and
perform pieces other than those of the official Tozan repertoire. Highly talented
players have, for example, been expelled from the sect for performing their own
unauthorized compositions at official Tozan concerts (Kamisangô 1974:21). Because
of this autocratic rule, the majority of shakuhachi players in Japan today do not
openly play honkyoku of the suizen tradition. 45

It is clear that shakuhachi was never totally under the control of, nor dependent upon,
the Fuke sect. Its popularity as a secular musical instrument was not affected
adversely by the abolition of the Fuke sect. Instead of becoming extinct, shakuhachi
continued being taught and performed not only in the secular musical contexts
mentioned above, but also as a spiritual tool, albeit on a smaller scale, as will be
shown below. The abolishment of the Fuke sect saw the end of an institution: the
established temples, the offices of the head abbots, their administrative assistants, the
conferment of the “three tools and the three seals”, as well as the collection of
semiannual fees and the special privileges. Neither the spiritual nor the secular
musical functions of shakuhachi were sustained entirely by these institutional
elements. Consequently, neither function was extinguished by the dissolution of the
Fuke sect institution.

3.7 Suizen after the Abolition of the Fuke Sect

One impression given by much of the literature is that shakuhachi players engaged in
the practice of suizen may have always been in the minority. During the Edo period,
the hierarchy of the Fuke sect appeared too busy with furthering and protecting their
privileges, influence and authority, and many of the rank and file seemed too
interested in the free lifestyle of begging for alms, spying for the Shogunate or hiding
from the law to seriously devote themselves to suizen. After the Fuke sect and the
special privileges and lifestyle it offered were no more, many komusô may have
simply abandoned the instrument. Some of those who had been teaching shakuhachi
at the fukiawase jo, for example the adherents of the Kinko-style Araki and Yoshida,
mentioned above, seemed intent on continuing their teaching and playing activities,
but as secular musicians.

What is certain is that there were always komusô, however few in number, who
practised suizen seriously; otherwise it is unlikely that the koten honkyoku tradition
could have survived the abolishment of Fuke sect. The large repertoire of honkyoku
that continues to be performed and transmitted today is compelling evidence that

45
Perhaps the most enthusiastically received of Yokoyama Katsuya’s recent activities are
his kôshûkai (講習会, ‘training course’), given at least twice a year in three or four locations
throughout Japan. With assistance from his top students, the 3-5 day courses
afford shakuhachi players from all lineages the opportunity to learn koten honkyoku. Because
these kôshûkai are only temporary “courses”, Tozan sect members, who actually predominate,
may attend without threat of loss of face to their monopolistic teachers.

92
throughout the Edo period and even after the abolition of the Fuke sect, shakuhachi
was played as a spiritual tool in the context of suizen.

During the Meiji era, the suizen tradition was kept alive, particularly in the Kyôto
area, by former Fuke sect members whose activities had centered around the third
honzan of the Fuke sect, Myôanji. Unlike the two Edo temples, Ichigetsuji and
Reihôji, which were closed down and abandoned, Myôanji survived the 1871
abolishment of the Fuke sect, though not as a temple of the Fuke sect. Sanford gives
the following as some of the reasons that Myôanji avoided the fate of its two sister
temples in Edo:

A chief feature differentiating the latter history of Myôanji from that of the
Kantô temples is the greater seriousness with which the Kyôto temple took the
shakuhachi and the Zen elements of the Fuke tradition. In the later decades of
the Tokugawa era, as the Edo temples generally allowed their shakuhachi
tradition to follow a course of increasing secularization, Myôanji made serious
attempts to keep its music on a high spiritual and artistic plane. The
differentiation of roles—politics in Edo and art/religion in Kyoto—was
probably at base the virtually inevitable outcome of the geo-political realities
of the Edo era, but it is important to note that it was at Myôanji that the
process of Zen assimilation of the komusô movement went deepest and lasted
longest.

At any rate, after its reclassification as a branch temple of Kôkokuji in 1768

[see p.113], Myôanji quickly rose to prominence as an influential center of
shakuhachi musicianship. The factors prompting Myôanji to concentrate on
music (and by extension the Zen philosophy that might inform such an
interest) were, in addition to the political impotence of the temple, the high-
culture tradition of Kyôto and the conservative perspectives of Myôanji’s
leaders vis-á-vis art, religion and politics. Thus, in general, as Edo gradually
became the center of a movement of popularized shakuhachi music, Myôanji
continued to explore and refine a much more metaphysical Zen style.

(Sanford 1977:432-433)

After the abolition of the Fuke sect in 1871, Jishô Sakuhi (自笑昨非), the 34th and
last abbot of Myôanji while it was a honzan of the Fuke sect, changed his name to
Akekure Kakusaku (明暗覚昨) and became a lay person. 46 Before closing his temple
and departing from priesthood, he transferred a number of Myôanji artifacts and
documents to Zenneiin (善慧院), a sub-temple within the large temple complex of
Tôfukuji (東福寺) for safe-keeping. Included were a statue of Kyochiku Zenji, the
founder of the temple, the kyoreizan jigaku (虚霊山寺額, a framed tablet), the rekidai
jûshoku (歴代住職, genealogies), the indai (院代, names of persons of authority) and
the kanshu no reihai (看守の霊牌，tablets of the posthumous names of the members
of the temple). These objects together became the focal point for those persons who
wished to preserve the komusô tradition (Kamisangô 1977:20; Ueno 1984:302).

46
Tanabe (1954:228) incorrectly names the 34th patriarch of Myôanji as Watanabe Kakuzan
(渡辺鶴山). Sanford (1977:432) incorrectly names Watanabe as the 24th abbot.

93
The total prohibition against begging for alms was lifted by the government in 1881,
after ten years of petitioning by a number of Buddhist sects. Soon after, permission
was granted to komusô to beg for alms as one part of a large fundraising drive for the
replacement of a building other than the Myôanji honzan in the Tofukuji complex
destroyed by fire. The Myôan kyôkai (明暗教会, Myôan Society) was founded, firstly
to organize the fund-raising project, and ultimately to revive the komusô tradition as it
was practiced at the old Myôanji.

There is evidence that if Myôanji was politically impotent during the Tokugawa
regime, it may have been because its sympathies lay with the equally impotent
political opposition, especially from the 19th century. Many of the temple members,
including those in high positions within the administration, were sympathetic to the
anti-government imperial loyalists. On one occasion, four Myôanji komusô, Ozaki
Shinrû (尾崎身竜), 47 Kammyô Gendô (観妙幻堂), Myôan Sogyô (明暗素行) and
Kondô Sôetsu (近藤宗悦) were arrested by agents of the Tokugawa regime as being
messengers for the imperial loyalists. Shinrû was placed under house arrest. Gendô
was beheaded. Sogyô was imprisoned. Sôetsu was not punished at all, due to the
intervention of a high-ranking government official, Toyoda Katsugorô (豊田勝五郎).
Better known as Kodô I (古童創始), a leading figure in the Kinko style of shakuhachi
playing in Edo, Toyoda greatly respected Sôetsu’s musical ability. Sôetsu later
became instrumental in the secularization and modernization of the shakuhachi in the
Kansai area during the Meiji period (Sanford 1977:432).

After the founding of the Myôan kyokai, members of other former Fuke temples soon
followed suit. In 1888, the Fuke kyôkai (普化教会) was founded at the temple,
Kôkokuji. Shortly thereafter, the Myôon kyôkai (妙音教会) was founded at Kokutaiji
(国泰寺) located in Toyama Prefecture, and the Hottô kyôkai (法燈教会) was
founded at Myôkôji (妙光寺) in Kyôto (Kamisangô 1974:20). In 1950, the Fuke
Shôshû Myôanji (普化正宗明暗寺, ‘The Temple of Light and Darkness of the True
Fuke Sect’) was founded as the corporate body of the Myôan kyôkai, and a temple
was rented within the Tôfukuji compounds. In 1969, the main hall of the new
Myôanji was completed. The temple is today acknowledged as the main temple
(本山, honzan) of the suizen tradition, regardless of lineage or ryû (Kamisangô
1974:20).

The komusô societies filled the institutional role of the former Fuke sect in a number
of ways. They granted licenses and certificates similar to the old san’in or three seals.
They also determined the dress of the komusô and the times and circumstances of
begging for alms. There were at first even members of the societies whose only
livelihood was alms received as komusô. The new komusô societies did differ from
the old Fuke sect in being less exclusive; anyone could join the societies once the fees
were paid. According to Kamisangô (1974:20) the early kyôkai movement as a whole
did little to further either the artistic development or the transmission of the music. In

47
Tanabe (1954:228) incorrectly states that Ozaki was the 35th abbot of Myôanji, and that
Watanabe Kakuzan (渡辺鶴山), another imperial loyalist, was the 34th abbot (Kamisangô
1974:20). Sanford (1977:432) quotes Tanabe’s error regarding Ozaki, and adds further to the
confusion by misquoting Tanabe’s original error, stating that Watanabe, though the teacher of
Ozaki, was the 24th abbot, ten generations earlier.

94
this respect, the komusô societies may resemble the Fuke sect. The transmission of the
bulk of the tradition was accomplished not by the institutions, but by individual
shakuhachi players teaching other individuals. This becomes particularly evident after
the Meiji period, when greater documentation allows transmission lineages of
particular honkyoku to be partially traced over a number of generations of performers.

3.8 Transmission of Honkyoku from the Meiji Era to the Present

The most visible mode of transmission of the shakuhachi tradition from the end of the
19th century until the present has been the various institutions and groups that
proliferated once the monopoly of the Fuke sect was broken. A number of terms have
been used to denote these institutions, such as ryû (流, ‘school’), ha (派, ‘faction’),
kai (会, ‘organization’) and sha (社, ‘company’). Most of these are associated with a
particular Fuke temple and with a particular person or founder who operated from that
temple.

In the whole of the honkyoku tradition, there has been no single performer of the
stature and lasting influence of Kinko I, though, as explained above, this may partly
be the result of historical circumstances such as the fukiawase system in Edo.
Consequently no single lineage exists that is the equivalent of Kinko ryû. Instead,
numerous ryû or ha were founded, some lasting only a single generation and others
still in existence today. Among the more lasting lineages that developed outside of
Edo was one founded by Higuchi Taizan (樋口対山, 1856-1914). Taizan is frequently
given credit for playing an instrumental role in revitalizing the suizen tradition in
Kyôto and increasing the influence of the Myôan kyokai (Kamisangô 1974:20;
Tomimori 1979:35-36). He developed the lineage of shakuhachi playing known as
Myôan ryu Taizan ha (明暗流対山派) and was posthumously given the title of the
35th patriarch of the priestly lineage of Myôanji, which had been temporarily
suspended at the time. Kamisangô lists Higuchi’s successors as follows: Kobayashi
Shizan (小林紫山) (36th), Tanikita Muchiku (谷北無竹) (37th), Koizumi Shizan
(小泉止山) (38th) and Fukumoto Kyoan (福本虚庵) (39th). The 40th and present
abbot of Myôanji is Yoshimura Fuan-sôshin (芳村普庵·宗心).

A major difference between Taizan ha and Kinko ryû, as well as nearly all other
major shakuhachi organizations existing today is the complete abstention of Taizan
ha from transmitting any pieces other than koten honkyoku. In contrast, particularly
immediately after the abolition of the Fuke sect, Kinko ryû emphasized the playing of
secular ensemble pieces, though it has maintained the tradition of its thirty-six
honkyoku. As mentioned above (p.2), Tozan ryû, founded in the decade after the
dissolution of the Fuke sect and now the largest shakuhachi lineage in Japan, totally
abandoned the koten honkyoku tradition in favour of secular ensemble and newly
composed solo shakuhachi pieces.

Kinko ryû and Taizan ha were not the only new institutions created that transmitted
koten honkyoku. In Kyôto immediately after the dissolution of the Fuke sect, the
Myôan Shinpô ryû (明暗真法流, ‘Myôan True Dharma Sect’) (alternate spelling
and/or pronunciation: Shimbô, Jimpô, or Jimbô ryû) was important in continuing the

95
honkyoku tradition after the Fuke sect era. Founded by Ozaki Shinryû (尾崎真龍,
1820-1888), its leading proponent was one of Ozaki’s students, Katsuura Shôzan
(勝浦正山, 1856-1942). Shôzan became the head of Myôan kyôkai in 1881 (see
above), and was influential amongst a great number of honkyoku players. He left
Myôan kyôkai soon after the arrival of Taizan. Outliving almost all of his
contemporaries, Katsuura came to be known as the last of the komusô. Although there
is no longer an organization called Myôan Shinpô ryû, much of Katsuura’s repertoire
continues to be transmitted today both by individuals and as part of the repertoire of
other organizations (Kamisangô 1974:20).

Chikuho ryû, a small school in the Kansai area founded in 1916 by Sakai Chikuho I
(初代酒井竹保, 1892-1985) is one organization in which shakuhachi players
continue to transmit Katsuura’s repertoire. Chikuho I learned as many as sixty
honkyoku from the Myôan Shinpô ryû, first of all from a student of Katsuura,
Minamoto Unkai (源雲界), and later directly from Katsuura himself. Sakai’s two
sons, Chikuho II (二代目酒井竹保, 1933-1992), and Shôdô (酒井松道, b.1940)
added to the Chikuho ryû repertoire koten honkyoku other than that of the old Myôan
Shinpô ryû. Today the repertoire of the Chikuho ryû lists as many as seventy pieces
of koten honkyoku, more than any other ryû (see Lee 1986:289-290 for a complete list
of honkyoku in the Chikuho repertoire).

Many honkyoku that Chikuho II and Shôdô added to their repertoire were transmitted
to them by Jin Nyodô (神如道, 1891-1966) through his student Moriyasu Nyôto
(森安如蕩, b.1899). Jin was said to have learned honkyoku from as many as five
lineages: Kinko, Shinpô, Taizan, Seien (西園流, see below) and Kimpû (錦風流, see
below), as well as from over twenty individuals (Kamisangô and Tukitani 1980:52).
Jin did not found a ryû, but his line of transmission remains strong through the many
individuals who learned honkyoku directly from him or from his students.

Seien ryû represents the lineage of the former Fuke temple, Fudaiji (普大寺), which
was located in Hamamatsu and founded by Kanemoto Seien 兼友西園, 1819-1895).
Kimpû ryû (錦風流) was originally located in Hirosaki in northern Honshû. It was
officially founded by Nyûi Getsuei (乳井月影, 1833-1898) in 1883, but traces its
lineage back to Kurihara Kimpû (栗原錦風), a komusô active in Edo during the early
1800s. Though there are very few active members of either of these ryû, their
repertoire continues to be transmitted through other lineages and individuals.

Nine lineages related to the Myôan lineage are listed by Tukitani (1990a:5), quoting
from an abridged genealogy of shakuhachi adherents in the Myôan lineage as of
February 1936”, found in the Shakuhachi shiryô Kyoreizan Myôanji bunken zen
(尺八史料虚霊山明暗寺文献 全, ‘Materials on the Shakuhachi; All of the
Documents of the Temple Kyoreizan Myôanji’, 1937, ed. Tsukamoto Kyodô
塚本虚童). The nine lineages (called ha here) of shakuhachi players of are as
follows:

1. Myôan Shinryô ha (明暗真龍派), also known as the Kansai Shinryô ha

(関西真龍派) founded by Matano Shinryô (俣野真龍, 1791-1861)

96
 2. Myôan Sôetsu ha (明暗宗悦派), also known as the Kansai Sôetsu ha
(関西宗悦派) founded by Kondô Sôetsu (近藤宗悦, 1821?-1867)
3. Myôan Shinpô ha (明暗真法派) founded by Ozaki Shinryô (尾崎真龍,
1820-1888), teacher of Katsuura Shôzan
4. Kyûshû Myôan ha (九州明暗派) founded by Shimizu Jyôzan (or Seizan)
(清水静山, 1872-1913)
5. Myôan Rogetsu ha (明暗露月派) founded by Tsunoda Rogetsu
(津野田露月, 1872?-1958)
6. Myôan Taizan ha (明暗対山派) founded by Higuchi Taizan (樋口対山,
1856-1914)
7. Fuke Shakuhachi ha (普化尺八派) founded by Miyakawa Nyozan
(宮川如山, 1868-1946)
8. Fuke Myôan ha (普化明暗派) founded by Uramoto Setchô (浦本浙潮,
1891-1965)
9. Itchôken Fukkô ha (一朝軒復興派, revived Itchôken ha), also known as
the Myôan Manshô ha (明暗萬松派) founded by Tanaka Yûhi (田中雄飛,
1911- ), later known as Watazumi/Wadatsumi Fumon (海童普門), or
Watazumidôso (海童道祖)

Of the nine ha listed above, only the Taizan ha still functions today as an
organizational unit with a significant membership. Although the other eight
organizations themselves have virtually ceased to exist, the honkyoku that they
transmitted continue to be played. For example, honkyoku of Watazumi are among the
most widely performed and appreciated today, due in part to a number of recordings
made by Watazumi, but primarily because of the wide exposure given the pieces by
one of Watazumi’s students, Yokoyama Katsuya. The large number of ha listed above
is indicative of the complexity of the transmission lines of koten honkyoku after the
abolition of the Fuke sect. It should be noted that the above ha were in no way
exclusive, in the way that Tozan ryû, or to a lesser degree the sub-lineages of Kinko
ryû are.

As stated above, founded by Kurosawa Kinko—essentially a professional musician in

Edo (now Tokyo) in the 18th century—the Kinko lineage was in an excellent position
to thrive in a post-Fuke-sect era of secular music largely due to its origin within the
fukiawase system.

Because of the complete dissolution of Ichigetsuji and Reihôji, the two temples from
which Kinko I operated, the association between them and the Kinko ryû today is not
stressed.

The disciples of the Kinko lineage transmit a basically set repertoire of pieces, a
particular performance style and techniques, which are believed to have been
crystallized by Kinko I and his immediate successors. Sub-lineages within the main
Kinko lineage have occurred from as early as the generation after Kinko I. There are
at present five or six sub-lineages of the Kinko ryû, called sha or kai, for example,
Chikumeisha (竹盟社). All Kinko sub-lineages are completely separate
administratively and compete in varying degrees for new members and prestige.

97
The honkyoku repertoire performed and transmitted by Kinko players are fixed in
number (thirty-six), and, to a large degree, in performance practices as well (Tukitani
et al. 1991:34). Most of the sub-lineages publish some if not all of the Kinko
honkyoku repertoire. Although each Kinko sub-lineage uses slightly different scores
and performance techniques for honkyoku (see Gutzwiller 1984:199-217), the
distinctive Kinko style can be heard in the playing of all Kinko players.

The degree of standardization which occurs in the number of honkyoku in the Kinko
repertoire, the scores for the pieces, the performance practices of those pieces, and the
early occurrence of this standardization in time is exceptional in the suizen tradition as
a whole. This atypical degree of standardization may be the result of a bureaucratic
approach to transmission in contrast to a more musical or spiritual one.

Among the sub-lineages of the Kinko ryû today are those headed by Araki Kodô V
(五代目荒木古童, b.1940), Nôtomi Judô II (納富寿童, b.1929), Aoki Reibo II
(二代目青木鈴慕, b.1935), Yamaguchi Gorô (山口五郎, b.1933) and Kawase
Junsuke III (三代目川瀬順輔, b.1936). See Gutzwiller (1984:24-25) for a lineage
chart of the Kinko ryû.

During the Edo period, komusô of the Fuke sect traded honkyoku among themselves
while on pilgrimages, either teaching or being taught. In this way the collective
repertoire of honkyoku within the Fuke sect was continually being diffused throughout
Japan, with a noticeable degree of variation and change occurring in the process. Even
the members of the Kinko lineage exchanged pieces with “non-Kinko members”, as
evidenced by the Araki score of the piece Shika no tône (see p.32) that was given to a
komusô visiting from the country. The sharing and comparing of honkyoku was
deeply ingrained in the komusô tradition. The exclusivity of the iemoto system, e.g.,
that of Tozan ryû, though advantageous in building economically and politically
powerful organizations, is diametrically opposed to the spirit of suizen and of koten
honkyoku.

Tukitani (1990a:5-6) gives the example of Miyakawa Nyozan as illustrative of the

lack of constraint of many shakuhachi players in learning honkyoku of other schools
or lineages. Nyozan studied honkyoku from Higuchi Taizan of the Myôan Taizan ha,
from Katsuura Shôzan of the Myôan Shinpô ryû and from Hasegawa Tôgaku
(長谷川東学, 1847?-1909), a komusô of the Ôshû lineage as transmitted at the temple
Futaiken (布袋軒) in northern Japan. Tôgaku also mastered the repertoire and
performance practices of his native Kyûshû (he was born in Kumamoto). Tukitani
(1986:288-301) states that Nyozan created the honkyoku “Ajikan” by combining
elements of all of the above lineages.

Takahashi Kûzan (高橋空山, 1900-1986) is another example of the eclectic nature of

honkyoku transmission. Kûzan is said to have studied with Miyakawa Nyozan and
Katsuura Shôzan as well as with Takase Sukeji (高瀬助治), Kobayashi Haou
(小林波鴎), Komichi Toyotarô (小路豊太 郎), Kobayashi Shizan (小林紫山) and
Okazaki Meidô (岡崎明道). He also played pieces from Kimpû ryû, and is said to
have learned over one hundred and fifty honkyoku. Uramoto Setchô and Jin Nyodô
also had numerous teachers. Yamaue Getsuzan (山上月山, b. 1908) also devoted his
life to learning honkyoku from as many sources as possible, notating honkyoku that he

98
learned and documenting the complex lineages of individual pieces. The material he
gathered and arranged is one of the most important sources of data on the
transmission of honkyoku during the twentieth century. For example, Yamaue alone
learned four versions of “Reibo” of the Ôshû district, the central piece of this thesis.

Finally, mention must be made of Watazumi Fumon. Originally from Kyûshû, his
shakuhachi training began in the Itchôken tradition. As was typically the case, he
travelled throughout Japan, learning and teaching honkyoku and eventually
developing a repertoire of at least forty pieces (Yokoyama OC1989). He does not call
his instruments shakuhachi, instead using the term hôchiku (法竹, ‘dharma bamboo’).
He also avoids the word honkyoku to indicate pieces that he performs, using instead
the term dôkyoku (道曲, ‘pieces of the Way’, a reference to one of his aliases,
Watazumi dôso 海童道祖, literally ‘Founder of the Way of the Ocean-Child’). The
beauty and intensity of their form and performing style, as well as the high calibre of
technique required to play them have made dôkyoku one of the most performed
repertoire of honkyoku today.

Watazumi became well-known in the 1960s and 1970s largely due to the efforts of his
student, Yokoyama Katsuya, who assisted in the release of a number of Watazumi
recordings. Watazumi soon gained notoriety for his eccentric actions, which were
usually aimed at destroying set patterns of behaviour and thought. As only one of
numerous examples, he was once invited to participate in a tea ceremony, an
extremely formalized event in any circumstance. In this instance the ceremony was
performed by an elite group of ladies representing Japan’s highest society. During the
course of the ceremony, in which utensils worth many thousands of dollars were used,
Watazumi proceeded to urinate in his tea bowl. The other participants at the ceremony
were left speechless (Yokoyama OC1989).

Watazumi’s eccentricity is matched by equally outstanding performance techniques,

one example being a standard of pitch control rare among shakuhachi players who
perform only honkyoku. During his lifetime, Watazumi gained almost legendary
stature in the shakuhachi world, with a number of myth-like stories about him
circulating widely. One such story relates how Watazumi blew into a shakuhachi with
such force and concentration that the bamboo actually split in his hands. Watazumi,
and his student Yokoyama, even more so, have given honkyoku in general, and the
repertoire other than the thirty-six Kinko honkyoku in particular, an unprecedented
amount of favourable exposure.

Tukitani (1990a:6) estimates the total number of extant honkyoku, including

variations, as approximately one-hundred and eighty pieces. This number is reached
by adding together the repertoire of the main honkyoku lineages. These lineages and
the number of pieces they have transmitted are as follows: thirty-six of Kinko ryû, ten
of Kimpû ryû, eleven of Seien ryû, about sixty of Myôan Shinpô ryû, thirty-three of
Myôan Taizan ha, about ten of the Kyûshû lineages such as that of the temple
Itchôken in Hakata and between ten and twenty transmitted by the Ôshû lineages such
as those of the temples Futaiken and Shôganken.

As stated above, the shakuhachi tradition in Japan today is dominated by Kinko ryû,
and by Tozan ryû. In terms of numbers of members alone, these two lineages account
for the overwhelming majority of contemporary shakuhachi players. The remainder of

99
the shakuhachi tradition consists of a small minority of players, many of whom
belong to less prominent organizations such as Chikuho ryû or Taizan ryû, and some
of whom are individuals belonging to no organization. 48 In terms of the honkyoku
repertoire, however, the Kinko ryû, with thirty-six pieces, and the Tozan ryû, with
none at all, clearly represent the minority. This is true not only in terms of actual
numbers of pieces, but even more so in terms of multifarious transmission processes
without which the honkyoku could not have been handed down.

Most of the literature on honkyoku, especially that in languages other than Japanese,
presents an image of a tidy transmission process, in which sub-lineages and minor ryû
may be created and eventually die out, but which is dominated by the stability of the
Kinko lineage, whose honkyoku repertoire remains constant in number of pieces, titles
and musical content. This picture may well serve forces within the shakuhachi
tradition driven by a power-seeking bureaucratic approach, but it does not reflect the
intricate reality of the majority of honkyoku transmission.

A more realistic image of the transmission of koten honkyoku is one of diversity,

change and variation, of a level of complexity approaching nature itself. As will be
shown, most honkyoku undergo variation and/or change in almost all aspects,
including their titles, form and performance practices, during the process of
transmission. In the face of such complexity, the principle research question of this
thesis can be delineated as follows: until what point is a piece still the same piece as
the level of difference in name and/or form increases with the process of
transmission? A more fundamental question is: what is being transmitted in the koten
honkyoku tradition? The remaining chapters of this thesis attempt to address these and
related questions. It is hoped that the resultant picture of the honkyoku tradition
approximates reality at least to the degree that enables the reader to begin to
appreciate the beauty and complexity of shakuhachi honkyoku.

In conclusion, the history of shakuhachi honkyoku shows that their transmission has
occurred not through institutions or organizations, but always from one individual to
another individual. Though those involved in transmission are frequently classified
under a particular ryû or ha, such as Kinko ryû, the individuals who comprise the
organisation are, nonetheless, the sole conduit of transmission. In almost every case,
shakuhachi organizations are attempts to perpetuate the repertoire and performance
style of the founder and immediate successors, and are specifically administered to
increase their political and economic influence. This is true not only of shakuhachi
organizations existing today but can also be said of the Fuke sect, which for two
hundred years monopolized shakuhachi for its own purposes.

Although the Fuke sect existed for two centuries, it did not survive the changes of the
Meiji period, and was largely replaced by a number of shakuhachi organizations. The
organizational structures within the shakuhachi tradition since the demise of the Fuke
sect have tended to flourish for only one, two or at most three generations, after which

48
This thesis has deliberately ignored the min’yô shakuhachi tradition, which is vibrant and
multifaceted. The omission is due to the limited subject matter of this thesis and is not meant
to assign an inferior status to min’yô players.

100
they usually diverge into either one or more competing institutions or disappear
entirely, their repertoire sometimes kept alive only by individuals not affiliated with
any organization. Shakuhachi honkyoku transcend the political and economic
concerns of the Fuke sect and of these latter day organizations, both as music and as
the spiritual practice of suizen. Because of this, shakuhachi honkyoku have survived
and will always survive the eventual and inevitable demise of these organizations.

101
 CHAPTER 4
TRANSMITTING ‘THE BELL’; A CASE STUDY OF
THE PIECE “REIBO”
4.1 The Word “Reibo” and Related Terms

The word “Reibo” consists of the two kanji (Chinese characters), rei (鈴) and bo (慕).
Rei in general denotes a bell, but can also have the specific meaning of a handbell.
Illustrating the confusion students of the Japanese written language constantly face, a
second reading for this character is taku, which is also the reading of a different
character: 鐸. This second character (鐸) has only one meaning, that of a large
handbell, and is, in a sense, both a homonym and a synonym to rei/taku (鈴). It is the
second character taku that is used in the title of the legendary history of the
shakuhachi honkyoku tradition, the previously mentioned Kyotaku denki (虚鐸伝記),
as well as the title to what is claimed to be the first honkyoku ever conceived and
performed, “Kyotaku” (虚鐸, ‘Empty Bell’).

The meanings given for the character bo are ‘yearn for, love dearly, adore, follow’,
with bo also used in combination with other characters to form words meaning
‘yearning, desire, long for, longing, affection, hold dear’ (Nelson 1962:787).

The character rei is said to allude to the eccentric 9th century Chinese Zen priest,
Fuke Zenji (Chinese: Puhua) (see p.106), who was known for his flourishing a
handbell during religious pilgrimages. “Reibo” therefore has an aura of centuries of
tradition to the shakuhachi player and suggests the yearning for or a following of the
spirit of Fuke, as symbolized by his bell (Takahashi 1971:68). According to
Takahashi, during the Edo period each of the various komusô temples in existence at
that time had its own piece that was transmitted by komusô attached to the temple,
and from which the term ichiji ichiritsu (一寺一律, one temple, one melody)
originated (quoted by Tukitani 1990:48). This piece was called either “Reibo” (鈴慕)
or “Reihô” (鈴法).

The term “Reihô” is used in a manner making it almost synonymous with “Reibo”.
For example, Tukitani (1990b:49) classifies the piece “Tehodoki Reihô” (手解鈴法,
‘Introductory Reihô’) as a “Reibo” piece. Among the meanings of the character hô
are law, or doctrine. It is the character used to denote the word dharma, which, in
both Hinduism and Buddhism means ‘the cosmic order or law, including the natural
and moral principles that apply to all beings and things; and the dutiful observance of
this law in one’s life; right conduct’ (Guralnik 1978:388). “Reihô” may therefore be
translated as ‘the Dharma of the Bell’.

There are a number of other variants of the title “Reibo” in addition to “Reihô”.
These are “Renbo” (恋慕), “Reibo” (霊慕), using a different character for rei (霊)
and “Rinmon” (臨門). Among the meanings of the character ren (恋) are ‘love’, or
‘yearn for’. The character rei (霊) means ‘soul, spirit’ and is used together with other
ideographs to form such words as ‘sacred mountain’ (reizan 霊山), and ‘divine
nature, spirituality’ (reisei 霊性) (Nelson 1962:945). The character rin (臨) means

102
‘face; be confronted by; be on the verge of; deal with; come upon, come up to’
(Nelson 1962:754), while the character mon (門) can mean ‘gate, gateway; and door’
(Nelson 1962:920). This last character is important in Zen literature, alluding to such
concepts as a “gate” to one’s mind, or to enlightenment.

The variant titles of “Reihô” (鈴法) and “Reibo” (鈴慕) can therefore be translated
in the following ways: “Renbo” can be translated as ‘Intense Yearning or Longing’.
“Reibo” (霊慕) can mean ‘Spiritual Yearning’, and “Rinmon” can mean ‘Facing the
Gateway’ or ‘Confronting the Gate’.

Tukitani (1990b:50) implies that the term “Reihô” is generally thought to predate the
term “Reibo”, stating that it is commonly believed that the former was changed to the
latter, and in some cases changing to “Renbo” (恋慕), “Reibo” (霊慕) or “Rinmon”
(臨門). This belief is indirectly supported by the fact that one of the main temples of
the Fuke sect during the Edo period was Reihôji (鈴法寺) (see p.114).

In contrast to Tukitani, Nakatsuka (1979:131) suggests that “Renbo” rather than

“Reihô” predates the other variant terms because “Renbo” is found in the book
Shichiku shoshin shû (Nakamura 1664) as part of the titles to the pieces “Renbo
nagashi” and “Kyô renbo”. Nakatsuka’s reasoning is based on the assumption that
the pieces in the book Shichiku shoshin shû predate all of the “Reibo” pieces (see
Chapter 2.)

Implicit in all of the titles “Reibo”, “Reihô”, “Renbo” and “Rinmon” is a strong
association with Buddhism. In the case of “Reibo” (鈴慕) and “Reihô” (鈴法), there
is also the association with the Zen Buddhist priest Puhua (J. Fuke), who was noted
for his constant ringing of a handbell (a rei or taku, 鈴). This association dates at least
from the late 18th century, the time of the writing of Kyotaku denki kokujikai. That
the association was originally based upon fiction rather than fact did not weaken it in
the minds of those members of the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition who believed in the
association. Even now, when the work of Nakatsuka and others has conclusively
shown that the Fuke legend is not factually grounded and very few if any take the
Kyotaku denki kokujikai at face value, the centuries old association between the
honkyoku and Fuke still operates within the tradition and is manifested in the names
“Reibo” and “Reihô”.

In the case of “Reibo”, “Reihô” and “Renbo”, the meaning of ‘yearning’ or ‘longing’
also has considerable significance in the framework of Zen Buddhist philosophy. One
of the primary teachings of Buddhism is that suffering, a universal ill, is caused by
desires, or in other words, yearning. The cessation of desire or yearning is the way to
end the eternal cycle of suffering. Recognition of the central role one’s desires play in
suffering is a first step toward enlightenment.

There is another, more positive aspect to the concept of “yearning”, however, than its
equation with “desires” or that which causes suffering. This positive sense of
“yearning” is, in fact, addressed in almost all of the world’s religions and
philosophies. In an interview on ABC Radio National, Jean Houston read the
following quote from her book entitled The Search for the Beloved:

103
 In all the great spiritual and mystery traditions, the central theme, the guiding
passion, is the deep yearning for union with the Beloved of the soul. This lies
at the heart of sacred psychology, transcending the desire for romantic love,
the nourishment of parental love, and all the other varieties of human loving. It
is a calling to the source.

The passion of St. John of the Cross for the Divine Lover is one of the most
ecstatic and exquisite statements of the mystery of divine human loving. It
recalls the yearning of Isis for Osiris, the love songs of Orpheus, the spiritual
and fleshly eros of the Psalm of Songs. It is central to Sufi mysticism. And the
Hasid is never the more himself than when caught up in the ecstatic dance of
love with God.

Nor is it limited to the major world religions. One of the most moving
accounts of this longing is found in Laurens van der Post’s account of the
Dance of the Great Hunger of the Bushmen of the Kalihari. He writes, “It is
the dance of the hunger that neither the food of the earth nor the way of life
possible upon it can satisfy. Whenever I ask them about it, they would say,
‘Not only we feel this hunger, but the stars too sitting up there with their
hearts of plenty, they too feel it, and feeling it, tremble as if afraid they would
wane and their light die on account of so great a hunger’”.

In Greek, it may be expressed as pathos. Plato defined it as “a yearning desire

for a distant object.” And Dylan Thomas had it as, “the force that through the
green fuse drives the flower, drives my blood”. It is the divine force behind all
of our ceaseless wandering, behind the apparent foolishness that sends us in
pursuit of the improbable. Sacred psychology asks, who or what is it that is
yearning for you, calling to you? Who is the beloved you are always trying to
remember?

Houston 1990

This yearning, which can be immense, is a yearning “to be met at our depths”. There
is still great suffering in this yearning. Buddha, whose suffering was monumental,
takes his name from the word boddhi, which means ‘to awaken’. The bell of Fuke is
the sound of awakening. “Reibo”, ‘Yearning for the Bell’ is thus a yearning to
awaken, to know oneself as a Buddha.

Another variation of the title of this piece also contains similar wisdom. The word
“Rinmon”, when translated as ‘Facing the Gateway’, ‘On the Verge of the Gate’, etc.
is also pregnant with meaning in a Zen Buddhist context. Examples of the use of the
image of the gate abound in Zen literature. For example, one of the influential
Chinese masterpieces of Chan (J. Zen) Buddhist literature is entitled Wu-men kuan
(無門観, 1228; J. Mumonkan). Translated as ‘Gateless Gate’ or ‘Gateless Barrier’,
Mumonkan has been called “the most basic koan collection in the literature of Zen”
(Maezumi, in Yamada 1979:viii). The three characters (mu, ‘nothing’; mon, ‘gate’;
kan, ‘barrier’) suggest a barrier without a gate or passage through which to pass. In
the preface to one of a number of English translations of Mumonkan (Enomiya-
Lassalle, in Yamada 1979:xiv), we are told that each koan of the 48 cases compiled in
the book is a barrier. The koans or barriers cannot be entered into with ordinary

104
thinking or logic because they have no gate. But for one whose “Eye is opened to
[the] True Self”, entering is easy because there is no gate at all.

The latter case fits an alternative meaning to the title Mumonkan. Sekada (1977:27)
explains that the third ideograph kan may also mean checkpoints at internal
boundaries where travellers had their documents examined. Mumonkan could
therefore also mean ‘a checkpoint that is not blocked in any way’, or ‘open
checkpoint’. An example of using the image of “Rinmon”, or ‘facing the gate’ can be
found in one of the koans in Mumonkan. In case 47, a Zen master presents three
“barriers” or questions that his Zen students must face or meet. According to Yamada
(1979:237) these “barriers” are really the single barrier of kensho (見性) or ‘self-
realization’.

In these and other examples, the depth of meaning and the association with Zen
Buddhism can be seen in the title “Reibo” and the variants “Reihô”, “Renbo” and
“Rinmon”.

4.2 Classification of “Reibo” Titles

Numerous shakuhachi honkyoku incorporate the words “Reibo”, “Reihô”, “Renbo”

and “Rinmon” in their title. Tukitani (1990b:11) gives as representative examples
fifteen pieces. They are: “Kyûshû reibo” (九州鈴慕); “Kyo reibo” (京鈴慕);
“Murasaki reibo” (紫鈴慕), also called “Murasakino reibo” (紫野鈴慕); “Izu
reibo” (伊豆鈴慕); “Igusa reibo” (葦草鈴慕); “Echigo reibo” (越後鈴慕), also
known as “Kitaguni reibo” (北国鈴慕); “Ôshû reibo” (奥州鈴慕), also known as
“Reibo” (鈴慕); “Miyagi reibo” (宮城鈴慕); “Mutsu reibo” (陸奥鈴慕); “Namiwa
reibo” (波間鈴慕); “Tehodoki reibo” (手解鈴慕); “Shiseki reibo” (真跡鈴慕);
“Mukaiji reibo” (霧海篪鈴慕); “Kokû reibo” (虚空鈴慕); and “Sôkaku reibo”
(巣鶴鈴慕).

Takahashi (1979:269-306) lists nineteen titles of pieces incorporating the above

words. They are: “Reihô” (鈴法); “Rinmon” (臨門); “Renbo” (恋慕); “Nagashi
reihô” (流鈴法); “Reihô nagashi” (鈴法流); “Izu reihô” (伊豆鈴法); “Namima
reihô” (波間鈴法); “Ôshû reihô” (奥州鈴法); “Kitaguni reihô” (北国鈴法);
“Tehodoki reihô” (手解鈴法); “Godan reihô” (五段鈴法); “Shinseki reihô”
(真跡鈴法); “Yoshiya reihô” (ヨシヤ鈴法); “Murasakino reihô” (紫野鈴法);
“Igusa reihô” (井草鈴法); “Iyo reihô” (伊予鈴法); “Kakusui reihô” (覚睡鈴法);
“Izumo reihô” (出雲鈴法); and “Kyûshû reihô” (九州鈴法).

The Chikuho ryû repertoire contains eleven such pieces. They are: “Tehodoki reibo”;
“Kyûshû reibo”; “Sukaku reibo” (巣鶴鈴慕); “Renbo nagashi” (恋慕流し); “Igusa
reibo”; “Asuka reibo” (飛鳥鈴慕); “Murasakino reibo”; “Mutsu reibo”;
“Shôganken reibo” (松巌軒鈴慕); “Futaiken reibo” (布袋軒鈴慕); and “Nagashi
reibo” (流し鈴慕) (Chikuho ryû: 1971). Other titles include “Reibo”, using a

105
different character (霊慕); “Yamato reibo” (倭鈴慕); and “Miyagino reibo”
(宮城野鈴慕).

According to Tukitani (1990b:10-12), all the “Reibo” pieces can be classified into
three categories. These categories are: 1) locationally designated titles; 2) titles with
descriptive words preceding the word “Reibo” or “Reihô”; and 3) titles in which the
word “Reibo” is used as a suffix to the name of pieces that have little relationship to
other “Reibo” pieces. To Tukitani’s three classifications should be added a fourth
category: 4) pieces known only by the title “Reibo” or “Reihô”.

Locationally designated titles include “Kyûshû reibo”, “Kyô reibo”, “Murasaki

reibo”, “Murasakino reibo”, “Izu reibo”, “Igusa reibo”, “Echigo reibo”, “Kitaguni
reibo”, “Ôshû reibo”, “Miyagi reibo”, “Mutsu reibo”, “Asuka reibo” and “Izumo
reibo”. In these titles, the word preceding reibo is a place name, such as Kyûshû in
the south and Ôshû in the north. Titles designated by temple names instead of
geographical localities, such as “Shôganken reibo” and “Futaiken reibo”, could also
be included in this classification.

Titles with descriptive words preceding the term “Reibo” or “Reihô” are “Namima
reibo” or “Namima reihô”, which means ‘On the Wave Reibo’ and “Tehodoki reibo
(or reihô )”, meaning ‘Beginners’ or ‘Introductory Reibo/Reihô’. Examples of the
third category are “Kokû reibo”, “Mukaiji reibo” and “Sôkaku reibo”.

As examples of the fourth category, Takahashi lists four separate “Reihô” pieces that
were transmitted at three different temples, Ichigetsuji (一月寺), Myôanji (明暗寺) of
the Echigo district and Myôanji of the Kyôtô area, and one piece that was transmitted
within the Nesasa school (根笹派), located in the Aomori district. There are
numerous titles with “Reibo” preceded by ‘As transmitted by [name of person or
temple]’, such as “Kannariji den ‘Reibo’” (金成寺伝[鈴慕]); “Garyôken den
‘Reibo’” (臥竜軒伝[鈴慕]), “Uramoto Setchô den ‘Reibo’” (浦本浙潮伝[鈴慕]),
etc.

To add to these confusing lists of titles by categories of “Reibo” or “Reihô” pieces are
other pieces that can be shown to be identical to, or variants of, a “Reibo” piece. For
example, all pieces in category three are also known by the same titles but with the
suffix “Reibo” omitted. Some examples are “Mukaiji” that is a variant of “Mukaiji
reibo”, a “Kokû” variant of “Kokû reibo” and a “Sôkaku” variant of “Sôkaku
reibo”. These variants have been transmitted by lineages different from those through
which pieces with the suffix “Reibo” in their title have been transmitted. Finally, as
will be shown below (p.183), there is a piece entitled “Furin” (風林) which is a
variant of a number of the “Reibo” pieces mentioned above.

It must be stressed that all of the above is a classification of titles, not of pieces.
Tukitani (1990b:10) points out that throughout the honkyoku repertoire, many titles
are used for pieces that are virtually identical with each other even though they are
called by different names, that is “different names - same composition”. Also there
are many pieces with the same name, but with different titles, or “same name -
different compositions”. Finally, there are pieces with identical names but with
structural variation, or “variants”. Examples of all three types of combinations can be

106
found in the “Reibo” titles listed above. In order to classify the pieces themselves, one
must go beyond the titles and look at the music, using written scores, spoken or
written sources dealing with the music, and finally, transcriptions of performances.
This type of examination will be undertaken later in this thesis.

4.3 The Ôshû Family of the “Reibo” Piece

The preceding section has described the meaning and symbolism of the word “Reibo”
and other related terms, and listed and categorized the many pieces in the honkyoku
tradition for which these terms are used as titles. For this thesis, only one piece, or
“family of pieces” of the many different “Reibo” pieces has been chosen for close
scrutiny and analysis. This is the family of “Reibo” pieces of the Ôshû district of
northern Japan.

The description of the group of pieces will follow, in general, the path which the
author travelled in his own research, beginning with a single piece which was taught
to him by his shakuhachi teacher, Chikuho II, nearly twenty years ago. The following
description of the process of choosing, and of subsequent study of this family of
pieces as the central topic of research in this thesis may help illuminate both the
reasons for such a choice and the nature of honkyoku.

Once I had decided that the general subject of my thesis was to be the koten
honkyoku, the classical Zen-related repertoire of shakuhachi pieces, I narrowed down
that unworkably broad subject by choosing a single piece on which to focus. After
much deliberation, the piece “Shôganken reibo” (‘Reibo of the Shôgan temple’) was
chosen for two reasons. First of all, it was a favourite piece of mine, which I had long
ago memorized, and which I had performed on numerous occasions. I thus felt that I
knew “Shôganken reibo” on both conscious and intuitive levels. Secondly, the use of
the word reibo in the title, with its many meanings and legendary associations,
suggested a subject worthy of in-depth investigation.

At the time, I assumed the piece to be a single composition with a single, easily traced
lineage. Sakai Chikuho II first taught me “Shôganken reibo” in Osaka in 1973. As a
rule, Chikuho II, the iemoto of Chikuho ryû, rarely offered to explain to me who had
taught him a particular piece, and I rarely asked. In the case of “Shôganken reibo”,
either Chikuho II made an exception, or the lineage of transmission was described to
me later, possibly by Sakai Shôdô (酒井松道, b. 1940), Chikuho II’s younger brother
and iemoto of Chikuho ryû since 1985. In any case, I was told that unlike many of the
koten honkyoku in the Chikuho ryû repertoire, Chikuho II had not learned the piece
from his father, Sakai Chikuho I, known as Chikuô (竹翁) after his retirement in 1967
as the founding head of Chikuho ryû. Instead Chikuho II had received the piece from
another shakuhachi player in the Ôsaka district, Moriyasu Nyotô (森安如涛, b.1899).

Nyotô was a long-time student of Jin Nyodô (神如道, 1891-1966), a prominent

shakuhachi player based in Kyôto, famous throughout Japan as a teacher and
performer of koten honkyoku. Jin, being a shakuhachi performer of much greater
stature than Moriyasu and still active at least three decades after Chikuho II’s birth,

107
would at first glance be a more logical choice than Moriyasu for transmitting of any
honkyoku, including “Shôganken reibo” to Chikuho II. Under the circumstances,
more seems to have been taken into consideration than the proficiency and fame of
the teacher. Chikuho II, as the future iemoto of Chikuho ryu, could not simply go to
established shakuhachi teachers of other lineages to learn new honkyoku. Doing so
would be contrary to the rank and status of iemoto, and might result in a loss of
esteem for both Chikuho II personally and for the ryû (Lee 1986:90). In this case,
Moriyasu was a less problematic choice of teacher than the famous Jin.

Prior to selecting “Shôganken reibo” as the topic of this thesis, it was known that this
particular piece had been received from Jin through Moriyasu, and that Chikuho II
was transmitting it to his students as part of the Chikuhô ryû repertoire. Chikuho II
did tell me that in the Edo period there had been a komusô temple, now defunct,
called Shôganken (松岩軒, shô, ‘pine tree’; gan, ‘boulder’; ken, ‘sub-temple’),
located in Hanamaki (花巻), a town in what is now the northern Japanese prefecture
of Iwate (岩手県), near the city of Sendai (仙台), and that “Shôganken reibo” came
from that temple just as other “Reibo” pieces had come from other temples and
locations in Japan.

With this information and the more substantial conscious and intuitive knowledge
gained by having performed “Shôganken reibo” from memory countless times over
fifteen years, I again returned to Japan in 1988 to begin research into the history of its
transmission.

By the time my year of research in Japan was completed, I knew that “Shôganken
reibo” as transmitted by Chikuho II was only one of many variants that could be
traced back to what analysis indicated to be a single piece. As a result, “Shôganken
reibo” could not be used as the focal point of this thesis unless that focal point also
included a number of these other variants, even though they are now known by
different titles and are considered distinctly separate pieces in the Chikuho repertoire
and in the minds of many of the shakuhachi players of other schools and lineages who
perform them. It also became apparent that the Jin-Moriyasu-Sakai-Lee transmission
was part of only one lineage necessary to investigate. Other performing lineages from
a variety of locales, which at first glance appeared unrelated, also required attention.

Three types of sources were used to determine which pieces, lineages and performers
to include in the study of “Shôganken reibo”: 1) shakuhachi lineage or genealogy
charts that seemed to be related to the transmission of “Shôganken reibo”; 2)
interviews of shakuhachi players who perform “Shôganken reibo”; 3) books, articles,
descriptive notes of recordings and other publications that mention “Shôganken
reibo”. Data gained from these sources indicated the pieces, the lineages and the
performers to be studied.

Genealogy or lineage charts are common in the field of hôgaku (邦楽, ‘Japanese
music’), the shakuhachi tradition being no exception. Representative of the popularity
of such charts is the Nihon ongaku daijiten (日本音楽大事典, ‘Dictionary of
Japanese Music’, hereafter NOD 1989). In the appendix of this reference work are
thirty-four pages of extensive lineage charts, and their explanations, of all of the
major genres of hôgaku, including two pages on the shakuhachi tradition (Tukitani in

108
NOD 1989:46-47). These and other shakuhachi lineage charts typically show the
names of the teachers and their students, students of the students, etc., of various
organisations such as Chikuho ryû, or those within Kinko ryû. In many of these
charts, only those persons who became iemoto or heads of their lineage or were in
other ways important to the lineage are listed (e.g., Gutswiller 1983:24-25). These
lineage charts, therefore, do not show the lines of transmission of specific pieces, such
as “Shôganken reibo”.

Though not piece-specific, it is sometimes possible to use lineage charts to trace the
transmission of a single honkyoku. This is especially the case of the Ôshû lineage,
Ôshû being an old name for the district in which the transmission of the lineage was
traditionally centred, because of its apparent relationship with the piece “Shôganken
reibo”. Charts of this lineage have been published by Tukitani (in NOD 1989:47) and
by Yamaue (1984:167). Tukitani calls this lineage the “Ôshû fuchi ha” (奥州不知派),
while Yamaue labels it “Ôshû Myôan (fuchi ha)” (奥州明暗「不知派」). Tukitani’s
chart is based largely upon Yamaue’s extensive and nearly illegible published chart,
other unpublished charts by Yamaue, and charts compiled by Izui (出井) and
Takahashi (高橋) (in Yamaue 1984:170-175). The Izui and Takahashi charts are
basically expanded and redrawn Yamaue charts.

Under close scrutiny, the Ôshû lineage, as portrayed in the charts mentioned above,
seems to parallel the transmission of a single honkyoku. More accurately, the
transmission of a single family of closely related pieces seems to be the determinant
used in deciding who was to be included in the charts. The family of honkyoku being
transmitted is the “Ôshû kei (系, ‘lineage)’ ‘Reibo’”. One of the pieces in the “Ôshû
kei ‘Reibo’” is “Shôganken reibo”.

Tukitani (1982:104) asserts that during this century the group of pieces encompassed
by the name “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” has been transmitted from one generation of
shakuhachi players to another via three main branches or stream and that Jin Nyodô
learned “Shôganken reibo” via two of those three streams. Tukitani further speculates
that Jin, in order to differentiate between what he considered to be two different
pieces rather than two versions of the same piece, gave the title “Shôganken reibo” to
one of the versions. Research undertaken for this thesis and presented below supports
Tukitani’s hypothesis.

4.3.1 “Shôganken reibo” Lineage

Tukitani (1982) has proposed the theory that “Shôganken reibo” is only one of many
names used to refer to what may be called the “Reibo” piece of the Ôshû lineage. She
arrives at this conclusion primarily by looking at the transmission of the piece, in
other words, by seeing who taught the piece to whom. My own experience both
confirms and illustrates her line of reasoning.

To facilitate an understanding of the transmission of “Shôganken reibo”, it was

necessary to chart a piece-specific lineage rather than a person-specific lineage.
Progressively more complex charts are given as persons involved in the transmission

109
are introduced. As mentioned above, I was taught the piece by Chikuho II, who, with
his brother Sakai Shôdô, was taught by Moriyasu Nyotô, who learned the piece from
Jin Nyodô. This relationship, as well as the dates of the above mentioned persons, can
be seen in Chart 1.

Jin Nyodô learned the piece from Orito Nyogetsu (折登如月), who, according to
Yamaue (1984:167) and Tukitani (in NOD 1989:47), also taught the piece to
Uchiyama Reigetsu (内山嶺月) and Yamaue Getsuzan (山上月山). Orito’s teacher
was Onodera Genkichi (小野寺源吉), who was taught by the highly respected
komusô, Hasegawa Tôgaku (長谷川東学). Chart 2 shows the addition of Hasegawa,
Onodera, Orito and Uchiyama and Yamaue to the lineage.

Orito Nyogetsu was a member of the Kinpu ryû Nezasa ha in Aomori, whose
repertoire at the time did not include the Ôshû lineage “Reibo” (Kendo 1934b:39).
How Kinpu ryû and, consequently, Orito Nyogetsu came to acquire the piece is
described by Nyûi Kendo (乳井建道) in an article written in 1934 (1934b:39).
Quoting from that article:

In around Meiji 20 (1888), Onodera Genkichi would come to Hirosaki City

while on pilgrimages as a komusô and would sometimes perform the piece
“Reibo” in front of the house of Nyûi Getsue [the head of the Kinpu ryû at
that time]. On one occasion Nyûi was home, and hearing that Onodera’s
playing was quite good, invited the komusô inside his house. When Nyûi
expressed the desire to have him play anew, Onodera performed the two
pieces “Reibo” and “Tsuru no sugomori”. On hearing that he was such a
strong player, Nyûi introduced Onodera to his students the next day. It was
unanimously decided that Onodera should stay for three months and teach the
members of the school the two pieces.

(Nyûi 1934b:39; translated by Lee)

Charts 1 and 2

Genealogy Chart 1

110
Genealogy Chart 2

This brief description indicates the manner of transmission of honkyoku between

lineages in the last century was quite different from methods employed for the same
purpose today. Of particular interest is the willingness with which the head of a
lineage (Nyûi) seemed to acknowledge and accept an outsider (Onodera). Nyûi did
not merely recognize and acknowledge the technical (and, one might assume,
spiritual) qualities of Onodera’s shakuhachi playing, he even allowed Onodera to
teach his students for three months. There is no hint of any of the "loss of face" that a
shakuhachi player of Nyûi’s position might experience today if confronted with
similar circumstances. It is also interesting to note that Onodera was willing and able
to suspend his regular routine, whatever that might have been, and stay for three
months to teach Nyûi’s students. The spontaneity and suddenness with which the
whole affair occurred, and with which Onodera’s three month tenure was decided
seems to belong to another, less hectic age, quite unlike today’s usual routines of
solidly planned schedules and commitments.

Orito was a member of the group of Nyûi’s students that learned “Reibo” and “Tsuru
no sugomori” from Onodera. Onodera centered his activities around the temple
Kannariji, which is apparently the reason Orito called the “Reibo” he learned from
Onodera by the name “Kannariji den ‘Reibo’”. In any case, thanks to both Nyûi’s
and Onodera’s generosity, the former in allowing his students to be taught by
someone outside his lineage, and the latter for agreeing to teach, Orito was later able
to transmit the piece to Jin. This allowed Jin to teach the piece to Moriyasu, from
whom Chikuho II was able to learn it, thereby making it possible for me to receive the
piece almost a century after the event described above.

Neither Orito, nor his students Uchiyama and Yamaue, referred to the piece as
“Shôganken reibo”, but rather by the titles “Kannariji den ‘Reibo’” (金成寺伝
「鈴慕」), “Miyagi reibo” (「宮城鈴慕」) and “Onodera Genkichi den ‘Reibo’”
(小野寺源吉伝「鈴慕」 respectively. The word den (伝) means ‘transmission’.
“Kannariji den ‘Reibo’”, therefore, can be translated as ‘“Reibo” as transmitted
through Kannari Temple’ (Kannariji is a temple in Miyagi Prefecture in northern
Japan), while “Onodera Genkichi den ‘Reibo’” can mean ‘“Reibo” as transmitted by
Onodera Genkichi’.

111
Of the three generations consisting of, 1) Onodera; 2) Orito; and 3) Jin, Uchiyama and
Yamaue; only Jin uses the word Shôganken in the title of the piece. In his own
notation of this piece, Jin writes the title as “Shôganken den ‘Reibo’” (松巌軒伝
「鈴慕」). Note that Jin changes the ideograph pronounced “gan” from the original
岩, used in the name of the sub-temple Shôganken, to 巌. Both have the same
meaning, ‘boulder’. In place of either of these ideographs, Jin also used the ideograph
“an” (安, ‘safety’), though less frequently (Jin 1980:49).

There are no other known shakuhachi players belonging to either Jin’s generation or
the generation prior to his who used the word Shôganken in the title of a honkyoku.
Those shakuhachi players in generations after Jin’s who do use the title “Shôganken
reibo” seem to have adopted Jin’s use of the ideogram 巌 in place of the original 岩.
Three generations before Jin, Oikawa Kakuyû (及川霍友), did use the word
Shôganken in the title of a “Reibo” piece he performed, but as will be shown below,
Oikawa’s lineage and the piece he performed are different from those of Jin.
Furthermore, Oikawa used the original character 岩 in his title. We may assume, then,
that use of the words “Shôganken reibo”, written with the ideographs 松巌軒鈴慕, as
a title for the honkyoku in question originated with Jin Nyodô.

This assumption is supported by the fact that whenever the title “Shôganken reibo” is
used for a piece, whoever uses it is in some way connected with Jin, even if they have
not learned the piece directly from Jin or indirectly from one of his students. This is
the case with Moriyasu, Chikuho II and his brother Shôdô. Another example is the
piece “Shôganken reibo” found on a recently released cassette recording of
Yokoyama Katsuya’s performance of various koten honkyoku (1988). Yokoyama’s
primary source of honkyoku was his teacher, Watazumi dôso (海童道祖), from whom
he learned a piece entitled “Reibo”. Yokoyama differentiates “Reibo” from
“Shôganken reibo”, however, and includes both pieces in the same collection of
recordings of honkyoku (1988). In his book Shakuhachi gaku no miryoku, Yokoyama
implies that he became acquainted with “Shôganken reibo” in part by listening to a
recording of a performance by me (Yokoyama 1985:235). In a personal
communication, Yokoyama stated that he used in part a notation of the piece written
by Jin (Yokoyama 1989). Yokoyama uses the ideograph 巌, associated with Jin’s
lineage, in writing “Shôganken reibo”. Thus, there are reasons for classifying
Yokoyama’s performance of “Shôganken reibo” as being related to the Jin lineage, if
only indirectly.

The question of transmission is further complicated, however, by the fact that

Yokoyama also learned from Watazumi a piece entitled “Furin” (風林), which, as
played by Watazumi, preliminary analysis has shown to be quite similar to
“Shôganken reibo” of Jin’s lineage (see pp.485-490). It is not known who taught
Watazumi the piece; Watazumi says that no one taught it to him (Yokoyama 1989).
Yokoyama also learned “Furin” from Watazumi.

Yokoyama further stated in a personal communication with me (1989) that in the mid
1980s he began using the title “Shôganken reibo” for the piece Watazumi played as
“Furin” because he recognized both pieces to be the same. It is not clear why
Yokoyama does not, in his discussion of “Shôganken reibo” in his book, precisely
point out that his own “Shôganken reibo” is basically a variant of Watazumi’s

112
“Furin”. A possible explanation for Yokoyama’s deciding to adopt the name
“Shôganken reibo” is that it is much more famous than the title “Furin”. The
similarities and differences as revealed by transcription and analysis of Watazumi’s
and Yokoyama’s “Furin” on one hand, and Jin’s and his students’ “Shôganken
reibo” on the other hand, will be discussed later in this thesis. Chart 3 shows the
addition of Watazumi and Yokoyama to the genealogy chart.

4.3.2 “Futaiken reibo” Lineage

Jin learned what will be shown by analysis (pp.485-490) to be a second version of

“Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” from Konashi Kinsui (小梨錦水). Jin gave this second version of
“Reibo” the title “Futaiken den ‘Reibo’” (布袋軒伝[鈴慕], ‘Reibo transmitted at the
Futai sub-temple’). As was the case with “Shôganken reibo”, this version of the piece
was not known by this title before Jin. Kinsui may have called the piece simply
“Reibo” as this is the name most of his students used. As mentioned above, the
version that Jin called “Shôganken reibo” was referred to by his teacher, Orito, as
“Kannariji den ‘Reibo’”. Perhaps Jin thought the name “Reibo” was not specific
enough, in light of his having been taught at least two versions of the piece, or it could
have been simply that “Futaiken den ‘Reibo’” - “Shôganken den ‘Reibo’” made a
better sounding pair than “Reibo” – "Kannariji den reibo".

Chart 3

The question of who taught Kinsui is somewhat complicated. Uramoto (Inagaki, ed.
1985:130), Tukitani (in NOD 1989:42), Yamaue (1984:167) and Izui and Takahashi
(in Yamaue 1984:174) agree that Kinsui’s first teacher was the komusô, Kurosawa
Shôun (黒沢照雲). One of Kinsui’s students, Uramoto Setchô (浦本浙潮) (Inagaki,
ed. 1985:130) states, however, that Kinsui was taught by the last head priest of
Futaiken and highly regarded komusô Hasegawa Tôgaku (長谷川東学) (see p.178).
Kurosawa Kinko, one of the most famous komusô, was also associated with the sub-
temple Futaiken, further elevating Kinsui’s credibility.

Izui Shizan (出井靜山) and Takahashi Ryochiku (高橋呂竹) (Yamaue 1984:174)

write that: 1) in a “direct conversation” with Gotô Tôsui (後藤桃水), Tôsui stated that
he had heard Tôgaku and Kinsui perform the piece “Reibo” together and that though
there were differences in details, the timings, passages, etc., they fit extremely well;
2) according to Orito Nyogetsu (see above), Kinsui was expelled (hamon 破門) by

113
Tôgaku and didn’t learn the piece “Reibo” at all; and 3) according to shakuhachi
player and authority Takahashi Kûzan (高橋空山, unrelated to Ryochiku), Kinsui
studied with Tôgaku for only a very short time, barely learning anything from him. In
his own book on shakuhachi, Kûzan writes:

From the latter Taisho (1912-1926) and during the early Shôwa (1926-1989)
periods, in Sendai there was a person named Konashi Kinsui who was blind
and was a shakuhachi player. He imitated the piece “Ôshû reihô” and played
a condensed version of this. There are people who say that this piece is the
same as that transmitted by the sub-temple Shôganken in what is now
Hanamaki City, Iwate Prefecture...or by some other temple. In this, however,
they are completely mistaken. I have met Kinsui frequently, and during the
many investigations I made to various temples in the early part of Shôwa, such
as those mentioned earlier, such a piece [as Kinsui performed] absolutely did
not exist.

Takahashi 1988:285

Although there are contradictions in the above statements, all of the above writers do,
in fact, agree upon one thing: that Hasegawa Tôgaku is considered the well-spring of
authority from which all versions of “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” flowed (Yamaue 1984:167;
Izui and Takahashi in Yamaue 1984:174; Tukitani in NOD 1989:47; Takahashi
1979:285; Uramoto 1985:130). Consequently, it is imperative that any shakuhachi
player who places importance upon the authenticity of his version of “Ôshû kei
‘Reibo’” be able to trace a piece-specific lineage from himself through his ancestors
directly back to Hasegawa Tôgaku. Uramoto states that his teacher, Kinsui, studied
with Tôgaku, thus creating a link between the “source” and himself that spans only
two generations.

Taken one step further, this process of authenticating one’s own piece requires not
only a demonstration of proof of a direct line of transmission between, in this case,
Tôgaku and oneself, but also the discrediting of any other line of transmission that
might rival one’s own. As happens universally in religion and in other areas of human
society, including that of shakuhachi, this latter step seems to have been taken by
Kûzan and, according to Izui and Takahashi, also by Nyogetsu, both of whom are not
connected with the Kinsui lineage.

In contrast, Izui and Takahashi, in their role as unbiased editors to Yamaue’s book, try
to balance Kûzan’s and Nyogetsu’s negative accounts of Kinsui’s lineage with a
“direct” quote from Gotô Tôsui stating that he could hear virtually no difference
between Tôgaku’s and Kinsui’s performance of “Reibo”. Izui and Takahashi (in
Yamada 1984:174) make Gotô’s account more credible by pointing out that Gotô
himself was originally a student of Tôgaku, but immediately afterwards undermine
that credibility by further explaining that Gotô became Kinsui’s student, the latter
evidenced by Gotô’s shakuhachi name, Tôsui. 49

49
It is common practice for shakuhachi players of the same lineage to share a character in
their professional name. Both Kinsui and Tôsui share the character sui (水, water).

114
In this author’s opinion (whose objectivity is reinforced by his being in both the
Kinsui and Nyogetsu lineages) any doubts as to the credibility of Kinsui’s “Reibo”
are more than allayed by the piece itself, or more precisely, by performing it, a
masterpiece among shakuhachi honkyoku.

In any case, Konashi Kinsui taught his version of “Reibo” to many others besides Jin,
including Uramoto Setcho, whose many students may have included Watazumi, who
in turn taught it to Yokoyama. The lineage chart of the “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” becomes
quite complex with the inclusion of Konashi Kinsui, Uramoto Setchô and their
students (see Chart 4).

4.3.3 A Third Lineage of Transmission of the Ôshû Family of the “Reibo” Piece

The possible third line of transmission of the “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” is much simpler. As
with the Kinsui lineage, this lineage traces itself back to Hasegawa Tôgaku, with the
added input of another komusô, Genkô Taishû (元光退秀), as follows: the previously
mentioned Takahashi Kûzan was taught by Okazaki Meidô (岡崎明道), whose
teacher was Oikawa Kakuyû (及川霍友). As is claimed to be the case with Konashi
Kinsui, Oikawa also had two teachers, Hasegawa Tôgaku and Genkô Taishû (see
Chart 5).

This lineage is particularly interesting because both Oikawa and one of his teachers,
Genkô, were associated with the sub-temple Shôganken. As mentioned earlier,
Oikawa, like Jin, used the title “Shôganken reibo”. But unlike Jin’s use of the
ideograph 巌 for gan, Oikawa used the ideograph 岩 for gan. Oikawa chose the same
ideograph that was used in the name of the original komusô temple, Shôganken. Even
though Kûzan emphasizes the connection between Oikawa, who was his teacher’s
teacher, and Tôgaku, it is Oikawa’s other teacher, Genkô, and the association of both
Oikawa and Genkô with the sub-temple Shôganken that are important, for the
following reason.

115
 Chart 4

NOTE:

- - - - indicates indirect transmission through recordings.

Dates are given where known.
‘?’ indicates unsubstantiated, but possible transmission.
[Futaiken 布袋軒], etc., indicates the sub-temple with which the was affiliated.

116
 Chart 5

The other two main lineages of the “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’” stem from Hasegawa Tôgaku,
one stream flowing through Onodera and the other through Konashi Kinsui. Tôgaku
was the head priest of the sub-temple Futaiken. Therefore, both of these lineages
originated at Futaiken, even though Jin seems to have arbitrarily given the title
“Shôganken reibo” to a piece that had been transmitted to him through Onodera.
Even if Kinsui’s somewhat controversial relationship with Tôgaku is discounted, his
other teacher, Kurosawa Shôun was also associated with Futaiken.

Assuming the details of the lineage chart are correct, it is only the Genkô - Oikawa -
Okazaki lineage that can rightly claim the title “Shôganken reibo”, the ‘“Reibo” as
transmitted at Shôganken’. Because of the custom of ichiji ichiritsu (一寺一律, one
temple, one melody), it is reasonable to assume that the Shôganken version of
“Reibo” differed from the Futaiken version.

Ironically, according to Izui and Takahashi (in Yamaue 1984:173), Okazaki used the
name “Futaiken reibo” to refer to this piece, even though his teacher used the name
“Shôganken den reibo”. Equally inconsistent is Kûzan’s use of the title “Ôshû reihô”
(奥州鈴法) when refering in his book, Fuke shû shi (普化宗史) (1979:285) to the
piece transmitted from Shôganken.

4.4 Lineage Chart of the Transmission of “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’”

Chart 6 is for “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’”, showing the three main branches of transmission,
including names that have not been mentioned previously. It is based on a similar
chart compiled by the Syakuhati kenkyû kai (Shakuhachi Research Group), with
reliance upon a chart by Tukitani (NOD 1989:47), while I was an active member of
the group in Japan in 1989. Tukitani’s chart was largely substantiated by Yamaue
(1984) and Takahashi (1979).

Tukitani’s original chart, the Shakuhachi Research Group’s chart, and this subsequent
lineage chart are all based upon either direct observation, as in the case of performers
directly known by the author, or upon writings and diagrams of shakuhachi players
who appear in the chart, in particular those of Yamaue Getsuzan.

117
The lineage chart of the Shakuhachi Research Group, and the chart presented here
differ from all other charts of shakuhachi lineages in their focus upon extant
recordings. The charts were devised by first collecting as many recordings as possible
of what seemed likely to be “Reibo” pieces of the Ôshû lineage, and then listing the
performers of the recordings, their teachers and then the teacher’s teachers, etc. The
lineages of the performers of the recordings were traced as far back in time as
possible, using all available data, including old lineage charts. In this way, a
comparative analysis based upon transcriptions of actual performance recordings
could be made between any and all branches represented in the chart. The result is a
lineage chart believed to be more comprehensive in its representation of various lines
through which “Reibo” has been and is being transmitted than previous Ôshû lineage
charts, even though many individuals included in earlier charts, such as Yamaue’s
eleven students (Yamaue 1984:167), are omitted.

It should be emphasized that the chart is necessarily limited to shakuhachi players

who are known to have recorded performances of “Reibo”, and to the teachers of
these players. It is, therefore, far from exhaustive; there is no way of telling, for
example, how many people may have learned “Reibo” or how many players are
performing versions of it today.

As far as possible, the chart is piece-specific. That is, it shows only who taught whom
“Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’”. Any individual included in the chart mave have had one or more
other teachers, among whom may have been his principal teacher. For example,
Watazumi is said to have learned the piece from Uramoto Setchô, but Setchô was by
no means his main teacher. In fact, as mentioned above, Watazumi regularly claims
that he had no teachers from whom he learned any of his honkyoku. Similarly, Aoki
Reibo II (２世青木鈴慕) is believed to have learned his “Miyagino Reibo”
(宮城野鈴慕) from either Suzuki Tamon (鈴木多聞) or Nakamura Kikufû
(中村菊風), neither of whom was his primary teacher; his father, Aoki Reibo I, was.
A number of others in the chart have a similar secondary relationship with the person
who transmitted “Reibo” to them.

In addition, it is highly probable that most persons included in Chart 6 learnt from
more than one teacher. For example, Takahashi Kûzan lists as his teachers, not only
Okazaki Meidô as given in Chart 6, but also Miyakawa Nyozan (宮川如山), Takase
Sukeji (高瀬助治), Kobayashi Haô (小林波鴎), Komichi Toyotarô (小路豊太郎),
Kobayashi Shizan (小林紫山), Katsuura Shôzan (勝浦正山) and others (Kamisangô
1974:21). A lineage chart depicting each player’s primary teacher, or primary
influence, would be quite different from Chart 6, which shows only in part the
transmission of a single family of pieces.

That charts such as the one presented here can only be simplified representations of
“reality” can be seen from the following example. Jin claimed that he learned the
piece that he called “Shôganken reibo” from Orito Nyogetsu,

118
 Chart 6

NOTE FOR CHART 6:

- - - - indicates indirect transmission through recordings.

Dates are given where known.
‘?’ indicates unsubstantiated, but possible transmission.
[Futaiken 布袋軒], etc., indicates the sub-temple with which the was affiliated.

119
yet Nyogetsu asserted that he in fact never taught the piece to Jin. Actually, Jin did
study the piece under Orito, but according to Yamaue, as Jin began to gain fame
throughout Japan as an authority of the honkyoku, Orito told him that if he was going
to be transmitting the piece around the country, he had better take more lessons from
Orito to make sure he really knew the piece. Jin never took Orito’s advice, so Orito
began stating categorically that he had never taught Jin the piece (Yamaue 1987:7).

An added difficulty in creating an accurate and comprehensive lineage chart such as

the one presented here, arises from social customs and restraints at work in
shakuhachi society. As explained above, Chikuho II, as a future iemoto, may have felt
limited in choosing whom he could learn new honkyoku from or, at least whom he
could publicly acknowledge having learned from, because of the possible risk to the
rank and status of the iemoto position, as well as the possible loss of esteem both
personally and for the ryû. Such social constraints make it problematic for high
ranking players to increase their performance and teaching repertoire.

Performance and teaching of modern compositions, in comparison to traditional

honkyoku that have been transmitted through long lineages and are frequently
considered to be the exclusive property of those lineages, are less constrained by
social forces. This is especially true in the case of contemporary shakuhachi
compositions written in staff notation. There are two main methods frequently used to
overcome problems of increasing one’s repertoire of traditional pieces. One method is
to create original compositions. The second method is to proceed to introduce a
traditional piece to one’s repertoire, but then to ignore the question of lineage entirely.

In a personal communication, Tukitani uncertainly (OC 1989) suggested that Aoki

Reibo may have learned his version of “Reibo”, which he calls “Miyagino reibo”,
from Suzuki Tamon, who may have learned it from Nakamura Kikufû (see Chart 6).
Tukitani based her belief on what she had been told by Tamon and others, and is
indirectly supported by the fact that both Nakamura and one of his teachers,
Kobayashi Shizan (小林紫山), used the name “Miyagino reibo”, the same name that
Aoki uses.

Though I had the opportunity to ask Aoki about his piece “Miyagino reibo” during an
interview with him on October 15, 1989, I made the conscious decision to avoid the
issue, believing that to pursue the subject might be seen as tactless. As conjecture,
Aoki’s present position as head of his lineage may preclude him from acknowledging
Nakamura as a source.

Although development of any shakuhachi lineage chart will be plagued with problems
similar to those discussed above, such charts are useful in outlining lines of
transmission. The chart presented in this thesis is particularly useful in showing the
transmission of “Ôshû kei ‘Reibo’”. The lineage chart is only the beginning of the task
this thesis attempts to accomplish, that is, to expand the knowledge and elucidate the
processes of transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku. The chart shows where to look
next, what questions to ask and whose performances to compare. In order to answer
the many questions generated by the chart, transcriptions of recordings are essential.
Before transcribing and analyzing the various performances represented on the “Ôshû

120
kei ‘Reibo’” lineage chart, however, the subject of transmission must first be
discussed further. How members of the shakuhachi tradition define transmission and
what is thought to be transmitted in the case of the shakuhachi tradition in general,
and of koten honkyoku in particular, is the subject of the next chapter.

121
 CHAPTER 5
ONTOLOGY OF TRANSMISSION; THE NATURE OF
THE REALITY OF
HONKYOKU TRANSMISSION
The main subject of this thesis is the transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku,
specifically the honkyoku known as “Reibo”. The first chapter discussed the issue of
insiders and outsiders because of the importance given that issue by members of the
shakuhachi tradition, and because of the influences the concepts of insider and
outsider have had on how the tradition has been and is being transmitted. The second
and third chapters surveyed the literature on the shakuhachi, and presented a summary
of the history of the shakuhachi. Together these chapters provided a background of
information against which the subject of transmission of honkyoku within the
shakuhachi tradition could be more clearly seen. Chapter 4 focused upon the
honkyoku “Reibo” of the Ôshû district and introduced a lineage chart depicting the
lines of transmission of that honkyoku through selected shakuhachi performers.

The following chapter broadens the discussion of honkyoku transmission in the

shakuhachi tradition beyond the relatively superficial parameters discussed in Chapter
4. In this chapter, the fundamental question of this thesis will be addressed: What is
being transmitted in the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition? From this first question are
generated two other major questions. The second question, and questions related to it
are: How does the transmission take place? In what context is the transmission
accomplished? Who is transmitting, and to whom? The third and final major question
looks at the interaction between the first two: How does the manner in which the
transmission occurs affect, and is affected by, that which is being transmitted? What
is the relationship between the process of transmission and the conception of
honkyoku?

These three issues are best illuminated by looking at multiple points of view, that is,
by noting what individual players themselves state and by examining what the
notations and transcriptions of performances show. These viewpoints are numerous
and sometimes conflicting. My own point of departure, discussed in chapter one, will
affect how the three issues are presented. As a shakuhachi player and performer of
koten honkyoku I am primarily interested in looking at, through the verbal or written
medium of this thesis, the same tradition of insight that is inherent in the act of
performance.

Before looking at the formal elements of transmission processes in the honkyoku

tradition, I would like to explore certain cognate positions within three different but
related realms of discourse. The first of these is the concept of subjectivity versus
objectivity. The second area of discussion is theories of orality and literacy. The third
realm of discourse is the relationship between performance and documentation. These
three areas will be viewed from the western theoretical position; by examining post-
modernist critiques of subjectivity/objectivity and by looking at western theoretical
writings on orality/literacy and performance/documentation. Cognates of these
postulates that can be found within Japanese culture will also be discussed. These
include the distinction of Taoism or Zen and Confucianism, manifestations of
orality/literacy in Japanese culture and examples of the role of documents and

122
performances in Japan. All of the discussions will lead to the shakuhachi honkyoku
tradition itself, within whose transmission processes can be seen these same sets of
polarity.

5.1 Concepts of Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Sound

The Oxford English Dictionary (1971:3383) defines the verb “to transmit” as “to
cause (a thing) to pass, go, or be conveyed to another person, place, or thing; to send
across an intervening space; to convey, transfer”. The second meaning given is “to
convey or communicate (usually something immaterial) to another or others; to pass
on, especially by inheritance or heredity; to hand down”. Both of these definitions
include an “object” being transmitted, i.e., “a thing” or “something immaterial”.

Barwick (1988:2) points out that research on transmission in cultural studies

(including musicological ones) is usually document-centred, with written material
such as transcriptions of performances, forming the data base used in the studies.
Examples of such studies are those by Parry (1971) and Lord (1964). The written
manuscript or transcription functions typically to objectify that which is being
transmitted. These studies consequently imply that the transmission that is occurring
fits the model presented by the conduit theory of communication, that is, “an item of
information is passed or transmitted from person A to person B”. This in turn
presupposes:

1) an object (an item of information or repertoire) having some sort of

existence independent of persons A and B (and potentially representable in the
form of a document), and
2) a means of transmission capable of completely transparent communication

(Barwick 1988:1-2)

The validity of these presuppositions is questioned by modern communication

theories, which “admit neither the existence of the item of information as an entity
outside its utterance or manifestation, nor the possibility of a transparent mode of
communication, nor indeed the discrete subjectivity of the individual” (Barwick
1988:2). Despite this, musicologists typically record, transcribe, analyze and discuss
musical performances from an “objective” viewpoint, treating the document not only
as an accurate, but even a more exact substitute for the actual act of performance
(Barwick 1988:2).

Barwick (1988:3) further argues that in concentrating on what is transmitted, that is,
the “object” of transmission, one is forced to explain or, more accurately “explain
away” any variation that might occur to that “object” during transmission. Thus,
variation becomes a problem that must be explained away, leading to a preoccupation
with defining the original, the authentic or the deep structure, in order to identify or
construct the “sameness” that is necessary when talking about objects of transmission.

Returning to the topic of this thesis, Barwick’s position suggests that by answering
the question, “What is transmitted?”, with simply honkyoku or “the piece ‘Reibo’”

123
one risks coming into conflict with the shakuhachi tradition’s own view of the process
of transmission. This would be especially true if one were to take performance
documents, such as notated scores, transcriptions, and/or recordings of individual
performances of the “Reibo” piece and view them as the object of transmission. This
thesis will, therefore, attempt to avoid viewing the transmission of the shakuhachi
honkyoku “Reibo” solely as the transmission of an “object” independent of its
multiple utterances and manifestations, and separate from the process of its
performance and those performing it.

It must be stated, however, that there exist some prominent members of the
shakuhachi tradition who hold the opposite view, namely Inoue Shôei and to a lesser
degree Aoki Reibo (see pp.288-295). Nonetheless, the nature of honkyoku as
performed by many, if not most, players facilitates, even demands, the opposite
viewpoint. “Reibo” does not exist as a distinct “object” or “piece”, but rather only as
a phenomenon that exists in performance, in a relatively constant state of flux.

Ideally, during the course of transmitting honkyoku from one person to another, an
intuitive form of communication or transmission develops that is non-verbal, non-
visual, non-auditory, non-analytical and non-logical. Without this form of
transmission, which may be described as a sense of intuitive mutual perception on the
part of both teacher and student, many believe that there is a chance that only the
outer shell of the honkyoku might be transmitted and/or received, with no
transmission of the “real essence” or “inner core” taking place. The “outer shell”
becomes the “object” mentioned above.

Hisamatsu mentions this in Hitori kotoba (獨言, ‘Monologue’, ca.1830, reproduced in

Gutzwiller 1983:169-174), one of three essays that are possibly the only surviving
writing on shakuhachi by a practising komusô of the Fuke sect. Hisamatsu wrote, “To
play only the outer form is not called playing shakuhachi, and has nothing to do with
it. Be aware of this!” Hisamatsu further admonished the beginner to learn to play the
“real essence” of honkyoku.

Not surprisingly, what exactly constitutes the “real essence” of honkyoku is never
explicitly explained, possibly because the essence of honkyoku defies verbal
explanation. It is like most fundamental Buddhist concepts, which are only “amenable
to complete understanding through experience and definitions are inevitably
inadequate” (Howard 1992a:35). Hisamatsu states in another essay, Hitori mondô
(獨問答 1823, reproduced in Kurihara 1918:209-215), that, “the essence of playing is
beyond reasoning”. A strong parallel can be clearly seen between this aspect of the
shakuhachi honkyoku tradition and Zen Buddhism, the essence of which has been
described as, “an intuitive looking into the nature of things in contradistinction to the
analytical or logical understanding of it” (Suzuki 1956:84).

The “essence of playing” mentioned by Hisamatsu is the concept of s̀ûnyatâ, the

essential emptiness of all phenomena. S̀ ûnyatâ is a principle central to Zen Buddhism
as well as to the entire Mahayana Buddhist tradition. It is, according to Yasutani-
roshi, “that which is living, dynamic, devoid of mass, unfixed, beyond individuality or
personality - the matrix of all phenomena” (Yasutani in Howard 1992a:31). Howard
further elaborates on s̀ûnyatâ (also called mu in the Zen tradition), explaining, “The
experience of ‘realization’ in Zen is to glimpse this essential principle of the

124
emptiness and unity of all things and thus to see that ultimate reality is identified with
the intrinsic nature of things themselves” (Howard 1992a:31).

Whatever this indefinable “real essence” or “inner core” of honkyoku might be,
according to members of the honkyoku tradition it is not such observable and
quantifiable things as musical sound, and it cannot be attained by becoming an
accomplished performer of advanced shakuhachi techniques. A contemporary
shakuhachi player, Hanada Nobuhisa (花田伸久) quotes Rinzai: “In Buddha’s law
there is no place for skill and usefulness” and elaborates by writing:

Just as a baby or a person sound asleep breathes naturally, in essence there is

no good and bad in shakuhachi playing. A player who is said to be good is one
who has abandoned all technique. A poor player is one who tries to play
skillfully.

(Hanada, in Howard 1992a:33)

Kobayashi Shizan (小林紫山), thirty -fifth head of the Myôan lineage is quoted by
Howard (1992b:10) as stating that even when the shakuhachi player fails to produce
the desired note when blowing his instrument, “the unwanted sound should be
savoured. In this way you come to appreciate the taste of true accomplishment, of art
that is artless.” Suzuki (1960:69-70) states, “[t]he Essence is to be grasped, not the
hearing, nor the sound. To take the latter for reality is the result of confused
mentality”.

Despite the obvious lack of correlation between virtuosic production of sound and
essence of honkyoku, this element of the honkyoku tradition is most commonly the
subject of musical analysis in musicological studies. In other words, most of the
analytical tools of the musicologist are impotent in defining and understanding the
“inner core” of honkyoku and the intuitive means of transmitting it.

It is worthwhile to refer back to the modern communication theories summarized by

Barwick, which deny the existence of both object and subject as separate, discrete
entities within the dynamics of the communication of information.

This does not mean that the “outer shell” of honkyoku, the sound, is to be ignored and
discarded. In another sense, musical sounds and performance techniques are exactly
that which is transmitted in the honkyoku tradition. The Heart Sutra, one of Zen
Buddhism’s most central texts, states that form is empty, but also that emptiness is
form. In non-dualistic thinking, there is no separation of inner core from outer shell,
or objectivity and subjectivity. Howard (1992a:30) points out that there is no duality
between the two co-existent principles of ultimate reality and perceivable things. This
is also expressed in Zen literature as the “relative” (the world of appearance) and “the
absolute” (ultimate reality).

There is an object that is communicated, but it is separate from neither its subjective
utterance nor its equally subjective reception. The object is the sound of shakuhachi
honkyoku. The spiritual practices of the shakuhachi-playing members of the Fuke sect
were based upon sound and hearing. Howard (1991:95-101) has suggested that these
practices may have found their conceptual context in a Buddhist text probably written

125
in China in the seventh century. In the Sûrangama Sûtra, which has had a significant
influence upon the Zen Buddhist tradition, the Bodhisattva Avalokites̀vara (Jap.
Kannon 観音, literally ‘Seeing Sound’), the “One Who Hears the Sounds of the
World”, describes how she attained enlightenment by initially meditating on hearing
and sound.

An understanding of the sound that is honkyoku might be gained by first reflecting on

the nature of sound itself. Ong deals with the subject of sound in his book Orality and
Literacy (1982). He writes:

All sensation takes place in time, but sound has a special relationship to time
unlike that of the other fields that register in human sensation. Sound exists
only when it is going out of existence. It is not simply perishable but
essentially evanescent, and it is sensed as evanescent....

There is no way to stop sound and have sound. I can stop a moving picture
camera and hold one frame fixed on the screen. If I stop the movement of
sound, I have nothing—only silence, no sound at all. All sensation takes place
in time, but no other sensory field totally resists a holding action, stabilization,
in quite this way.

(Ong 1982:31-32)

In Buddhism, all phenomena are viewed as having the impermanence of sound. The
traditional Buddhist dictum, which states that “Everything perishes as soon as it
arises”, denies duration and is, therefore, “the ultimate limit of momentariness” (Kim
1987:148). Just as the only sound that one ever hears is the sound of the present
moment, one’s entire existence, including the other senses, exists entirely in the
present. Dôgen, 12th c. Japanese Zen master, writes:

The present time under consideration is each individual’s absolute now. I

think of the past, present, and future, and no matter how many periods—even
tens of thousands of them—I may think of, they are the present moment, the
absolute now. A person’s destiny lies necessarily in the present. In other
words, the eyeballs are now, the nostrils are now.

(trans. by Kim, in Kim 1987:147)

Sound exists only at a particular location and a particular time, that is, the absolute
Here and Now. Hence the power of sound and the power of classical shakuhachi
honkyoku.

Another Zen Buddhist vantage point from which to view sound and its relationship
with time is given rather transparently by Suzuki Shunryû:

126
 We say, "To hear the sound of one hand clapping." 50 Usually the sound of
clapping is made with two hands, and we think that clapping with one hand
makes no sound at all. But actually, one hand is sound. Even though you do
not hear it, there is sound. If you clap with two hands, you can hear the sound.
But if sound did not already exist before you clapped, you could not make the
sound. Before you make it there is sound. Because there is sound, you can
make it, and you can hear it. Sound is everywhere. If you just practice it, there
is sound. Do not try to listen to it. If you do not listen to it, the sound is all
over. Because you try to hear it, sometimes there is sound and sometimes there
is no sound.

(Suzuki S. 1970:60)

The sound made by one hand clapping is “absolute sound”, neither relative to nor
dependent upon anything outside of itself, including time or location. In the honkyoku
tradition, this concept is called tettei on (徹底音, literally ‘thorough’ or ‘complete
sound’). Tettei on is translated as “absolute sound” by Gutzwiller (1983:248). The
shakuhachi player strives to perform each honkyoku with tettei on; sometimes one
hears it and sometimes one does not. One is striving to attain tettei on all one’s life
and yet one’s first tentative sound on the shakuhachi is tettei on. 51 It is “One Sound
Attaining Buddhahood” (ichi on jôbutsu) (see below). It is the sound of enlightenment
itself.

Sound is unique among phenomena perceived by the senses in its relationship to

location as well as time, and the consequent illumination it sheds upon the concepts of
interior and exterior. Ong calls this unique relationship or quality the “interiority of
sound” (1982:71). Hearing is the best, if not the only, sense with which to perceive
the interior of something from its exterior. Ong (1982:71) states, “Sounds all register
the interior structures of whatever it is that produces them”, adding that the sounds of
various musical instruments and human voices differ depending upon their interior
structure. The perception of sound outside the structure which produces it is partly
determined by the inside of the structure.

The concept of interior/exterior extends beyond the characteristics of sound. It is the

concept of I/Thou, and of subject/object (see above, p.109). The interaction between
interior and exterior is dealt with in the visual art tradition of the East. According to
Izutsu (1975:1-2), as early as the 5th century in China, Hsieh Ho established six
principles of Chinese painting. The first of the principles is entitled “Spiritual Tone
Pulsating with Life” (Ch’i yun shêng tung). Applicable to honkyoku as much as to
painting, states that:

50
The koan (公案, literally 'public plan', a catechetical question for meditation) "What is the
sound of one hand clapping?" is attributed to Japanese Zen Buddhist master Hakuin Ekaku
(白隠慧覚 1686-1769).
51
The seemingly conflicting notion between an “absolute sound” (enlightenment) that
requires a lifetime of effort to attain and an “absolute sound” that is effortlessly made from
the very beginning is dealt with in the Buddhist tradition. For example, see Kim (1985) on
Dogen’s thoughts concerning the dialectical relationship between acquired enlightenment
(始覚, shikaku) and original enlightment (本覚, honkaku).

127
 ...there must be a perfect, harmonious correspondence realized between the
inner rhythm of man and the life rhythm of the external Nature in such a way
that, as a result, an indefinable spiritual tone pervades the whole space of the
picture, vitalizing the latter in the most subtle way and imparting metaphysical
significance to the objects depicted, whatever they might be. When a painter
succeeds in actualizing this principle, his work will be filled with a peculiar
kind of spiritual energy in rhythmic pulsation itself, in which the spirit of man
will be in direct communion with the inner reality of Heaven and Earth.
(In Izutsu 1975:1-2) 52

Honkyoku performance, when accompanied in a manner which is harmonious with

interior and exterior rhythms, is also filled with an indefinable spiritual energy
transcending the performer, and which unifies the human spirit with all of nature.

Looking at the qualities of sound once more, Ong (1982:72) observes further that,
“Sight isolates, sound incorporates”. Vision dissects the entire panorama; one can
only look at the one thing at a time. Yet one hears all of the sounds around one.

By contrast with vision, the dissecting sense, sound is thus a unifying sense. A
typical visual ideal is clarity and distinctness, a taking apart.... The auditory
ideal, by contrast, is harmony, a putting together.

(Ong 1982:72)

The unifying quality of sound is also recognized in the shakuhachi honkyoku

tradition. In the well-known shakuhachi dictum ichi on jôbutsu (一音成仏, ‘one
sound attaining Buddhahood’), the “one sound” is frequently given the meaning of a
single note played on a single shakuhachi. Howard (1992b:6) translates ichi on
jôbutsu as “enlightenment in a single sound”, which identifies the blowing of a single
sound with the expression of pure realization. It is “an expression of a momentary
experience of insight or realization triggered after long cultivation through the agency
of sound” (Howard 1992b:6).

It is not necessarily incorrect to think of ichi on jôbutsu as meaning simply that the
sound of the shakuhachi is so potent that it is even possible for a shakuhachi player to
attain Buddhahood by merely performing a single note on shakuhachi. It does
demonstrate, however, only a partial understanding of the expression. It is not any
particular potency unique to the sound of shakuhachi that is enlightenment. Any
sound and all sounds are capable of triggering enlightenment. Zen master Yamada
Kôun Roshi states:

When your consciousness has become ripe by true zazen--pure like clear
water, like a serene mountain lake, not moved by any wind—then anything
may serve as a medium for enlightenment.

52
For an illuminating discussion of the many similarities between painting traditions in Japan
and the shakuhachi tradition, both as activities of Zen Buddhism, see Howard 1992b).

128
 (In Aitken 1978:26)

Furthermore, though enlightenment may indeed be attained by blowing one note on

shakuhachi, the expression ichi on jôbutsu is far more charged with meaning. First of
all, it is not “sounds” in general that is “Becoming Buddha”. Embedded in the
expression ichi on jôbutsu is the understanding that the “One Sound” is not “two or
more” sounds. It is also not “sound” as a separate entity, that is, an object to be
perceived by the listener (another separate entity) and categorized as something that is
this and not that. The unified “One Sound” is Absolute Sound (tettei on), limited by
neither time nor space.

It is therefore every sound that has ever emanated, is emanating, and will ever
emanate from all shakuhachi, past, present and future. All shakuhachi are resonating
with Buddhahood, a veritable cacophony of enlightenment. Taking the meaning of
“one sound” even further, all sound from the unimaginable roar of a volcanic eruption
to the inaudible sound of an autumn leaf alighting on the grass, the noise of all
activities of all humanity, and in fact all creation, all form, all matter, all thoughts, and
all energy is the “one sound” becoming Buddha. In this light, the single sound
emanating from one’s own bamboo flute is the very essence of what is being
transmitted in the honkyoku tradition. It is in the spirit of this concept that this study
has been undertaken.

5.2 Orality, Zen, and the Shakuhachi Honkyoku

The above discussion of the nature of sound and how it is treated within the
shakuhachi honkyoku tradition leads to an important observation of honkyoku: the
sounds that make up honkyoku have been transmitted primarily through an oral
tradition. This single observation leads to a number of others, because all oral
traditions share many elements which differenciate them from written traditions.
Though the use of notation is found in the honkyoku tradition today, it was primarily
an oral one before this century, with the extensive use of notation, hand-written and
printed, dating only from the end of the 19th century (Lee 1986:87-89). I will argue
below that the honkyoku tradition is still largely an oral one, which consequently
affects the nature of honkyoku in predictable ways.

Seeger has suggested that the interesting thing about the oral/written paradigm was
not the difference between the two but their “inextricably connected” relationship
with each other (In Nettl 1983:187). This relationship can be readily seen in much of
the honkyoku tradition. Some of the changes that may have occurred in the
shakuhachi tradition because of the use of written, printed, and recorded forms have
been discussed elsewhere (Lee 1988).

The following discussion introduces the subject of orality and related topics as well as
theories of orality that have been developed during this century, especially as they
pertain to honkyoku. Similarities between the honkyoku tradition and other oral
traditions are also examined in so far as they might shed light on the question central
to this section: what is being transmitted.

129
One of the most comprehensive works on the subject of oral and written traditions is
Walter J. Ong’s Orality and Literacy (1982). Ong is concerned basically with what he
calls “primary oral cultures,” or oral cultures untouched by writing. Neither the
honkyoku tradition nor Zen are products of a “primary oral culture”. In fact, in this
century few cultures that might be thought of as non-literate have had no contact with
literacy. Aboriginal Australia is considered one of the most conspicuously “oral”
cultures extant today despite contact with literate European culture to varying degrees
over the past one hundred to two hundred years 53 (Clunies Ross 1983:17). Even after
writing is introduced into a culture, as in ancient Greece, there persists an “oral state
of mind”, “a mode of consciousness...a vocabulary and syntax, which [are] not that of
a literate bookish culture” (Havelock 1963:41). When applied to traditions that retain
vestiges of orality within a largely literate context, theories of orality may lose their
economy, but not their usefulness in helping to formulate a description of those
traditions. Honkyoku is one such tradition.

Ong’s main premise is that there is a distinctly “oral” and a quite different “literate”
mentality; the world seen through the eyes of orality is not the same world of the
literate. The human experience has historically been overwhelmingly oral both in
terms of time (only 6000 years of literacy within at least a 50,000 year existence) and
numbers (of a possible tens of thousands of languages spoken by the human race, only
106 have had a writing system developed enough to produce literature) (Ong
1982:2,7). Yet those of us who belong to a modern literate society are so conditioned
by our literacy as to be virtually unable to “conceive of an oral universe of
communication of thought except as a variant of a literate universe” (1982:2).

According to Havelock, the oral mind, at least in ancient Greece, is a mind

unconscious of itself, incapable of conceiving that:

“I” am one thing and the tradition is another; that “I” can stand apart from the
tradition and examine it; that “I” can and should break the spell of its hypnotic
force; that “I” should divert some at least of my mental powers away from
memorization and direct them instead into channels of critical inquiry and
analysis.

(Havelock 1963:200)

Havelock concludes, “The doctrine of the autonomous psyche is the counterpart of the
rejection of the oral culture” (1963:200).

The dichotomy of inside/outside, of an “I” that is separate from the tradition or from
anything else is, in the context of Zen Buddhist thought an illusionary construct of the
mind. It is related to the concepts of interiority and exteriority, discussed above. In a
lecture entitled “The Interior and Exterior in Zen Buddhism”, Izutsu (1975:23) speaks
of “the sudden realization of the ontological transparency of all things, including both
the things existing in the ‘external’ world and the human subject which is ordinarily

53
Some members of the Pintupi tribe in Western Australia remained untouched by literate
society until the 1980s.

130
supposed to be looking at them from the outside. Both the ‘external’ things and the
‘internal’ of man divest themselves of their ontological opaqueness, become totally
transparent, pervade each other, and become submerged into one.”

Though typically associated with Eastern philosophies, such thoughts have also long
been a part of the Western spiritual tradition. For example, Jesus is quoted in the
Gnostic Gospel of Thomas as saying:

When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside
and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you
make the male and the female one and the same....then you will enter [the
Kingdom].

(quoted in Aitken 1984:130)

In playing shakuhachi honkyoku, as with Zen Buddhist practice, the separation of the
“I” from the tradition is transcended. In the act of performing honkyoku, the performer
experiences an unselfconscious mind, in which differentiation between the performer,
the performing, and the shakuhachi ceases to be. These are “the three wheels” (the
actor, the action, and the thing acted upon) in the Buddhist sutra which states that all
three are “vacant” (Aitken 1990:109). A fourth vacant wheel is added here, the
performance or sound produced. Wumen warns “Don’t be victimized by sounds;
don’t follow up on forms”, stating further “If you listen with your ear, it is hard to
understand. If you hear with your eye, you are intimate at last.” (Aitken 1990:107).

The concept of critical inquiry and analysis simply does not exist in the mind of the
honkyoku performer. Indicative of this is the lack of music treatises or analyses of the
music of the honkyoku written by honkyoku performers. 54 To my knowledge, the few
musical analyses of honkyoku that exist in Japanese, are all written by Tukitani, a
non-performing scholar (see Chapter 2).

Sounds, especially words, have power, particularly in an oral rather than literate frame
of mind. “Sound cannot be sounding without the use of power,” Ong points out,
adding, “All sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside living
organisms, is ‘dynamic’” (1982:32). In most Western cultures this idea is epitomized
by the utterance, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” The
“Word” is sound in its supreme power.

Zen also recognizes this special characteristic of sound. In many cases recorded in
Zen literature, it is the sound of a spoken word, or the act of sounding the word as
much as the meaning of the word that precipitates the listener’s enlightenment. In the
famous koan, “Chao-chou’s Dog”, “A monk asked Chao-chou, “Has the dog Buddha
nature or not?” Chao-chou said, “Mu” (Aitken 1990:7). The literal (and hidden)
meaning of Chao-chou’s response, mu, is nothing at all. The meaning of the koan
does not lie in the meaning of the word mu.

54
This thesis is an exception. As author, I must consciously position myself within the
western critical tradition of musicology during the act of writing.

131
In some cases the moment of insight is preceded by just sound, no words at all. Zen
master Xiangyan Zhixian (香厳智閑, J. Kyôgen Chikan, ca. 9th C.) attained
enlightenment upon hearing the sound of a pebble hitting a bamboo while sweeping
the ground. Wumen Huikai (無門慧開, J. Mumon Ekai, 1183-1260) was awakened as
he heard the sound of the drum that announced mealtimes. Hakuin Ekaku (白隠慧鶴,
1686-1769), was enlightened by the sound of the temple bell announcing dawn as he
was meditating through a winter’s night. One monk experienced awakening with the
clattering of a tile breaking on the ground. The sound of honkyoku being played on a
bamboo flute is the sound of enlightenment itself. It is in this context that the
expression ichion jôbutsu is made in the honkyoku tradition.

Oral traditions have a special relationship to time because of their existence as sound.
Oral traditions give time a further perspective in their tendency to merge the past with
the present. They exist only in the present moment. The present moment therefore has
a much greater importance. For example, epic tales are not thought of as strictly
historical in perspective in the Western sense, and do not accurately preserve the past.
Rather, the composer/performer creates a consciousness of the present in his
performance, in part by continually including present relevances and discarding or
modifying past irrelevancies. What has been received from the past is brought into the
present moment. “The living memory preserves what is necessary for present life”
(Havelock 1963:122).

The concept of time and sound as dealt with in the Zen tradition has been mentioned
above. On the subject of time D.T. Suzuki writes:

In this spiritual world there are no time-divisions such as the past, present, and
future; for they have contracted themselves into a single moment of the
present where life quivers in its true sense. The conception of time as an
objective blank in which particular events as its contents succeed one after
another has completely been discarded....the past and the future are both rolled
up in this present moment of illumination, and this present moment is not
something standing still with all its contents, for it ceaselessly moves on. Thus
the past is the present, so is the future, but this present in which the past and
the future are merged never remains the present; in other words, it is eternally
present.

(Suzuki D.T. 1970:76)

In the honkyoku tradition, the act of performing honkyoku unifies the illusionary
divisions of the past, present, and future. At the instance of performing a single sound,
the performer simultaneously hears what precedes the particular sound as well as
what follows it. If the previous sounds and those that follow it are not within one’s
awareness while performing a sound, then that sound will not be performed as
“absolute sound” or with “absolute timing” (see pp.284-287). The past and future
become part of the perception of the present moment.

This does not mean that while performing honkyoku a player is preoccupied with what
has been or will be performed, at the expense of the present performance (a trap that
all shakuhachi players seem to encounter). With the performance of every note, there

132
is only that particular note, nothing else. Within that single note, past, present, and
future merge into the “absolute now” of Dogen (see above).

An interesting difference between oral memory and “textual memory” noted by Ong
(1982:67) is that unlike the latter, the former “has a high somatic component”. By
this, Ong means bodily activity that accompanies vocalization, such as hand
movements, swaying of the body, dancing, etc. A reason given by Ong for this
“natural, even inevitable” behavior leads to yet another connection between Zen
Buddhism, orality, and honkyoku. Ong states:

The oral word, as we have noted, never exists in a simply verbal context, as a
written word does. Spoken words are always modifications of a total,
existential situation, which always engages the body.

(Ong 1982:67)

The engagement of the “total, existential situation” is the goal of Zen Buddhism, and
of shakuhachi honkyoku performance. The inability of words, especially written
words to address the total existential situation is one of the primary reasons Zen
Buddhism has always been wary of literature. The founder of Zen Buddhism in
China, Bodhi-Dharma taught that Zen is:

A special transmission outside the

Scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man;
Seeing into one’s nature and the attainment
of Buddhahood.

(Suzuki D.T. 1956:61)

This quote is quite emphatic in stating that awareness of the total, existential situation
is not found in literature. Literature is by its very nature, linear rather than holistic.
The linear time frame, the sense of traveling through points in a progressing history is
enforced by the writing and reading of most literature.

This contrasts with the total situation, which defies the linear/literate mind set.
Awareness of the interconnectedness of the whole is likened to knowing the Buddhist
Net of Indra (a poetic description of the universe), an infinite net of jewels, each jewel
reflecting every other jewel in the net. Compassion, one of the wellsprings of
Buddhism, is born out of such awareness and actions based upon that awareness.

Playing honkyoku is an exercise in being aware of the total situation, in a way that
neither notation nor a verbal nor a visual description can reproduce. It is a non-literate
way of thinking. Honkyoku can only be experienced. The manner in which the first
breath is taken before playing the initial phrase of a piece determines and is
determined by how the final phrase of the piece is played, so interconnected are all of
the breaths and phrases. Each phrase, note, timing, and minute articulation in
honkyoku is affected by what precedes and follows it, by the physical, emotional and

133
mental state of the performer, the physical state of the shakuhachi instrument, the
surroundings in which the performance is taking place, the audience if any, etc.

Awareness of all of these elements is essential in every honkyoku performance, and

defies the linear/literate mentality mentioned above. Likewise, the state of one’s being
and mind at the moment of taking each breath also determines the nature of that
breath. The realization of honkyoku is determined by all stimuli experienced by the
performer, the listener, and the shakuhachi instrument itself. As will be seen in the
analysis (Chapter 6), one of the ways this concept is manifested in performance is in
the myriad variations in phrase length and number of total phrases that occur between
performers.

Related to this is a statement of my first teacher, Sakai Chikuho II, that each
performance of honkyoku is an event which is eternal and must be performed with the
concentration, awareness and respect befitting that which is eternal. The playing of
honkyoku forever resonates within and profoundly affects the performer and the
listener, as well as those people and things that come in contact with the performer
and listener, ever expanding in its influence upon the universe, to the degree that it
becomes the universe.

5.2.1 Orality and Music

Besides the philosophical aspects of orality and how it relates to Zen Buddhism and
shakuhachi honkyoku, the theoretical statements derived from the study of orality and
music in general can be studied profitably as an avenue toward the understanding of
honkyoku. Not surprisingly, a primary instance of music as an oral tradition is another
music tradition of a primarily religious nature, Gregorian chants. Studies of Gregorian
chant within the context of orality, notably by Treitler (1974, 1975) and Cutter
(1976), are particularly pertinent to the study of honkyoku.

There are a number of similarities between Gregorian chants and honkyoku besides
their probable oral origins. This can be seen in part by examining the role of Gregory.
To an extent, Gregory is mythical insofar as he is more than his “historical”
component. The myths associated with this figure play an important role in the way in
which the music has been viewed through the centuries, in particular, in disguising its
probable origins as an oral tradition.

For example, Gregory is traditionally credited with having invented or created

Gregorian Chant despite modern scholars believing otherwise. As such, he has been
considered, at the very least, a legendary genius and has even been thought of as a
recipient of direct inspiration and aid from God. Gregory especially has been thought
of as having been personally helped by God in his creative endeavors. Similar
observations can be made about Homer, the traditional creator of another oral
tradition, the epic tales of the Iliad and the Odyssey (Treitler 1974:334-344).

There are a number of prominent figures in the honkyoku tradition that act in a similar
fashion to Homer and Gregory. The prime example is Hotto Kokushi. Like Gregory,
Hotto was an historical person, a famous Buddhist priest of the thirteenth century. But

134
the legends of Hotto’s role in creating the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition in Japan,
discussed in Chapter 3 (p.114) are of mythical proportions. Furthermore, as with the
case of Gregorian Chant, the act of creating the earliest and most revered honkyoku,
the three pieces known as “Sankyorei”, also featured divine intervention (see p.234).
More recently, there are numerous legends and larger than life tales surrounding the
“originator” of the Watazumi lineage of honkyoku, the inimitable Watazumi dôso,
who himself claimed to have had no teacher.

More important than the similarities between the semi-legendary “originators” of the
traditions and lineages mentioned above are the traits shared by all orally transmitted
poetry and music. As briefly discussed above, this is due to the nature of human
memory. Use of memory in transmitting music is treated by Treitler, first by
describing a possibly typical view of the process of memory. He asks:

Is performance without scores tantamount to performance from memory? As

our scholarly habits have been conditioned by the study of texts, our recourse
in their absence has been the concept of memory as a medium of storage
comparable to a score: things are committed to memory whole, and there they
lie fixed and lifeless until they are retrieved whole. We say that the singer has
memorized a melody as though we might be saying that he had swallowed a
score.

(Treitler 1975:344)

This “unrealistic view of the process of remembering” is contrasted to the view taken
by modern psychology. Quoting from Frederic C. Bartlett’s classic Remembering: A
Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge, England, 1932; paperback
reprint 1972), Treitler outlines ten features of memory that are pertinent to oral
transmission, including that of shakuhachi honkyoku (Treitler 1975:344-345). As
these features are particularly useful in understanding the transmission process of
honkyoku, they are quoted in full below:

1. The theory of remembering depends on the theory of perception, for the

way we recall experiences depends on how we grasp them in the first place.

2. Perceiving is not passive reception; it is active organizing. We strive to

assimilate newly presented material into the setting of patterns and left from
the encounter with past experience. But that always results in the
reorganization of those patterns. Thus perceiving, and indeed conscious life in
general, is a continual process of adjusting our own records of our past.

3. In perceiving we draw out certain salient features of the matter presented

that are for us especially prominent. These serve as signposts for the process
of assimilating and reorganizing.

4. Those signposts play a central role in remembering. As perceiving is not

simply a matter of the reception of stimuli, so remembering is not simply the
storage of stimuli strung together and their later reproduction. Rather it is an
active process of grouping appropriate details about such salient features. It is
a process of construction, not reproduction.

135
 5. In remembering, therefore, we activate and reorganize the patterns of past
experience. This has two important corollaries: (a) each recall is based, not on
some fixed model outside ourselves, but on our own assimilated version of the
matter recalled—not on the “original” but on our most recent rendering; and
(b) recall must be in conformity with the existing schemata in which our mind
is organized. What does not conform will tend to be corrected or eliminated.

6. The latter tendency, together with the role of persistent detail in

remembering, leads to stereotyped forms. This is especially important in the
conventionalization of the forms of cultural expression.

7. In the recall of narratives, beginnings and ends especially provide those

standout, persistent features that serve as the focal points of the reconstruction.
Consequently it is beginnings and ends that tend to become most stereotyped
in repeated recall.

8. Form, as well as salient detail, is persistent and is therefore an important

factor in what makes remembering possible.

9. A salient detail may be common to two or more themes or streams of

interest, and it may serve as a crossing point between them. In that way the
theme originally presented may be left and another entered.

10. Remembering and imaginative construction are on a single continuum.

They differ from one another in degree, but not in kind.

(Treitler 1974:344-345)

The oral composition theory is so compatible with the theory of memory that the
former may be thought of as a special case of the latter (Treitler 1974:395). The above
features of memory can be used to explain much of the construction of honkyoku, as
will be demonstrated in the analysis of “Reibo” (see Chapter 6). The musical formula
is a salient feature or signpost used by composers/performers in oral music traditions.
In the case of “Reibo”, one musical formula is so important in the honkyoku tradition
as to be given the name, reibo no te (鈴慕の手, ‘Reibo’ fingering). This salient
feature, as well as other features such as cadential formulae and beginnings and
endings of formal divisions, operates in performances of “Reibo” in a manner
consistent with the oral composition.

In orally composed/transmitted music, formulaic material becomes the notes, phrases,

motives, or other salient features of the pieces in question. In order to understand a
type of music of this kind, this formulaic material must be defined and recognized.
Though the identifying, listing and cataloguing of possible formula is necessary, it is
only a first step in analyzing a piece of music. More importantly, the system
regulating the use of the formula must also be identified (Treitler 1974:356). For
example, according to the theories of memory, the formulaic material should be more
prevalent at the beginning of the piece (melody, section, etc.), should occur less
frequently as the piece progresses, and more frequently as the piece nears its
conclusion (Treitler 1975:9).

136
In Gregorian chants, the “formulaic system”, according to Treitler (1974:359), “is a
construct, a way of referring to the singer’s assimilated sense of the pattern of a
melodic phrase as that can be inferred from the study of numerous instances of
phrases like it”.

Treitler argues that features in Gregorian Chant, such as recurring melodic patterns or
formulae, can best be understood in the light of theories of orality. He gives as
examples the musical transcriptions in Figure 6 (p.435) (Treitler 1974:358). The
upper staff represents an abstract realization of what Treitler calls “the formulaic
system”, features shared by every phrase in the particular position. The other staves
show the recurrent formulae, identified with horizontal brackets (1974:357-358). For
example, the formula identified as #1 consists of the notes D, C, and A. The formulaic
system allows a beginning in either direction through the frame, but eventually the
movement is downward.

Another study of orally transmitted music is the analysis by Seeger (1977) of

approximately three hundred variants of the predominately orally transmitted
American ballad “Barbara Allen”. The analysis showed that the lack of a score “not
only encourages but enforces variance of performance” (Seeger 1977;275). It was
found that one of the most useful and generally agreed upon of all criteria used to
classify the variants was phrase endings (Seeger 1977:308), a conclusion predicted by
orality theories. Seeger (1977:278) also observes that “what is sung and the singing of
it are not, musically speaking, two things, but one”, and the abstraction of the song
from its singing, which is what the written score does, leads to distortion.

The identification of formulaic material in shakuhachi honkyoku, using data from

scores of traditional shakuhachi honkyoku notation and transcriptions of honkyoku
performances, and the system by which that material may be organized will be the
topic of Chapter 6 (pp.304-418). The following section examines honkyoku as an oral
tradition in more general terms, and presents issues related to orality that are specific
to the tradition.

5.2.2 Orality and the Transmission of Shakuhachi Honkyoku

The question of orality has never been examined in studies of honkyoku, by either
Japanese or non-Japanese scholars. One might ask how instrumental music can be
“oral”, as nothing is sung or spoken as in Gregorian chant or oral epic tales. The terms
“non-notated” or perhaps “aural” would be more appropriate in the case of
instrumental music that is transmitted primarily without recourse to written notation.
Nettl (1983:187) points out that “aural” emphasizes that people learn what they hear,
not what is spoken to them. This differentiation becomes even more meaningful in the
light of the features of memory listed above. Nonetheless, the term “oral” will be used
in this discussion of honkyoku for two reasons.

First of all, the issue of transmission remains basically the same whether the music is
an “oral” or “aural” one, or even whether the tradition is a verbal or musical one.
Secondly, there are “oral” aspects to honkyoku. For example, in the course of
transmitting honkyoku to a student the teacher does utilize the spoken word during a

137
lesson, however briefly. The verbal discussion of the pieces by the traditional
shakuhachi teacher may not be as elaborate or technical as would occur during the
lessons of typically western instruments. Nonetheless, the teacher does not remain
totally silent, if only to tell the student that his rendition of the piece is still
unacceptable.

It is common knowledge that the shakuhachi koten honkyoku tradition is basically an

oral one, even among most of the lineages that use notation in the transmission of the
pieces. Not only is it recognized that the pieces were originally created, performed,
and transmitted orally, but many believe that the honkyoku must always remain
fundamentally oral in character, even if scores are used as mnemonic devices. In a
meeting or seminar on the Fuke shakuhachi held in Tôkyô in 1938, noted honkyoku
player Uramoto Setchô explained, “In the Fuke sect, notation is really just a memory
aid. It does not have an important function. Much [of the Fuke tradition] does not
have notation at all, being an oral tradition. When notation is used, it is impossible not
to acquire the limits of that notation. One ends up playing the notation, and not
playing the true shakuhachi” (Inagaki, ed. 1985:47).

A quite different example of orality in the transmission process of honkyoku is called

in the Chikuho ryû tradition hyôshi (拍子, literally ‘the beat’). The teacher frequently
sings, or asks the student to sing one or more phrases as an aid to learning them. The
vocalization of shakuhachi honkyoku is somewhat similar to the practice shôga (唱歌)
in other Japanese music traditions. Even though notation is used, it is believed that if a
student can sing a phrase, he is more likely to really know the phrase, and thus be able
to play it on his shakuhachi.

The shakuhachi honkyoku tradition is largely an oral one even though notation of the
pieces have existed at least for one hundred and fifty years. In the description of a
typical shakuhachi lesson presented above could be seen the diminished role of the
written score, as well as the repetitive nature of transmission of the music from
teacher to student. Studies of present-day non-literate traditions and of material
believed to be written versions of what was originally oral material, such as those of
the Homeric and Gregorian traditions, suggest two possible aspects of the honkyoku
tradition worthy of consideration. The first of these two aspects might be the
characteristics of the honkyoku that suggest a basic oral tradition, through the
transcriptions of contemporary performances. Secondly, written notation of honkyoku
could be analyzed for any oral residue suggesting an originally oral tradition.

Although the analyses of both transcriptions of recorded performances and

transnotations of traditional scores are the subject of a number of studies of honkyoku,
and, in fact, constitute a major portion of this thesis, problems nonetheless arise with
the division of the examination into these two aspects. Transcriptions of recorded
performances are at best imperfect records of a finished product, the end result of the
act of performing a piece. The act or process of performing that piece is only
indirectly and incompletely inferred by the recording and even less so by the
transcription. Transcriptions of the notation may show more of the process of
performing than do the recording or the transcription thereof, because of numerous
written and symbolized instructions to the performer in the score.

138
In fact, the shakuhachi student today almost always relies on the notation to a certain
degree when learning honkyoku. The notation, however, is not a complete written
representation of honkyoku performance. The notation, a mnemonic outline of the
actual performance, is not “all the music”. Though analysis of the notation does in
fact indicate “oral residue”, as well as a number of other conclusions about the music
(see pp.241-244), it can only go so far in describing the process of performing
honkyoku.

It has been shown elsewhere (Lee 1991:18-35) that notations of shakuhachi honkyoku
may differ from their realizations in ways which can be divided into at least four
categories: notation symbols that are given new meanings; symbols that are ignored;
instances where pitch, duration or playing techniques are not notated; and inconsistent
interpretation of symbols. The transnotation of traditional scores of
shakuhachi honkyoku into staff notation cannot indicate these discrepancies between
notation and performance.

The usual method of study of a living music tradition, that is, the analysis of
transcriptions of recordings of actual performances, also presents problems. The
sound product of honkyoku performance, that which can be captured on recordings, is
not considered a complete representation of what honkyoku is to the performer. There
is more to honkyoku than the music. For example, it is extremely common in the
honkyoku for alternative fingerings to be specified, either by the notation or by oral
instructions from the teacher. These alternative fingerings frequently produce subtle
changes in timbre, but often do not make noticeable changes in the sound product at
all. In other words, the listener is not aware of these alternative fingerings, only the
performer knows of them. The act or process of performing honkyoku is more
important than the audible product. The transmission of these non-sounded processes
may or may not be notated in the score. In any case, it may be that the formulaic
system underlying the composition and performance of honkyoku may contain these
non-sounded processes.

Because of the above considerations, the validity of any study of koten shakuhachi
honkyoku in terms of theories of orality may be related to the degree that the author of
the study has experienced the process of performing honkyoku. In other words, the
more the researcher has played honkyoku the better chance of his having a knowledge
of the features of honkyoku that are oral in nature, particularly those features that are
part of the process of performing, but which do not affect the sound product. The
relationship between the musicologist’s experience in performing honkyoku and his
success in transcribing and analyzing honkyoku performances will be demonstated in
the analysis of “Reibo” (Chapter 6). This is particularly evident in the lining up of
transcriptions of a number of performances of a honkyoku in order to facilitate
comparison, and when dealing with the minute details of performance (see pp.358-
370 and 389-393).

An analysis of honkyoku as an oral tradition must also address what may be termed as
status-determined levels of orality. The frequency and/or acceptability of change in
honkyoku increases proportionately to the ability and/or status of the performer. For
example, acceptable deviation from a honkyoku score differs if the performer is an
iemoto, a high ranking teacher, an advanced student, or a beginner. Change is severely
limited at the level of the beginner. More fundamental changes occur at the advanced

139
level. The performer’s reputation/status also determines the degree to which a change
is considered a mistake or “creative licence”. An early task of any analysis must be to
determine if such changes fit in the scheme of oral performance.

The possibility of status-determined levels of orality working in the transmission of

honkyoku have bearings on past studies and analyses of honkyoku. If previous
analyses of honkyoku fail to adequately describe how honkyoku work, could one
reason be due to a disregard by the authors of those analyses of the above levels of
orality? Were the persons analyzing the pieces working only with data derived at the
beginner’s level, therefore, making the changes less apparent? This would likely be
the case if the researcher was using data derived from his lessons with his teacher,
regardless of the teacher’s rank. Some of the researchers (eg., Gutzwiller) later
became advanced students, but were, at best, advanced beginners when they did their
research (eg., Keeling, Weisgarber, Berger). There are also studies that have been
authored by people who are not shakuhachi honkyoku performers (eg., Tukitani,
Malm).

The difficulty for relatively non-advanced students of shakuhachi who attempt to

author studies of the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition is compounded by some of the
non-musical, philosophical aspects of the honkyoku performing tradition.
Furthermore, these philosophical considerations in some respects reinforce the orality
of the tradition. For example, the commonly held ideal of honkyoku as honnin no
kyoku (本人の曲, ‘the person in question’s piece’) (see pp.255, 267) is that each
honkyoku must become totally, in every way perceived and unperceived, the piece of
each individual performer. Until the piece is truly “one’s very own”, it is impossible
for one really to be able to play the piece. 55

The process of any honkyoku becoming the performer’s piece may (or may not)
include changes in the piece. These changes may range from nearly imperceptible
subtleties, such as the timing of breaths between certain phrases, to gross changes,
such as the inclusion or omission of entire phrases (Lee 1986:147). Furthermore, the
idea of honnin no kyoku contains the probability of change with each performance,
even after the piece is “one’s own”. Every performance of honkyoku is the
manifestation of the entire situation or condition of the performer including the
universe of which he is totally a part.

It could also be asked where the “performer” ends and the “universe” of which he is a
part begins. For example, the simple answer, “At his skin”, does not suffice, if only
because both the air being breathed in and out to play the honkyoku, and the sound
entering his ears while performing transcend that barrier, which if perceived at the
atomic level is no barrier at all.

Because a single condition of any given performance cannot be the same any more
than any point in time can repeat itself, each performance must be unique. In this
context, Nakatsuka (1979:376) writes: “Therefore, the piece ‘Renbo’ is not

55
For more on honnin no kyoku, see pp.255,267. Also see Toya (1984:101) and Uramoto (in
Inagaki, ed. 1985:198).

140
necessarily the piece ‘Renbo’; ‘Kokû’ and ‘Kyorei’ are not necessarily ‘Kokû’ and
‘Kyorei’....Today’s piece is not tomorrow’s piece”. In the context of the philosophy
expressed by honnin no kyoku, all performances of honkyoku are authentic if they are
performed as “one’s own”, regardless of the abundance or lack of change that occurs
between individual performances. The concept of honnin no kyoku is one possible
explanation for the tremendous amount of variation occuring in honkyoku. This will
be dealt with in the analysis (Chapter 6).

The concept of honnin no kyoku and the uniqueness of each performance are
manifestations of an oral tradition. The oral poet and musician create anew with each
performance. The performance is unique to all other performances, even in cases
where this is not recognized by the performer (Lord 1964:101). Each performance is
infused with the individuality of the oral performer and the uniqueness of the moment
of performance, regardless of the strength and depth of the characteristics which the
poetry or music has developed over centuries of performance. Likewise, in all oral
traditions, today’s performance can never be the same as tomorrow’s performance.

5.2.3 Dreams

An important element of many, if not most oral traditions is the function and status
dreams are given by the members of the traditions. This was touched upon in
reference to the legendary descriptions of the transmission of both the Gregorian
chants and honkyoku through the human intermediaries, Gregory and Hotto Kakushin
(p.114). The notion of dreams is important to the honkyoku tradition not only in the
context of its orality, but also in the light of its spiritual background as well.

In Taoist and Zen Buddhist teachings, a valid part of the total existential experience,
discussed above, is dreams. Far from being illusionary compared with waking
experiences, dreams are considered as “real” as any reality. Taoist Zhuangzi (莊子,
ca.4thC BC.) wrote the now famous story of a man he called Zhuang Zhou (莊周),
who was Zhuangzi himself. The story is about Zhuang Zhou dreaming that he is a
butterfly, happily fluttering about, unaware that he is Zhuang Zhou. He then woke up,
Zhuang Zhou again. But he did not know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt of
being a butterfly or in fact a butterfly who was now dreaming that he was Zhuang
Zhou. Zhuangzi also wrote:

Someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great
dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming
they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman—how
dense! 56 Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are
dreaming, I am dreaming too! Words like these will be labeled the Supreme
Swindle.

56
According to Aitken, this is part of an attack on Confucius, who separated people by
classes.

141
 (Aitken 1978:127)

It is not surprising to find that dreams are an important feature in

the honkyoku tradition, particularly in the creation of honkyoku.
The shakuhachi honkyoku tradition shares with a number of other oral traditions the
manner in which at least some pieces are believed to have been created. Pieces are not
composed, but given or taught to a person by spirits or gods, frequently in a dream.
The person receiving the piece is not the composer, but rather the transmitter or
conduit of the piece to the rest of the people. This characteristic is a major difference
between many oral music traditions and literate music traditions. In most literate
societies, especially in the West, the notion is that music is usually composed by a
“composer”, who single-handedly creates the music. The composer may utilize some
sort of inspiration in the process of composing, e.g., from God or Nature, but
nonetheless still expects and is given full credit for composing or creating the piece.

In a number of oral music traditions, many songs or pieces are not thought of as being
composed in this manner. For example, in the Northern Australian Aboriginal song
tradition, instead of a piece being created through the efforts of a “composer”, the
piece is “found” by the “song-man” (Moyle, in Marett 1988:1). This implies that the
piece already exists before the singer finds it. The finding of a piece frequently occurs
in a dream, and often the song-man is given the piece by a supernatural being or the
spirit of a deceased or mythical composer. In Melanesia, songs are also believed to
originate in dreams (Marett 1988:1). The West has a similar tradition in Gregorian
Chant, which Treitler (1974, 1975, 1986) has shown to have originally been an oral
tradition. A number of illustrations in the ninth and tenth centuries depict the legend
of Gregory being given the plainchant directly by God, who dictates the music to him
in the form of a dove perched on his shoulder (Treitler 1974:335-336,339). Another
example is the Shona mbira player of Zimbabwe, who learns new pieces through
dreams with the assistance of spirits. The “new” pieces are thought to be actually
ancient pieces belonging to the ancestral spirits who are teaching him (Berliner
1981:86).

In all of these examples, the “composer” is thought of as the medium or conduit

through which the revelation of the piece is made available to all people. He/she may
be honoured as such, but not as the actual creator of the piece. The music does not
belong to the composer, because it existed before it was manifested. The composer is
not the creator because the music is not created. The mbira pieces existed in the spirit
world even before the mbira instrument appeared amongst the Shona people, one
player explaining that “the mbira pieces first belonged to the spirits, who later taught
them to the people” (Berliner 1981:87). An Aboriginal singer, in his story of how he
received a new song, explained, “Well, Balanjirri 57 and that dijeridu player 58 showed
me that song.... It was Balanjirri who made me know” (Marett 1988:5). A similar
implication is made by the legend of Gregory, in this case, the Christian God in the
form of a dove making known the plainchant to Gregory.

The shakuhachi honkyoku tradition is also an example of a music tradition in which

the origin of at least some pieces is traced to a time when they were given to a chosen

57
Balanjirri is the spirit of a long-dead song-man (Marett 1988:7).
58
The dijeridu player accompanied Balanjirri, his brother (Marett 1987:2).

142
member of the tradition during a dream. The Kyotaku denki, the most important
legend within the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition (see pp.37-39), describes how two of
the three most revered koten honkyoku pieces, “Mukaiji” and “Kokû” or “Kokûji”59
were “received” in a dream. Kakushin (or Gakushin, 學心, posthumously known as
Hotto Kokushi, d.1298) is the priest credited in the Kyotaku legend with bringing the
suizen tradition to Japan from China in the 12th century (see p.114). Kakushin had
four main students in Japan, who were collectively known as the “Four Devout Men”
(四居士, shikoji). One of Kakushin’s four students was named Kichiku (寄竹). 60

Later, having a desire to practice itinerancy, Kichiku asked the master for
permission to take his leave. He wished to play this flute in the streets and at
every gate, and to let all the world know this exquisite music. Gakushin said,
“Well! What a fine ambition!” Kichiku departed Kishû (紀州) 61 immediately
and before long arrived at the shrine of Kokûzô-dô (虚空蔵堂), at the top of
Asamagatake (朝熊嶽, Mt. Asama) 62 in the province of Sei-shû (勢州,
present-day Mie prefecture). [Having confined himself in the shrine], Kichiku
concentrated strenuously on his devotions, praying deep into the night.63
When he was about to fall asleep, he had a vivid inspired dream: Kichiku was
poling a punt, alone on the sea, admiring the full moon. Suddenly a dense fog
covered everything and the moonlight, too, grew dim and dark. Through the
fog, he heard the sound of a flute, desolate and sonorous. The beauty of the
sound was beyond description. Shortly the sound ceased. The fog got thicker
and thicker and became a dense mass, from which the wonderful sound of the
flute emerged [again]. Kichiku had never heard such an exquisite sound.

In his dream he was deeply inspired and wished to imitate the sound with his
kyotaku [shakuhachi]. Then suddenly he awakened from the dream, and found
no trace of the mass of fog or the punt and pole; but the sound of the flute still
lingered in his ears.

Kichiku thought it very wondrous. Tuning his kyotaku he tried to imitate with
it the two strains of music in the dream. Eventually he succeeded in
reproducing the sound on his flute.
59
The third piece is known today as “Kyorei”, but was originally known as “Kyotaku”
(Yamamoto 1795). It is said to have been composed in the ninth century by Zhâng Bô (張伯,
J. Chôhaku), the legendary follower of Fuke Zenji and first practitioner of suizen or ‘Blowing
Zen’.
60
Yamamoto, the commentator of the Kyotaku denki noted that “Kichiku is the same person
who is later called Master Kyochiku (虚竹). He was said to be a man of high virtue” (Tsuge
1977:54). Kyochiku is credited with founding the temple, Myôanji in Kyôto.
61
Present-day Wakayama prefecture, where Gakushin had earlier founded his temple, Saihôji
(西方寺).
62
Sanford (1977:430) incorrectly reads this important mountain in shakuhachi legends as
Asakuma.
63
The original Japanese is gokô (五更), the hour between 2 and 3 A.M. (Tsuge 1977:54).

143
 He immediately returned to Kishû and told Gakushin, his master, about the
dream and the music he learned from it. Then Kichiku asked the master to
name the two pieces. The master said, “That must be a gift from the Buddha!
What you heard first shall be called “Mukaiji“ [‘Flute in the Misty Sea’], and
what you heard next shall be named “Kokûji“ [‘Flute in the Empty Sky’]’.

Thenceforth, as he went to and fro on the road, Kichiku played “Kyotaku“

(the piece) which he learned first; and when he was requested to perform
something novel, he played the two newly acquired pieces.

trans. Tsuge1977:51

As mentioned above, the notion of receiving a piece or song in a dream is common

throughout oral music traditions. It is interesting to note that in the above description,
Kichiku has his vision or dream not while in deep sleep, but just as he is about to go
to sleep. The Chinese character used in the original text is 夢, read in Japanese as
yume and generally translated into English as dream or vision. In the original text, the
above character is combined with the character 靈 (rei, ‘soul, spirit’), to form the
word reimu (靈夢), which is translated as ‘divine revelation’ or ‘prophetic vision’
(Nelson 1974:947). Kichiku was therefore neither awake nor asleep when he was
given the two pieces in an “inspired dream” or a “divine revelation”. 64

In the context of Taoism and Zen Buddhism, there is fundamentally no distinction

between the “dichotomies” of the waking and dreaming state. Amongst cultures or
traditions more oral than literate in character, transmission of important elements of
the tradition frequently occur during the dream state. In the shakuhachi honkyoku
tradition, the pieces “Kokû” and “Mukaiji” were gifts received in dreams. They were
not composed or created. The shakuhachi player who performs them is dreaming
them as well.

Much of what Zen Buddhism in general and the honkyoku tradition in particular
attempts to transmit can be understood in the context of western theoretical thought
on transmission, and especially on orality. Both Zen Buddhism and the shakuhachi
honkyoku tradition incorporate, however, literature or notation in their transmission.
Having discussed the issue of orality and the honkyoku, I can now turn to the subject
of notation and transmission. The following section examines the relationship
between documents and performance in the honkyoku tradition, and as viewed from a
Japanese position and from a western theoretical one.

5.3 Documents and Performance

Associated with the issues of orality and the shakuhachi honkyoku presented above is
the relationship between documents and performance. Though shakuhachi honkyoku

64
See Marett (1987) for an illuminating discussion of the Zen treatment of dream state/wake
state and of illusion/reality, in the context of an Aboriginal singer who was given a song both
while asleep and awake.

144
remain predominately an oral tradition, notation has been in use for just over 150
years (Lee 1991:19) and is now very much a part of the tradition. Examination of the
relationship and interaction between notations and performances can help illuminate
the question of what is being transmitted in the honkyoku tradition.

In the shakuhachi koten honkyoku tradition, not only is it recognized that the pieces
were originally created, performed, and transmitted orally, but many believe that
honkyoku must always remain fundamentally oral in character. Even when scores are
used, they function primarily as mnemonic devices. In a seminar on the Fuke
shakuhachi held in Tôkyô in 1938, noted honkyoku player Uramoto Setchô65
explained, “In the Fuke sect, notation is really just a memory aid. It does not have an
important function. Much [of the Fuke tradition] does not have notation at all, being
an oral tradition. When notation is used, it is impossible not to adopt the limitations of
that notation. One ends up playing the notation, and not playing true
shakuhachi” (Uramoto, quoted in Inagaki 1985:47).

Brief mention has already been made of what seems at first glance to be the rejection
of both verbal language and written scriptures in the Zen Buddhist tradition, including
the famous quote by Bodhi-Dharma stating that the Zen tradition is “a special
transmission outside the scriptures” (Suzuki D.T. 1956:61). Other references, which
similarly assert that words are the “Supreme Swindle” (see quote by Zhuangzi above,
p.231), abound in Taoist and Zen literature. Hisamatsu, the noted shakuhachi player
of the mid 19th century, wrote, “Profound sayings are nothing but many words and
false sounds” (Kurihara 1918:219).

Yet even Hisamatsu used words (and notations). Dôgen, Zen master of 12th century
Japan, even conceived of linguistic activity as the ultimate spiritual freedom
demanded by the Buddha-dharma (Kim 1985:56). Aitken (1978:127) helps us
understand Dôgen’s position by pointing out that we must use words. The question is
how. Aitken’s answer is:

By playing with them, as [Bashô and Chuang-tsu] both did, and as

did...countless other Zen teachers.

(Aitken 1978:127).

Hisamatsu gives another perspective to the use of notation in the honkyoku tradition in
his Hitori Mondô (an essay written in a question and answer format): “Question: Is
one who can play every piece without differing from the notation a skilful player?
Answer: Not at all. Someone who plays pieces without deviating may have a good
memory, but that is not enough for a skillful player” (Kurihara 1918:213). Notation is
thus not rejected in itself. Problems occur only when it is thought to be in itself the
essence of the matter.

65
Uramoto is one of the six honkyoku players, whose recorded performance is transcribed
and analyzed in Chapter 6.

145
In the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition, notation is widely used as a memory aid both
while learning a piece and while trying to remember a piece one has already studied.
Mnemonic devices have no inherent authority. They are symbols or signals that jog
one’s memory of what is already internalized. If the performer does not know the
honkyoku, if honkyoku is not already “inside” the performer, then the symbols of the
notation are of little help. On the other hand, if the performer is truly intimate with the
honkyoku, he can use the notation by “playing” with it as the haiku poet Bashô and
others do with words. For such a performer, the symbols of the notation become
“bearers of ultimate truth”, just as words were to Dôgen (Kim 1985:58).

I have described in detail elsewhere (1991:18-35) how transcriptions (into staff

notation) of performances of honkyoku contrast with transnotations (also into staff
notation) of the traditional notation of the piece performed. Briefly, discrepancies
between honkyoku notation and performance occur frequently and may be classified
into four categories:

1. Instances where symbols are consistently given new meanings, which are,
however, different from their standard meanings. The consistency of these
new meanings may apply in a single piece only, or throughout the honkyoku
repertoire of a particular lineage.

2. Instances where symbols are totally ignored.

3. Instances where a pitch, duration or playing technique is performed, but is

not notated in the score.

4. Instances where meanings for symbols are inconsistent. For example, a

symbol may have the standard meaning in one phrase, but be given one or
more different meanings in other phrases.

(Lee 1991:27, 32)

In the light of the above, it is easy to understand that even if one knows the standard
meanings of all of the symbols used in a honkyoku notation, one usually will not be
able to perform honkyoku properly. A realization of a score of a honkyoku using only
the standard indications of the symbols might be so far removed from the actual
honkyoku as to be considered a different piece. The closer the adherence to the literal
meaning of the symbols, the farther away honkyoku becomes. If one performs
honkyoku with limited knowledge of the piece as well as the symbols of the notation,
as would be the case of a beginner just starting to play with his teacher, then the
realization of the notation would only be marginally nearer to honkyoku.

One who has studied a piece so as not to need notation at all may be able to play
honkyoku, but the performance of one who has internalized all of the formulaic
embellishments and playing techniques idiomatic of the lineage to which the piece
belongs, has frequently performed other pieces related to it, and has also performed
the piece (without notation) countless times over many years is the closest of all to the
honkyoku. The more intimate one is with the honkyoku, the less reliant one is upon
notation. One could even argue that the best notation for honkyoku is the least

146
notation. Only when there is no reliance upon the notation, does it no longer limit the
performer and honkyoku.

In my opinion, a major reason notation, especially published, copyrighted notation,

for shakuhachi honkyoku exists at all is because of its bureaucratic function of
asserting and maintaining authority rather than any function it might have in the
transmitting and performing of honkyoku. The same can be said of shakuhachi
organizations in general, as pointed out in the discussion of the history of shakuhachi
(see chapter three, p.159).

When a shakuhachi player breaks away from his teacher’s sect or school and forms a
new organization, one of the ways he can assert his new authority is to publish scores
in his own notation. An interesting twist to this procedure of gaining authority by
creating and publishing scores of new notation, and an example of the role of
authority notation plays, can be seen in the case of Chikuho ryû. During his tenure as
iemoto or head of Chikuho ryû, Sakai Chikuho II transcribed the honkyoku notation of
his teacher, Jin, into the notation of his own sect. After Chikuho II retired due to
illness in 1985, the new iemoto, Chikuho II’s younger brother, Shôdô, refused to use
many of the scores transcribed by Chikuho II. Instead, Shôdô reverted back to using
Jin’s original scores even though they are not in Chikuho notation. Shôdô asserted
that Chikuho’s scores were not faithful to the way Jin played the pieces, partly
because Chikuho put too many of his own idiosyncrasies into them. 66

The relationship between the realization of a piece in performance and its notation is
more complex than the one we have just been describing, whereby notation is used
only to help the performer to remember a piece that already has been learned orally. It
is likely that there has also been a dynamic interaction between the orally transmitted
honkyoku and the written score.

An example of this type of dynamic interaction between literacy and orality has been
presented by Butler 67 in his examination of early texts of the Heike monogatari
(平家物語, ‘The Tale of the Heike’). The Heike monogatari is a medieval epic tale
describing the rapid rise during the latter 12th century of the Taira (平) clan, also
known in Sino Japanese as the Heike, and the clan’s equally rapid and remarkable
demise at the hands of the Minamoto (源) clan (the Genji 源氏 in Sino Japanese)
during what became known as the Gempei (源平) wars. There are sufficient parallels
between the written and the oral in the Heike monogatari tradition and in the
honkyoku tradition to warrant consideration.

According to Butler, the Heike monogatari may have originated in part from
performances, two to three hours in length, by biwa-playing bards (biwa hôshi

66
See Lee (1986:83-87) for further background on the manner in which Shôdô
became iemoto of the sect.
67
For the material on the Heike monogatari presented below, I am relying upon the work of
Kenneth D. Butler (1966a:5-51, 1966b37-54, 1969:93-108), in particular his research on
the Rokudai gozen monogatari (六代御前物語) text, the Yukinaga (行長) text, and the
Kakuichi (覺一) text.

147
琵琶法師) 68 describing various battles and episodes of the rise and fall of the Heike
clan in the early 13th century. The extant transcriptions of one relatively short oral
tale, the Rokudai gozen monogatari, tells of young Rokudai Gozen, the last surviving
member of the Heike clan. This historical transcription is used by Butler as a starting
point from which to trace the development of the Heike monogatari in terms of
orality.

Butler’s hypothesizes that the first written version of the Heike monogatari is the
Shibu kassenjô daisamban tôjô Heike monogatari (四部合戦状第三番闘諍
平家物語) manuscript, completed in the years 1218 to 1221, thirty-five years after the
end of the Gempei wars, by a middle-ranking member of Kyôto’s aristocracy, a lay
priest named Yukinaga. In addition to historical literacy data to which his social and
hereditary positions gave him access, Yukinaga used miscellaneous oral tales in
circulation at the time to create one continuous story.

Butler (1966b:45) states that the oral origins of much of Yukinaga’s work can be best
seen in his book twelve which deals with the same subject matter as the Rokudai
transcription. Yukinaga’s Book Twelve exhibits many characteristics, such as oral
language formulae and themes, which are found in transcription of an oral tale. In
fact, according to Butler, approximately fifty percent of Yukinaga’s work can be
shown to be based on material from similar Buddhist oral tales and oral battle tales
which had been in circulation during the several decades between the actual events
and Yukinaga’s time.

The Shibu kassenjô text is not, however, an oral composition, despite Yukinaga’s
dependence upon oral tales of his time. Up to fifty percent of Yukinaga’s work
incorporates source material from written historical records of the period.
Furthermore, his composition is written almost exclusively in kanbun (漢文), a
Chinese form of writing which is totally inappropriate for oral presentation due to a
word order largely the reverse of colloquial Japanese (Butler 1966b:46). Even the
sections clearly based on transcriptions of oral tales, such as the Rokudai gozen
monogatari, are written in an unmistakably literary style. Yukinaga’s Shibu kassenjô,
although based on oral tales is a product of a literate mind.

While Yukinaga’s usage of oral tales in creating a literary work is not unique in the
history of world literature, evolution of the Heike monogatari from that point on is
unparalleled. According to Butler, Yukinaga’s literary work, itself part oral and part
literary, was subsequently reintroduced into oral tradition. The oral poets after
Yukinaga began using Yukinaga’s writings as an aid in creating versions of the tale
which were longer or more complete than what they had previously performed. Texts
of the Heike monogatari dating from the middle of the 13th century until the latter
14th century indicate that over a number of generations these poets reintroduced
many of the original oral tale’s oral characteristics which had been eliminated by
Yukinaga, and added other characteristics as well. The final result was the “perfected”
or standard version of the Heike monogatari, the transcription finished in 1371 of a
performance or performances by the oral poet Kakuichi. The Kakuichi text exhibits
all the characteristics of an orally composed and performed work. With this dictation
of Kakuichi’s oral performance, the Heike monogatari became yet again a literary
68
See p.48.

148
work. After Kakuichi’s death, the written text of his oral performance became the
guide for most of the oral poets to follow him. Numerous versions of the Heike
monogatari were written after Kakuichi’s time, but almost all were minor revisions of
the standard Kakuichi text.

Many of Butler’s conclusions about the back and forth movement of the Heike
monogatari from oral to written are based largely upon a comparison of a text known
to be a transcription of an oral composition, the Rokudai gozen monogatari, with
other texts. Unfortunately such an historical transcription of a shakuhachi honkyoku
performance of, for example, the previous century or earlier, in contrast to a historical
score, does not exist. Though it remains to be seen what, if any, conclusions can be
drawn from an exhaustive study of historical shakuhachi honkyoku notations which
do exist, there are indications that a mutually transforming relationship between
honkyoku performance and its notation does exist today and probably existed in the
past.

There are other areas of comparison between the Heike monogatari and shakuhachi
honkyoku. For example, the role of Kakuichi and his “standardized” transcription of
the Heike monogatari is paralleled in many respects by the founder of Kinko ryû,
Kurosawa Kinko (1710-1770) and his standardized repertoire of over thirty honkyoku.
This and other avenues of research, particularly relating to orality, notation, and
transmission, which are suggested by the Heike monogatari model await the attention
of future honkyoku scholars.

Besides its possible interactive relationship with what remains largely an oral
performance, the role that notation plays in the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition differs
from that of most western staff notation in one very fundamental way. Honkyoku
notation instructs or reminds the performer what to do rather than what sounds to
produce. It is action or process rather than product oriented. The symbols of honkyoku
notation denote fingering positions, articulation methods, and other performance
techniques. In this respect, it is similar to various tablature systems in other musical
traditions in depicting the act of performing. In contrast, staff notation is product
oriented, functioning primarily to prescribe (or describe) the final product, the sound.

Differences between honkyoku notation and staff notation can be divided into three
areas. In honkyoku notation, pitch is not notated at all, other than indirectly through
the tablature symbols denoting fingerings and other pitch-changing techniques.
Secondly, though durations are notated in general, they are at most used only as a
broad and imprecise guide and are frequently ignored altogether, in contrast to the
rigid precision of staff notation in representing durations (Lee 1991:32-33). Finally,
the timbre or tone colour of each note, a vital element of honkyoku performance, is
directly or indirectly indicated by traditional shakuhachi notation. In contrast, timbre
is all but ignored in the majority of music scores written in staff notation.

These differences between honkyoku notation and staff notation illuminate an aspect
of honkyoku that approaches its very essence. The most important part of a honkyoku
performance is the act of playing the honkyoku. The significance of the doing or
process and relative unimportance of the resultant sound or product in performing
honkyoku is best illustrated by the often told story involving the well-known
shakuhachi master Watazumi and popular radio personality Ei Rokusuke (永六輔). In

149
the 1970s, Ei Rokusuke, accompanied by his production crew, went to interview the
eccentric Watazumi in Tôkyô. The interview took place in an old house of traditional
Japanese architecture.

After the suitable exchange of greeting, gifts, and small talk, Watazumi began to
perform honkyoku for his audience. Before completing the first phrase, however,
Watazumi suddenly stopped, exclaiming that there was not enough air for him to play.
“Open up the room!”, he ordered. Being a traditionally constructed Japanese house,
the entire wall of the room facing the small garden outside could be removed, which it
immediately was. “Ah, that’s better!”, said the now contented Watazumi, who then
proceeded to perform a piece which lasted over fifteen minutes.

The problem, Ei Rokusuke later recounted, was that there was heavy road
construction just down the road from the house, and that now with the entire wall
facing the road taken away, Watazumi’s playing was barely audible. As this did not
seem to bother Watazumi in the slightest, there was nothing to do but sit quietly and
wait until the “performance” was over. At this point, Ei Rokusuke and his crew
thought that Watazumi was indeed the crazy eccentric that he was reputed to be.

What interested Ei Rokusuke most about the performance, however, was his
perception that by the end of the inaudible performance his state of being and the
atmosphere of the entire room had changed. According to Ei Rokusuke, there was a
calmness, a good feeling that was difficult to describe. Ei Rokusuke and his crew left
Watazumi satisfied with the interview even though they were not able to record any
shakuhachi music that was suitable for radio use.

The point of the story is that Watazumi himself did not value the product of his
performance, the audible sound, as much as he did the process of the performance. In
this case, part of that process involved opening the room in order to get enough air, at
the expense of the audience not being able to hear the piece.

The emphasis on process rather than product in honkyoku performance operates on

the smaller level of the phrase or the individual technique as well. On occasions, one
performing technique is chosen over another even though the choice does not affect
the final product. Examples of this can be found in the notation itself. In one phrase of
the Chikuho ryû piece, “Yamato Choshi” (大和調子), the performer must execute a
dai furi (大, ‘big’; ‘shake, wave’; a ‘head-bending’ technique), that is, as big as
possible. Because of the nature of the technique, the sound produced may or may not
be changed by executing the furi technique larger than normal. That is not a problem,
however, since the idea is for the performer to execute and therefore feel “big” furi. It
does not matter if he can hear the product of his action. This example is one of many
cases in which a performance technique not connected to any particular resultant
sound is notated (Figure 7). There are other similar examples of processes of
performance which do not produce noticeable changes in the musical sound and
which are transmitted orally from one generation to the next rather than being notated.

The idea of “doing” or playing honkyoku being given more importance than the
resultant sound produced is compatible with the concept of “emptiness” in honkyoku
playing discussed above (p.203). On this level, there is no right or wrong way to
perform honkyoku, at least as determined by the resultant audible sounds.

150
As with the fundamental difference, that of process versus product, the three
associated dissimilarities between honkyoku and staff notation concerning pitch,
durations (rhythm), and timbre also shed light upon the question of what is being
transmitted in the honkyoku tradition.

Mention here must be made of the widespread use of sound recordings and, more
recently, video recordings by members of the shakuhachi tradition. These recordings
must be considered elements of transmission as much as written documents such as
scores. Almost all honkyoku players listen to the ever-increasing number of
recordings of honkyoku performed by a growing number of performers. Furthermore,
lessons are frequently recorded, with the teacher’s permission. 69 In the past, concerts
of traditional music in Japan were noted for the pervasive distractions of cassette tape
recorders being loaded or turned on and off.

Recordings contribute to the dissemination of various styles of honkyoku performance

in the same way that public concerts and recitals do, but to a greater extent. More
people have more opportunities to listen to more shakuhachi performers because of
recordings. One of the effects recordings have on the transmission of honkyoku is the
acceleration of cross-over of performance techniques and style between players of
different lineages and teachers. Though actually taking lessons from a teacher who is
not a member of the lineage of one’s original teacher is highly frowned upon in much
of the shakuhachi world, there is no prohibition of listening to recordings. Examples
of variation between performances which suggest that cross-over may be partially
attributed to recordings will be shown in the analysis of “Reibo” (Chapter 6).

Recordings of honkyoku are believed to be helpful in learning new pieces. They can
facilitate in the committing of a piece to heart, but they cannot transmit all that is
honkyoku. Recordings present only an analogue of a single manifestation among
infinite possible manifestations of any one honkyoku. In terms of the “essence” of
honkyoku, recordings neither help nor harm its transmission. In this sense, as
analogues they, like notation, are misleading only if they are mistaken for the real
thing. The subject of recordings and honkyoku is examined further below, in the
discussion on transcriptions and their use in the analysis of honkyoku (pp.313-314).

5.4 Three Formal Elements of Transmission in the

Honkyoku Tradition: Lineage, Lessons, and Notation

The previous sections dealt with concepts and philosophies relating to the subject of
transmission in general and transmission of shakuhachi honkyoku specifically. The
nature of orality was also touched upon in connection with honkyoku. Finally, the
related subject of documents and their function and status in the honkyoku tradition
was addressed. This section continues the discussion of transmission of honkyoku by
outlining briefly formal elements of transmission that can be observed in the
shakuhachi honkyoku tradition. A number of aspects of three elements, lineage-

69
For a brief period of time in the late 1970s, one teacher, Sakai Chikuho II, allowed his
lessons to be recorded, but charged the student extra for the privilege.

151
centred organizations, lessons, and notations are addressed below. A fourth element,
performance, will be discussed in the following section.

The first formal element of transmission is lineage-centred organizations, as distinct

from lineages. In this study, the word lineage is used to denote the individual line of
transmission from an individual teacher to an individual student then to his own
student, and so forth. Lineages can be traced whenever it is known who taught whom,
and occur both within and without large organizational structures. Nonetheless, much
of the shakuhachi tradition has existed within large formal organizations. The earliest
known formal shakuhachi organization is the Fuke sect of the Edo period (see
Chapter 3, pp.110-139).

As discussed in Chapter 1 (pp.20-21), the Japanese have a propensity to create and

belong to groups, their entire lives frequently revolving within a number of well-
defined groups such as family, school, company, the Japanese people, and hobby. As
is to be expected, this group mentality is evident in the shakuhachi tradition. Alhough
the tendency to create and join organizations can also be seen in the more specialized
tradition of the honkyoku, far more individualism is evident there than in the
shakuhachi tradition 70 and Japanese society as a whole.

In the past century, since the proscription of the Fuke sect in the late 1800s, members
of the shakuhachi tradition have continued to form groups within which the
transmission of the tradition largely occurred (see Chapter 3, pp.154-164). Some have
flourished and dissipated, while others remain active. These groups are known by
such words as ryû (流, ‘stream’), ha (派, ‘group’), and kai (会, ‘society’). Their
primary functions have been and continue to be bureaucratic and social, providing a
power base from which a few members of the tradition are able to exert influence on
what is transmitted, and how, over a larger number of members. This is not to say that
transmission does not take place within the context of organizations, but that such
transmission is not their main function.

As discussed above (pp.149-150), transmission of honkyoku has always occurred

outside the context of organizations, even during the monopolistic period of the Fuke
sect. In general, transmission that occurs within organizations is more conservative
and less subject to variability and change than that which occurs outside
organizations. This can be seen in the Kinko honkyoku tradition, which has been
transmitted largely within various organizations under the Kinko ryû umbrella
(Tukitani 1990a:6). Pieces within this tradition are conspicuously resistant to change
and variation when compared with honkyoku transmitted outside such organizations.
This can be seen both in numbers, titles, and performance. The thirty-six honkyoku in
the Kinko repertoire comprises only a fraction of the nearly two hundred honkyoku

70
It must be remembered that the majority of shakuhachi players in Japan today, belong to
either the largest shakuhachi organization, Tozan ryû, or one of its breakaway organizations.
None of these organizations has classical honkyoku in its repertoire. Furthermore, even among
those players who can perform honkyoku, the majority of them, especially almost all of the
members of the various branches of the Kinko ryû, play secular pieces such as traditional
ensemble pieces or modern works, far more often than they do honkyoku.
The shakuhachi players who play honkyoku exclusively, or who perform them outside the
bureaucratic setting of an organization, are a tiny minority.

152
and their variations which are said to exist (Tukitani 1990a:32). Furthermore, large
shakuhachi organizations can even be detrimental to the transmission of honkyoku.
Tozan ryû, the largest shakuhachi organization in Japan in terms of membership and
financial strength, has no classical honkyoku in its repertoire, and actively discourages
its members from studying with any teacher who performs classical honkyoku.

In my view, in many cases the essence of honkyoku, musically, philosophically, and

spiritually, continues to be transmitted from generation to generation in spite of the
organizations. The richness of variation that can be observed, for example, in the
analyses of “Reibo” (Chapter 6) occurs mainly outside the context of large
organizations, although variation and change inevitably take place even within the
Kinko tradition (Syakuhati kenkyû kai 1991:2-10).

It is precisely because of the bureaucratic power these organizations wield, and

because the honkyoku tradition outside their domain has always been less conspicuous
than that which exists within them, that this thesis deals only indirectly with the
transmission of honkyoku in terms of shakuhachi organizations.

Perhaps for the first time in the history of the shakuhachi tradition, an exception to the
trend of great influence residing mainly within shakuhachi organizations has taken
place in the personage of Watazumi. 71 There are two primary reasons why
Watazumi, who has consciously distanced himself from all shakuhachi organizations,
has been able to strongly influence the honkyoku tradition in general. First of all,
Watazumi’s honkyoku have been promulgated to a great extent by his student
Yokoyama, 72 in his capacity as one of Japan’s (and the world’s) best known and most
respected shakuhachi performers, through his many concerts and recordings, and by
the many students of Yokoyama. Secondly, Watazumi has himself released a number
of widely distributed recordings of his honkyoku, an avenue of dissemination
unavailable to preceding generations of independent honkyoku performers. This is all
the more remarkable because Watazumi is the antithesis of the formal shakuhachi
organization. He is, in fact, the antithesis of the shakuhachi player, as will be seen in
the examination of his ideologies (pp.302-304) and in the comparison of his
performances of “Reibo” with those of other players (Chapter 6).

The second formal element of transmission is the lesson. The most typical setting in
which the student is taught the mechanical techniques of a piece is a one-to-one
lesson. Features of a typical shakuhachi lesson have been described elsewhere,
particularly those features which differ from or have no counterpart to those of a
western musical lesson (Gutzwiller 1983:64-89, Lee 1986:141-159). These features
include the largely non-verbal and intuitive method of learning by imitation; the
system of a monthly retaining fee rather than a payment based upon the number and
length of the lessons; and finally the non-scheduled lesson days and the related
practice of having the lesson in the presence of other students.

71
Watazumi is one of six performers whose recorded performances are transcribed and
analysed in Chapter 6.
72
Yokoyama is also one of six performers whose recorded performances are transcribed and
analysed in Chapter 6.

153
It is largely during the lesson that the relationship between the teacher and the student
of shakuhachi develops. This relationship is partly determined by the larger cultural
setting in which it occurs, and partly by the nature of the shakuhachi tradition itself.
For example, much of the honkyoku is transmitted intuitively, with verbal or practical
explanation considered neither desirable nor possible. This intuitive form of
transmission and the importance given it within the honkyoku tradition contribute to
the high value placed upon the development of a proper relationship between teacher
and student. This relationship is further elevated in Japan by the neo-Confucian ethics
evident in the shakuhachi tradition and prevalent in much of traditional Japanese
culture.

Another example can been found in the role mutual respect plays in the teacher-
student relationship in the shakuhachi tradition. Ideally, one of the main elements in
the nurturing of the proper relationship between teacher and student is mutual respect.
With a mutual and intuitive perception of each other, the teacher and the student
develop respect for one another. Though the respect is mutual, the nature of the
respect harboured by the teacher for the student and that which the student has for the
teacher are not the same, just as the roles of teacher and student differ. This difference
can be more pronounced in Japan’s hierarchical, neo-Confucianist traditional society
than it is in other more egalitarian societies where shakuhachi is now being performed
and transmitted. As acknowledgement of the priceless gift of instruction, the Japanese
teacher and society in general expect much more from the student in terms of time,
servitude and money than would be expected by Western teachers and their society.

The remaining discussion about lessons and teaching methods is based upon my own
experience as shakuhachi student for twenty-two years and teacher for fourteen years
as it relates to the subject of transmission. In my experience, the complete
transmission of any single honkyoku never occurs within the lesson. Before the
student is assigned a new piece to learn to play, he or she must first perform the
current piece. Depending upon the piece and the student, the use of notation may or
may not be permitted. Among the many students who have studied with me, none has
been able to perform a honkyoku piece to my satisfaction while learning the piece. In
other words, even when the student can perform the piece at a level which warrants
going on to the next piece, that level of performance has never been completely
satisfactory.

This does not prevent us from eventually leaving one honkyoku aside and going on to
another. There have been occasions outside the lesson context when, upon hearing a
student or former student perform a honkyoku learned from me at some time in the
past, I have thought that the performance was quite well done. It seems that regardless
of how much and how long a student studies a piece with me, it is never played as
well as it could be.

It is only after the student takes the piece and performs it outside the boundaries
imposed by the lessons that it is ever played to my liking. It is as if shakuhachi
students cannot perform a honkyoku well as long as they still believe it belongs to the
teacher, who can determine, by virtue of the teacher’s ownership, if the student is
performing the honkyoku “correctly” or not. In my experience as both student and
teacher, this is invariably the case when the honkyoku is performed by the student in
the context of a lesson.

154
This also seems to be true regardless of the length of time spent on a piece, and even
when a student reviews a piece that had been learned a number of years before. It
appears to me that the full transmission of a piece does not take place until the
shakuhachi performer stops learning the piece as something separate from one’s self,
i.e., something belonging to the teacher rather than the student. Only after a honkyoku
can be played with the conviction that it is the performer’s own piece, beyond the
criticism of the teacher, or anyone else, can the honkyoku be played to its potential.
My thoughts on this are, no doubt, strongly influenced by my concept of honnin no
kyoku (本人の曲, 'the piece of the person in question'—that is, the performer of the
piece).

The idea of honnin no kyoku is the belief that for the performer, each honkyoku must
become “that particular individual’s own piece”. The idea of honnin no kyoku
encompasses the belief that in order for a piece to become “one’s own”, the performer
must imbue his performance of the piece with the very essence of his nature,
including all of his past unique experiences, disappointments, and satisfactions of life
as well as his present wisdom, hopes, and desires, and his health, vitality, or life force.
If the performer does not put his “self” into the piece, thereby allowing the piece to
become a part of him, the piece will remain outside the performer, something separate
from him, and consequently will not become honnin no kyoku (see pp.229,267).

It follows that pieces which the performer has allowed to become honnin no kyoku
have become an actual part of that performer, there no longer being a separation or
distinction between the piece and the performer. The piece is a part of the performer;
each performance of the piece is a manifestation, however fragmentary, of the essence
of the performer, laid bare for all to see (hear). Thus, when a teacher endeavors to
transmit to a student a piece that has become for the teacher honnin no kyoku, he is
actually attempting to transmit to the student a part of himself. A gift of such
magnitude can never be repaid.

Changes may occur to a honkyoku during the lesson. Yokoyama has said that if one
understands a piece, one knows what may and may not be changed. There are times
when I consciously change the way I teach a piece, a phrase, or a particular technique
during the lesson. Some of the changes made to pieces I have been teaching for many
years can be attributed to the different performing styles of my original teacher, Sakai
Chikuho II, with whom I studied for over ten years, and of my teacher since 1984,
Yokoyama Katsuya. 73 With many of the changes, however, there appear to be no set
patterns of when and how I might make them. There are times when I consciously
decide at the instant of teaching a phrase, the manner in which I will perform the
phrase, choosing from an ever increasing number of ways to perform it. This becomes
more difficult with pieces that I have taught innumerable times. The ever-increasing
challenge as I teach the same pieces repeatedly to more and more students is to allow
those honkyoku to continue to vary with the varying circumstances of every new
performance.

In spite of knowing that I change pieces, students are discouraged from changing the
way I have taught a phrase or technique, especially during the lesson. One cannot

73
This is an example of the type of change which may explain many of the variations which
will be seen in the analysis of the piece “Reibo” in Chapter 6.

155
know how to change a honkyoku until the honkyoku is internalized. The honkyoku is
automatically externalized during the lesson because of the relationship between
teacher and student. That hierarchical relationship demands the recognition by the
student of the authority or ownership of the honkyoku by the teacher, at least in the
context of the lesson. To say that one cannot know how to change a honkyoku is the
same as saying one cannot know how to play a honkyoku, because change is
inevitable.

It is therefore necessary for the student of honkyoku eventually to throw off the
student role in the teacher-student relationship and claim ownership of the honkyoku.
This idea is behind Yokoyama’s comment that the student must eventually cut
himself off from the teacher (see p.417), and may partially explain Watazumi’s
refusal to acknowledge that anyone taught him the “Reibo” piece (see p.302). In
summary, a major part of the transmission of honkyoku takes place during the lesson,
but the transmission can never be completed there. The lesson is only where the seed
of honkyoku is planted in the mind and being of the student. Whether or not it
germinates, and if so how it grows after that depends upon the subsequent efforts of
the performer to cast aside the role of student.

In teaching and in learning honkyoku, I have used scores written in traditional

shakuhachi notation, including notation systems of the Chikuho, Kinko, Myôan and
Tozan 74 lineages. In my experience as student, it was my responsibility to annotate
the scores being used in whatever manner I chose in order to help remember how to
perform the piece. As a rule, neither Sakai nor Yokoyama wrote on my score. If I did
not play an embellishment or note or phrase as they wished me to or if I omitted
something, they would tell me and play the passage in question for me again. It was
up to me to remember the passage. Writing a word or symbol on the score as a
reminder was completely permissable. If I thought that I could remember the passage
without noting it down, that was also acceptable. Finally, my teachers did not tell me
it was my responsibility to annotate the scores. Nothing was said on the matter one
way or the other.

In my experience as teacher, I find myself making annotations to the scores of my

students instead of allowing them to do it themselves.. This may be indicative
primarily of my own impatience and of the cultural background of both the students
and myself in which the teacher plays a more active role than is found in the
shakuhachi tradition in Japan. Although I am experimenting with refraining from
interfering with the, in many cases, slower learning process of students, unaided by
my annotations, how active a role to play as a teacher of shakuhachi outside Japan is
still a dilemma for me.

Mention must be made of other methods of learning honkyoku that are available to
today’s shakuhachi student. These methods include a number of teach yourself books
and recordings. For the majority of potential shakuhachi players outside of Japan,

74
Though Tozan ryû does not have in its repertoire any classical honkyoku, a number of
such honkyoku have been transnotated into the Tozan notation system. These notations are
useful in teaching players who have had experience in using the Tozan notation system.

156
these are the only feasible ways of learning anything about performing shakuhachi,
including honkyoku. As such, they are better than nothing at all. The obvious
disadvantage of relying solely upon books and tape recordings to learn honkyoku lies
in the nature of honkyoku and the importance placed upon the process of performing.

If the essence of honkyoku lies in the process, then that essence can only be suggested
by recordings, which are representations of the product of a single process. Likewise,
written instructions describing the process of performing honkyoku can only present a
description of a single process out of an innumerable number of processes. A great
deal of diligent practice by a talented performer who has relied solely upon recordings
and books to learn pieces in the honkyoku repertoire may result in beautiful music, but
it is unlikely that the essence of honkyoku will have been transmitted. But then, much
more unlikely events take place constantly in our universe.

In addition to lineage-centred organizations and lessons, notation used to represent

honkyoku is another formal element of transmission. Traditional notation used in the
honkyoku tradition and its relationship with honkyoku performance has been dealt
with in detail in the sections on orality and on documents and performance (see above
pp.237-250). Suffice it to say that scores of honkyoku, whether written in traditional
notation, in western notation, or in one of the graphic notations which have been
developed recently as a teach-yourself method, all function as aids or tools to
facilitate the transmission of honkyoku.

The emphasis or value given to honkyoku scores varies from lineage to lineage and
between teachers. More bureaucratically inclined lineages place a greater value upon
the scores than lineages less so inclined. Some lineages use no scores at all. Some
have no “official” honkyoku scores, using instead whatever is available and/or
encouraging the student to develop his own score. The more organized lineages have
“official” scores which are copyrighted and sold for a price. As seen in the example of
Araki’s score of “Shika no tône”, discussed in Chapter 2 (pp.30-32), scores are
sometimes used as a physical representation of the successful transmission of the
immaterial honkyoku.

The increased use of staff notation in scores for shakuhachi music, by both composers
of music for shakuhachi and by shakuhachi performers, has resulted in a number of
changes in the shakuhachi tradition. One such change has been the standardization of
pitch, partly because staff notation denotes pitch while traditional shakuhachi notation
denotes fingerings (see Lee 1988:71-79). Although staff notation can act as a catalyst
for a greater standardization of pitch, its use is almost entirely limited to modern
compositions. Scores of classical honkyoku in staff notation exist only as
transcriptions in scholarly articles and, to my knowledge, have never been used in
actual teaching/learning or performing situations.

In all of the above cases, the scores are not the honkyoku. Like words, they do not
mean anything, but rather they represent something. In order to find the meaning of
honkyoku, one must look to the performance. Four aspects of performance are the
subject of the following section.

157
5.5 The Fourth Formal Element of Transmission: Performance

The fourth formal element of transmission to be addressed in this thesis is that of

performance. Of all the elements of transmission, performance is the most significant.
It is in the performance of honkyoku that all the historical, philosophical, spiritual, and
technical elements of the honkyoku tradition come together as a unified whole. As is
the case of all oral traditions, the honkyoku tradition is maintained only during
performance. Once a honkyoku is no longer performed, it becomes extinct.
Furthermore, the most recent performance of a honkyoku is the most authoritative,
due to its characteristics as an oral performance.

In the following discussion, the element of performance is viewed through three of its
aspects; that relating to timbre such as the notion of “complete sound”, that relating to
pitch such as the meri/kari techniques and instrument making and, finally, that
relating to rhythm such as the notion of “absolute timing”. Though separation of
honkyoku performance into the aspects of timbre, pitch, and rhythm, reflect western
cultural patterns of thought, they will be approached in this thesis from the
perspective of the, largely non-western, insider to the honkyoku tradition.

5.5.1 The Aspect of Timbre

The first of the aspects of performance enumerated above, relating to timbre or tone
colour, overlaps the second aspect, that of pitch. The intertwining of timbre and pitch
in the honkyoku tradition can be seen in the discussion below of the meri/kari
techniques. Though timbre and pitch are never completely separate in performance,
they will be isolated for the purpose of the discussion. A brief comparison between
how timbre is treated in the honkyoku tradition and in the dominant western music
cultures will demonstrate a number of its characteristics.

In many Western instrument traditions, particularly that of nineteenth century art

music, the ideal is of even and consistent timbre throughout the pitch range of the
instrument and in almost all musical contexts. The piano is the most extreme example
of the Western trend to produce even voicing, standardized and unvarying pitches. In
general, modern Western musical instruments tend to maintain the same timbre at all
times, in contrast to the uneveness of early instruments. There are exceptions, such as
the pizzicato technique on the violin, or modern pieces that purposely attempt to
extend the variety of tonal production of an instrument, such as in pieces for the
“prepared piano”. Additionally, with the advent of electronically manipulated sound,
changes in the timbre of a single instrument have become more common than in the
past, with the modern synthesizer being the extreme example of multiple timbres of
one instrument.

Nonetheless, the general rule for many traditional Western instruments is that they are
constructed and played so as to minimize changes in timbre, especially within a single
phrase or while sustaining a single note. Gutzwiller and Bennett (1991:51) have
shown examples of this with graphs of the spectral evolution of a crescendo and
decrescendo played on a transverse flute. The dynamic evolution of the partials of the
tone produced by the transverse flute are relatively synchronic. The human ear

158
perceives the timbre to be constant with the increase and decrease of the dynamics
(Figure 8).

In contrast, there is no single most desirable timbre for shakuhachi, especially in the
context of honkyoku performance. The shakuhachi player is required to produce a
number of tone colours from his instrument, including sounds that are without a
specific pitch. More than one change in timbre commonly occurs within a single
phrase or even a single note, the tone colour evolving from the beginning to the end of
the phrase or note. Unlike the transverse flute example above, graphs of the spectral
evolution of a crescendo and decrescendo produced by a shakuhachi show that the
partials of the tone reach their relative maxima at different times (Gutzwiller and
Bennett 1991:50). A change in timbre as well as dynamics is perceived by the human
ear (Figure 9).

The shakuhachi is not unique in its production of poly-timbres. Many other traditional
instruments in Japan and elsewhere in Asia are routinely played so as to generate
various timbres and non-pitched sounds. For example, the Japanese stringed
instruments, the koto, the shamisen, and the biwa are all played with various
techniques such as plucking the strings at different locations, scraping the strings and
hitting the body of the instrument with the picks or plectrum to create variations in
timbre.

Of all the musical elements, timbre is possibly the most difficult for musicians
untrained in the physics of acoustics to accurately describe, measure, and quantify.
Words commonly used to describe differences in timbre illustrate this problem;
usually they are terms borrowed from other sensory perceptions and are extremely
subjective and relative, for example, “warm” or “cold”, “mellow”, “blue”, “harsh”,
etc. The timbre of sounds, including those produced with a shakuhachi, may, in fact,
be accurately measured and described in mathematical terms, using concepts such as
input admittance, resonance curves, and peak frequencies. Such acoustical analyses
are for the most part beyond the scope of this thesis. Studies that deal with the timbre
of the shakuhachi in these and other terms include Ando 1983a, 1983b, 1986; Ando
and Ohyagi 1984, 1985; and Gutzwiller and Bennett 1991.

In the study of Gutzwiller and Bennett (1991:36-59), the acoustical characteristics of

the shakuhachi are described and combined with a knowledge of the shakuhachi
tradition. That is, the basic musical structure of honkyoku, which Gutzwiller calls the
“tone cell”, is examined in terms of its physical development. The evolution of timbre
within a musical phrase compliments the musical meaning of the phrase.

The two most common variations of timbre performed on the shakuhachi are related
to breath and embouchure. Frequently the shakuhachi performer purposely adds a
breathiness to the flute sound by over-blowing and by changing the position of his
mouth, tongue and lips to create a rough air stream. A very light touch of breathiness
added to a soft tone is sometimes referred to as sasabuki (笹吹き, literally ‘bamboo
grass blowing’). This technique is supposed to bring to mind the sound of a gentle
breeze blowing through small bamboo grass. The technique known by all shakuhachi
players as mura iki (ムラ息), commonly translated as ‘thrashing breath’ is one of the
most well-known and dramatic shakuhachi performing techniques. Mura iki is a very
violent and loud burst of air through the instrument and is mostly non-pitched.

159
Partly because each shakuhachi is made of an individual piece of bamboo, no two
pieces having the same inner and outer dimensions, and partly because the
instruments are all hand made, every flute has a unique sound. Many players believe
that those qualities desirable in instruments used in honkyoku performances are
different from those qualities desirable in instruments used for modern pieces and/or
ensemble works. These qualities include timbre and pitch; the latter instruments
should generally be louder, brighter, and more accurately pitched than instruments for
honkyoku use. The main quality desirable in a shakuhachi used for honkyoku
performance is an acceptable timbre or tone colour. “Right” timbre is difficut to
define precisely, being mostly a matter of personal taste. It is expressed by such vague
concepts as the “soul” or “heart of the bamboo” (竹心, chikushin), or that sound
which has great “depth”.

All players also have their individual sound; the connoisseur can frequently tell who
is playing just by listening to the tone quality of the performer. Though the same may
be said of other instruments, this is particularly true of the shakuhachi. This is
because the embouchure and mouth cavity, which vary dramatically with each player,
are in fact a major part of the instrument. However hard a student tries to create a
sound exactly like that of his teacher, his chances of sounding the same are as slight
as his being identical in appearance.

There is no ideal or standard sound for the shakuhachi. Generally speaking, a

consistently pure or clean sound such as is cultivated by performers of the western
transverse flute is not as valued in playing the shakuhachi. More hiss or air in the tone
is acceptable to or even desired by the shakuhachi performer. In fact one of the
frequently heard criticisms levelled against shakuhachi players by other shakuhachi
players is that their tone quality is too “flute-like”. A student of Yamaguchi Gorô said
that his teacher taught him that the airy sound, which a western flute player would
attempt to eliminate entirely as unwanted noise, is essential in the shakuhachi tone.
The tone produced by the typical beginning shakuhachi player is almost all hiss. But
rather than try to eliminate the hiss as the flute player might do, the beginner should
strive only to increase the flute tone. Gorô likened the “hissing noise” to pepper. All
noise and no tone, as might be the case of a beginner’s playing, is like eating a
spoonful of pepper without any food: unpalatable. In contrast, that same spoonful of
pepper spread over a great enough quantity of food will make the food all the more
delicious. With the production of enough “flute sound”, the hissing sound acts like the
pepper, adding just enough spice to the tone to make it better (Kudo OC1984).

One of the most frequently occurring instances of timbre change within a single
phrase is that related to the meri/kari techniques (changes in timbre and in pitch
produced without changing the fingering, by altering the angle and distance from the
embouchure to the blowing edge of the mouthpiece) (see p.323). By applying the meri
technique to a particular fingering position, not only is the pitch normally produced
by that fingering position lowered, the timbre is altered as well, becoming more
muted and nasal-sounding, and decreasing in dynamics. Notes played using the meri
technique also may become more breathy than the more frequently occurring kari
notes. In contrast, kari notes are louder and sharp in pitch. Consequently, pieces in
which meri/kari techniques are used, including virtually every classical honkyoku,
will exhibit constant variation in tone colour, a direct result of the differences in tonal
production between meri and kari notes.

160
As in the case of much of the other tonal variation that occurs in shakuhachi
performance, the shakuhachi performer does not attempt to minimize differences in
timbre between meri and kari notes. Instead these differences are not only considered
desirable but even essential for the correct performance of the music. The contrasting
timbres of the meri and kari notes is a fundamental aesthetic quality of honkyoku. For
this reason alone, honkyoku can be performed only on the shakuhachi. No other
musical instrument can produce such variation in timbre and dynamics. By using a
system of colouring certain note heads, the transcriptions used in the analysis of the
honkyoku “Reibo” (Chapter 6) attempt to reflect the importance placed upon the
differences in timbre as related to the meri and kari techniques (see p.353-354).

An important concept pertaining to the quality of sound in the honkyoku tradition is

described as tettei on (徹底音, literally ‘thorough’ or ‘complete sound’). Yokoyama
(1985:228) uses the term hon ne (本音, literally ‘main’ or ‘original sound’) for the
same concept. This clearly links the concept with the honkyoku itself, and also with
that of honnin no kyoku. The idea is that hon ne must be produced by the performer if
the honkyoku is to become honnin no kyoku (his ‘own piece’).

The expression hon ne commonly means “one’s true intentions” or “one’s real
motives”, and is frequently used in the dichotomy hon ne and tatemae (建前, literally
‘before building’, that is, erecting the framework of a house) (Masuda, ed.
1983:1750). In this case, tatemai means one’s stated or “official” intentions. In
Japanese society in general, it is almost always assumed that hon ne and tatemae,
one’s true intentions and one’s stated intentions, are (and should be) two quite
different things. One’s actions and responses toward others are usually affected by
that assumption. Being able to grasp how much or how little of one’s own hon ne
should be evident in one’s tatemae, to sense the hon ne of others from their tatemae,
to understand how to incorporate the intuitive sense one may have of other’s hon ne
without causing any loss of face, and knowing how to do all of these things
instantaneously in a prudent, socially acceptable manner are all essential skills needed
to function in much of Japan’s society.

There is an interesting Japanese idiom using the expression hon ne. Hon ne o fuku
(本音を吹く) means to ‘drop [throw off] one’s mask’ or ‘give oneself away’
(Masuda, ed. 1983:482). The etymological suitability of this expression in terms of
the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition could not be greater. The word fuku (吹く) most
commonly means to blow, as in ‘to blow air into a shakuhachi’, or ‘to play’ as in ‘to
play a wind instrument’. The shakuhachi honkyoku player really is trying to uncover
his “true” or “original self” when attempting to blow hon ne, to play the ‘original
sound’ while performing honkyoku.

Yokoyama does not use the expression honnin no kyoku (see pp.229,255), but uses
instead honnin no shirabe (本人の調べ). The word shirabe corresponds to a
surprising number of words in English related to music, among which are ‘a note; a
tune; a melody’ and ‘music’ itself (Masuda, ed. 1983:1567). The character for shirabe
(調) can also be read chô. When combined with the character shi (子), the word
chôshi (調子) is formed, which can be defined in this context as ‘mode’.

161
To my knowledge, there are shirabe or chôshi pieces in every shakuhachi school or
lineage that has a repertoire of classical honkyoku. In the Kinko ryû repertoire, there
are two such pieces, “Hifumi hachigaeshi” (一二三鉢返), 75 and “Banshiki shirabe”
(盤渉調). In the Chikuho ryû, there are four such pieces, “Honte chôshi” (本手調子);
“Yamato chôshi” (大和調子); “Hifumi chô” (一二三調); and “Chôshi” (調子).
Also, there are a number of pieces, including “Shôganken reibo”, which have a
beginning section called ‘Shirabe’. On a superficial level, these pieces or sections of
pieces are considered preludes, tunings, or warm-ups for the larger pieces.

There is another set of definitions for the ideograph 調, however, which gives a
deeper meaning to the “Shirabe” or “Chôshi” pieces and which Yokoyama is
alluding to in his use of the term honnin no shirabe. These definitions include
“investigate, scrutinize; provide, prepare... test, examine, survey, check up; inspect,
overhaul; search for... interrogate... arrange... put to order, tidy up... regulate; settle”
(Nelson 1974:4392). Honnin no shirabe can therefore mean ‘searching for one’s true
or original self’. The Shirabe pieces of the honkyoku repertoire therefore can mean a
searching for the relationship between the true nature of both performer and bamboo
flute, searching for a relationship between the two that is most conducive to
performing honkyoku.

To make a honkyoku into a honnin no shirabe is, according to Yokoyama (1985:228),

to change it into a piece that is absolutely and unconditionally one’s own. To do that,
the performer must entrust the sound of his shakuhachi with the most sincere and
urgent expression of hon ne (one’s true self). Such a hon ne, in Yokoyama’s words, is
a desperate matter taking on life or death dimensions. But by doing so, the sound
becomes an “ideal” sound and the piece an “absolute” piece. Though Yokoyama does
not state this, implied in his use of the word shirabe in the phrase honnin no shirabe is
the process of searching for, examining, or preparing one’s Self. The task of playing
honkyoku with hon ne (absolute sound), thereby making the pieces honnin no shirabe
(a search for one’s original self) requires a lifetime of practice. Honkyoku becomes
one’s life’s work.

On a more mundane level, a performance of honkyoku in which the performer has

incorporated the idea of hon ne is likely to reflect the uniqueness of the honnin, the
performer, and result in a unique performance. The many kinds of variations between
the ten performances of “Reibo” that are brought to light in the analysis (Chapter 6)
are consistent with the realization of hon ne in performance.

Within the philosophical framework of the honkyoku tradition, the significance of

honkyoku goes beyond even that of a practice worthy of the devotion of one’s entire
life. Each individual honkyoku is considered a manifestation or reflection of the whole
universe, of all of reality and non-reality, of everything physical and metaphysical.
This is thought to be so because of the philosophical symbolism of the meri/kari
techniques. These techniques and the sounds they produce are considered to represent
the yin and yang (Japanese in yô, 陰陽) of the original Chinese philosophy. Yin, the
principle or force of the universe that is earthy, passive, inward, negative, and

75
In many of the Myôan lineages, this piece is thought of as two separate pieces, “Hifumi
chô” (一二三調) and “Hachigaeshi”.

162
feminine, corresponds to the meri technique and the tone it produces. Yang is the
universal force or principle that is light, heat, active, outward, positive, and
masculine, corresponds to the kari technique and the tone it produces. Yin and yang
always both contrast and complement each other; without one, the other does not
exist. Together, they form the universe in the broadest sense of the word. The same is
considered true of the meri/ kari techniques and their corresponding tones.

The yin-yang symbolism of meri/kari can be readily appreciated on a number of

levels. Notes that are played with the kari technique are in fact loud, outward, bright,
and “masculine” in tone quality and dynamics, while notes played with the meri
technique are soft, inward, earthy and “feminine”. Furthermore, yin and yang
correspond perfectly to the actual physical movements associated with the meri/kari
techniques respectively. In order to play a meri note, the performer must change his
embouchure in two ways. He must change the angle that the air stream from his
mouth hits the blowing edge, and he must allow his lips to get closer to the blowing
edge of the mouthpiece. The former is usually considered more important in the
execution of the meri technique. The angle at which the air stream hits the blowing
edge is changed by the performer bending his head downward while holding the flute
loosely. The hands act only as a fulcrum, so that the mouthpiece of the flute moves
downward with the head, while the bottom of the flute moves upward. The player
appears to blow more into the flute. The movement is therefore both downward
(earth) and inward, corresponding to the downward change in pitch and the softer,
earthy change in tone colour.

Every honkyoku has both meri and kari notes and therefore manifests both yin and
yang. Each honkyoku therefore can be thought of as an embodiment or expression of
the entire universe, including both the physical and the metaphysical. Each
performance of honkyoku then becomes not just the realization of one piece of music,
but the enactment of creating “everything”. The “life and death” importance placed by
Yokoyama on producing the “original sound” of the honkyoku becomes more
comprehensible in the context of the yin-yang symbolism of the meri/kari techniques.

The completeness implied by the yin/yang symbolism of the meri/kari techniques

exists on the level of the phrase as well as the entire piece. Many phrases in classical
honkyoku have within them both the meri and kari notes of a yin-yang equivalent
(Figure 10). In these cases the individual phrases themselves reflect the entire piece
and become representative of the cosmos. More often, a phrase will end on the meri
note of a yin-yang pair, followed by a phrase beginning with the kari equivalent to
complete the pair (Figure 11). Finally, there are phrases that are composed almost
entirely of meri notes, many of which are part of a yin-yang pair. Usually
immediately following these phrases are kari phrases centered around the kari
equivalent of the meri note of the preceding phrase.

Gutzwller and Bennett (1991:54-56) describe the manifestation of the yin-yang

principles in honkyoku performance as conceived in the Kinko ryû, particularly
among the members of the Kawase branch. Tone cells, around which most Kinko
honkyoku phrases are organized, evolve through three stages: 1) meri beginning,
2) kari body, and 3) meri ending. These stages can be seen as circular, the ends
always returning to the beginnings in an intertwining yin-yang-yin cycle (Figure 12).
Likewise, the breathing process during honkyoku performance also manifests the non-

163
dualistic yin-yang principle. The inhalation is yin, with its inward, receptive qualities.
The exhalation is yang, with its corresponding outward, projecting qualities.

In every honkyoku performance, the whole or “Oneness” is thus reflected on many

levels, from the macro to the micro. This “Oneness” can be heard in the pitches as
well as the timbres of the meri and kari notes, and can be physically felt by the
performer during the process of performing these notes, using techniques such as
meri/kari that are unique to and, at the same time fundamental to the shakuhachi
tradition.

5.5.2 The Aspect of Pitch

Besides timbre, the meri/kari techniques are also one determinant of the second aspect
of performance—that of pitch. Though pitch is conceived in varying ways among the
different lineages of the honkyoku tradition, in general, the emphasis is not upon
producing standardized pitch as it is in the dominant western music traditions, but
rather upon the process of playing the pitches. Honkyoku are composed, notated and
performed in such a manner that the production of pitches that are standardized in
terms of western music is not necessarily of great concern. The following are factors
that contribute to a conception of pitch in the minds of honkyoku players during
performance that is (by western musical standards) variable and non-standard. Each
of these will be discussed in more detail below:

1. The concept of the process of the meri/kari technique being more important
than the production of standard pitches;

2. The vagueness and inconsistency of the score with regard to the notation of
pitch;

3. The deliberate use of an instrument whose construction emphasizes timbre

at the expense of standardized pitch production, whose blowing edge
encourages variation in pitch, and whose finger holes historically have been
located according to a mathematical equation (see below) rather than at
locations which produce standardized pitches;

4. The custom of being able to play much of the honkyoku repertoire on any
length instrument, including those whose fundamentals produce non-
standard pitches;

5. The conscious variation of intervalic relationships such as larger or smaller

than standard minor seconds, and the unconscious variation of pitches and
interval relationships, such as sustained pitches descending over time, and
finally;

6. The monophonic nature of the honkyoku, which does not require the
production of standardized pitch.

164
First, the meri/kari techniques described above, which produce changes in timbre
during performance, also produce simultaneous changes in pitch. Though the process
of making the changes in both timbre and pitch through the meri/kari techniques is
given great importance, the resultant pitches produced by those techniques may be
variable. This is one of many examples of the process-oriented nature of honkyoku,
with the product, in this case the pitches produced by the meri/kari techniques, being
less important than the process. The methods of executing these techniques and the
resultant pitch variations are elements which are transmitted from one performer to
another. It will be shown in the analyses of performances of “Reibo” that differences
in these methods correspond to the differences between lineages and individual
performers.

Secondly, with regard to the effect of notation, as previously discussed in detail above
(pp.237-250, 259-260), traditional shakuhachi notation systems are themselves
process-oriented, instructing the player which fingering position and blowing
techniques to use. They may also directly denote to a greater or lesser extent what
pitch should be produced by the fingering and/or blowing processes. This factor is
also determined in part by the lineage or teacher through which the transmission takes
place. Lineages, and in some cases teachers, use their own differing notation, or no
notation at all. Some notation systems are more precise in denoting pitch than others.
Variations in pitch related to the differing notations are therefore directly linked to the
transmission process, of which the lineage and the teacher are fundamental
components.

Thirdly, the nature of the instrument as well as certain construction methods further
help to form many honkyoku performers’ traditional concept of pitch. As mentioned
above (p.264), instruments used in honkyoku performance ideally have certain
qualities of timbre that are difficult to verbalize, being defined largely by personal
taste. It is frequently considered more important that instruments on which honkyoku
are to be performed have suitable timbre than that they produce those pitches which
are considered western standards. In contrast, greater standardization of pitch is
required of instruments that are used for ensemble piece playing and modern works
composed largely within the framework of western musical theory. Thus, it is
common for performers to own several shakuhachi instruments used especially for
honkyoku performance, and others used for performing other genres of music.

Differences between types of instruments can be clearly seen by comparing

instruments made before and after the turn of the 20th century. Earlier instruments are
characterized by two construction techniques, one pertaining to the dimensions of the
inner bore, called ji nashi (地無し), and the other involving the placement of
fingerholes, called to wari (十割り) (see below). These instruments were more likely
to have been used exclusively, or at least predominately, for honkyoku. Honkyoku
were much more frequently performed before the 20th century; before the latter 1800s
it was technically illegal to perform anything but honkyoku, though the law was often
ignored (see pp.139-149). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that some of the
differences in construction of historical and modern shakuhachi, resulting in non-
uniform pitch production, are due to the demands made by the different performance
practices characteristic of honkyoku and of modern compositions.

165
In fact, the specialized honkyoku instruments mentioned above are, in one respect,
made in a way similar to the historical instruments. Indicative of the practice of using
specialized instruments for the different types of music is the growing popularity of
instruments called ji nashi shakuhachi (地無し尺八) for honkyoku performance.
Almost all shakuhachi made professionally within the last fifty years or more are
constructed using some type of filler to create the proper dimensions of the bore. The
most common filler used is called ji (地, literally ‘earth’), a mixture of tonoko
(砥の粉, ‘powdered claystone’) and urushi (漆, ‘Japanese lacquer’). The term ji nashi
shakuhachi (nashi = ‘without’) means shakuhachi instruments made without the use
of ji as a filler in the bore. Such instruments were common before the advent of the
professional shakuhachi maker, that is before this century. While urushi is still used
in ji nashi shakuhachi, the very thin layers in which it must be applied in order to dry
properly make urushi alone inappropriate as a filler (Tukitani et al. ed. 1991:9).

It is extremely difficult to make an instrument that plays well by today’s standards

without any filler at all. Yet according to one maker (Yamaguchi 1991), ji nashi flutes
have become somewhat in vogue in the past several years, and are used exclusively in
the playing of honkyoku, or occasionally in modern pieces that require honkyoku-like
techniques and phrases. The ji nashi shakuhachi are usually less accurately pitched,
and generally more difficult to control than the standard modern instrument. The
ability to produce a timbre with more of the soul of the bamboo, however, is thought
to be worth the trade-off.

The construction of shakuhachi instruments, including standard modern ones made

with ji, makes the consistent production of standardized pitches quite difficult. In
addition, the unique shape of the blowing edge contributes to this difficulty. Without a
good measure of technical ability resulting from many years of diligent practice, a
trained ear that hears precise pitches and pitch intervals and, finally, the musical
values and consequent desire to constantly be alert to and strive for the consistent
production of standardized pitches as defined by the western musical tradition,
variability in pitch will inevitably occur. In other words, unless the shakuhachi
performer is both able to and wants to produce pitches consistent with the model of
standardized pitches of western 19th century art music, the tendency is for pitch
variation. Both the construction of the instrument and the music performed on it are
not conducive to the production of standardized pitches.

The value placed on producing pitches that are not variable by western standards
seems to be lower with many performers of honkyoku than with players who
concentrate on other genres of shakuhachi music. This level of importance given to
standardized pitch is another element of performance that is transmitted from
performer to performer. It is one explanation for some of the variations in
performances that are shown by the analysis in Chapter 6 (see p.405-407).

In the case of ji nashi flutes, large variations in the bore sizes of different flutes result
in identical fingering positions producing different non-standard pitches on different
instruments. The placement of the fingerholes can also be a determinant of pitch
variation or consistency between instruments. Many shakuhachi instruments,
especially those made before 1970 and/or by amateur or less-skilled makers, are
constructed with the fingerholes placed so as to produce non-standard intervals
between the pitches produced with various finger positions.

166
This older method of determining the placement of the fingerholes is called to wari
(十割, ‘divided by ten’). To wari consisted of dividing the instrument into ten equal
parts and positioning the finger holes at specified points corresponding to a certain
number of “tenths” of the length of the instrument. No consideration is given to the
bore dimensions of the bamboo being used. The result is variable pitches for each
fingering position, in particular the fingering position which produces the pitches a’
and d" on modern standard 1.8 flutes. On flutes made with the to wari method, these
two notes are usually sharper than on modern flutes. The positions of fingerholes on
flutes made in the last decade by professional makers are usually dictated by the
unique dimensions of points along the bore of each instrument and by the desire to
produce standardized pitches, rather than by an inflexible mathematical equation.

Variation from standardized pitches as defined by western musical theory that is

caused by either or both of the two construction methods, ji nashi or to wari, are
frequently not taken into account by honkyoku performers who use these instruments.
This is not surprising when considered in the light of the other factors contributing to
variable pitches, such as the process of the meri/kari techniques, the vagueness of the
scores, and the variability of pitch resulting from the construction of the blowing edge
of the shakuhachi. Finally, it should be said that even modern shakuhachi, constructed
with methods thought by those performers who value standardized pitch to be better
than ji nashi or to wari methods, are still frequently “out of tune”. Variations in pitch
which would be unacceptable on instruments used by many western-trained musicians
remain prevalent in many shakuhachi produced in Japan today.

Another factor which can affect the pitches produced by the instrument, though not
the intervals between the pitches, is the overall length of the flute. Although lengths
of shakuhachi, and consequently the pitches of their fundamental have become
somewhat standardized in recent decades, in fact the shakuhachi can be made in any
length, thereby producing, with all holes closed, a fundamental of any pitch. The
name “shakuhachi” itself denotes a standard length, one shaku (尺) and “hachi” or
eight sun (寸, ten sun equals one shaku). Thus a standard length shakuhachi, being
always 1.8 shaku, should always produce, with all holes closed, a standard
fundamental pitch, assuming that other variables such bore dimensions are relatively
standard. Today, the linear measurement called a shaku is defined as the equivalent to
30.3cm. The 1.8 shaku-length instrument of today, that is, the standard length
shakuhachi, is approximately 54.54cm. and as a result produces, with all holes closed,
the fundamental pitch of d'.

The value of the linear measurement called a shaku, however, has not remained
constant or standard over the centuries. The shaku of China during the Tang dynasty,
for example, was shorter than the length of the modern day shaku (Kamisangô
1974:10). This would explain the relatively short lengths of the Nara period
shakuhachi preserved in Shôsôin, the longest being only 43.7 cm. and the shortest a
mere 34.35 cm. 76 Even if the length of the standard shakuhachi, true to its name, has
always been a consistent 1.8 shaku, it has not remained a consistent length, because
the shaku measurement itself has not remained constant. Consequently, the
fundamental pitch of the instrument (with all holes closed) has fluctuated accordingly.

76
The instruments preserved in the Shôsôin are called shakuhachi in the original catalogue
made at the time the instruments were donated (see p.63).

167
For example the Shôsôin instruments produce, with all fingerholes closed,
fundamental pitches ranging from 449 Hz (a slightly sharp a') to 353 Hz (a slightly
sharp f') (Ueno 1984:20), compared with modern shakuhachi producing the pitch d'.
Therefore, even the fundamental pitch of the shakuhachi has fluctuated over the
centuries.

In practice, most honkyoku can be played on any length shakuhachi, that is with any
set of pitches. This includes modern, professionally made shakuhachi of varying but
standardized pitches (that is, “D flutes”, “A flutes”, “B flutes”, “F# flutes”, etc.), as
well as historical and “homemade” flutes of non-standard lengths and pitches, e.g.,
flutes whose lengths are basically randomly determined by the length of the bamboo
used. The length of flute chosen and the resultant pitches produced are partly
determined by the lineage through which the transmission of honkyoku occurs.
Players of the many lineages of Kinko ryû and of Myôan Taizan ha most frequently
perform on the 1.8 shaku length flute. Longer flutes are especially popular with
members of shakuhachi lineages other than Kinko ryû and Myôan Taizan ha,
although the exact length of flute is rarely specified by teacher or score. Thus the
fundamental pitch of the instrument used to perform honkyoku can be determined
directly by the medium (in this case the lineage) through which the transmission
occurs.

It has been shown above that the physical characteristics of the instrument and the
manner in which it has been constructed contribute significantly to the variations in
pitch typically found in honkyoku performance. A fifth factor that contributes to pitch
variations is rooted in certain performance practices which are not in themselves
dependent upon the construction of the shakuhachi. As mentioned above, these
variations occur both as departures from a standard of pitch relationships based on the
western system of A-440 Hz and as non-standard relationships or intervals between
pitches.

Some honkyoku performers argue that the correct production of octaves, fourths,
fifths, minor thirds and seconds, etc. is necessary in the performance of shakuhachi
honkyoku. Yet even amongst those performers, the intervals are not in every case
consistent by western standards. For example, Yokoyama (1989a) teaches that the
minor second between the pitches d and e-flat (as produced on a 1.8 shaku length
instrument), an important and frequently occurring interval in almost all honkyoku,
should be played as a smaller interval than is standard in western music. When asked
how much smaller, he replied by saying only that one must go by the “feel” of the
interval. He then demonstrated the interval on his shakuhachi.

In contrast, other players consistently perform the same interval, that is, a
corresponding interval in a corresponding phrase within the same piece but of a
different lineage, as much larger, even approaching a major second. For example,
Tukitani (1974:24) notes that members of the Myôan Taizan ha of honkyoku playing
consistently perform the same interval as a major second (D to E-natural on a 1.8
shaku flute) rather than a small minor second.

All five of the factors of pitch variation discussed thus far, the nature of the meri/kari
techniques, methods of notating pitch, the nature of instrument construction and the
placement of finger holes, the choice of length of instruments and their resultant

168
fundamental pitch, and variations in the sizes and level of standardization of intervals
between pitches are determined in part by the lineage through which honkyoku are
transmitted.

In addition to the apparently conscious variations in intervalic relationships such as

the major and minor seconds, there are variations that are unconscious. For example,
the pitch of a diminuendo note sustained over many seconds, of which there are many
in all honkyoku, has a tendency to descend in time, because more effort and control is
needed to maintain a constant pitch as volume is decreased. This is true especially in
the upper octave. Also, as is the case with many wind instruments, the pitches of the
notes in the upper octave have the tendency to be sharp in relation to those of the
lower octave. Though this tendency is caused partly by the dimensions of certain
points along the bore, unconscious fluctuations of upper octave notes relative to the
lower octave are especially prevalent in honkyoku performances because of the nature
of the blowing edge. Such fluctuations in pitch relationships, though unintended, are
common in honkyoku performance even among performers considered to be of very
high calibre, for example, Chikuho II (Lee 1986:223).

Finally, in classical honkyoku, there is little emphasis on melodic structure, with no

implied harmonic background and no “architectonic formal relationships” (see
Gutzwiller and Bennett 1991:58). The monophonic nature of honkyoku allows for a
variability of pitch that might otherwise be unacceptable in an actual or implied
harmonic setting. This may help explain the variations in the intervals between
pitches that commonly occur between individuals and lineages or schools. Many of
these variations are shown in the analysis of “Reibo” below (Chapter 6).

In spite of the insignificance placed upon the production of standardized pitch by

many members of the honkyoku tradition because of the reasons described above,
there appear to have always been some honkyoku performers who place great
importance upon pitch. Examples of these performers are Uramoto, Watazumi and
Yokoyama, and their students. The latter two honkyoku performers are particularly
known for maintaining extremely consistent interval relationships between the pitches
being produced (see below, p.405). Also, some members of Kinko ryû, such as
Yamaguchi Gorô and Aoki Reibo II perform honkyoku within a framework of fairly
consistent pitch intervals. In all of the above examples, although pitch is relatively
consistent in terms of interval relationships, the intervals themselves do not always
agree with the standardized intervals found in the western music tradition. The
consistency of intervals is another element of honkyoku performance which may be
linked to how honkyoku is transmitted, in this case the lineage or performer through
which the transmission occurs.

In addition to the individual examples above, there is a trend in the shakuhachi

tradition as a whole toward the standardization of pitch, though this trend is more
evident in genres of shakuhachi music other than honkyoku. This standardization of
pitch in the shakuhachi tradition in general, partly due to the influence of the high-
profile professionals, can also be seen in changes in instrument construction, with
makers taking (and buyers demanding) far more care in ensuring that their
instruments produce standardized pitches as defined by western musical theory than
was deemed necessary even twenty years ago.

169
In summary, the lack of standard pitch values and interval relationships in much,
though not all, honkyoku performance appears to be due to both unconscious and
conscious factors. What appears in much of the classical honkyoku tradition to be a
rather ambivalent attitude toward pitch is in marked contrast with the highly evolved
and idealized concepts of both tone colour or timbre, as demonstrated earlier, and of
rhythm or timing (see below). In nearly every case, the factors which determine the
degree of inconsistency of pitch in honkyoku performance are themselves influenced
by the medium through which honkyoku are transmitted.

5.5.3 The Aspect of Rhythm

The shakuhachi honkyoku is typically described as having “free rhythmic structure”

(Malm 1959:160), or at least “open to a freer interpretation” than other forms of
shakuhachi music (Blasdel 1988:29). Though Groves Dictionary of Music and
Musicians does not discuss free rhythm, it is defined elsewhere as “employing
temporal values not derived from a basic unit” (Apel and Daniel, ed. 1960:248). If
one assumes that the “basic unit” equals the “beat” of Western music, that is, “the
temporal unit of a composition as represented by the (real or imagined) up-and-down
movement of a conductor’s hand” (Apel and Daniel, ed. 1960:29), then it is accurate
to describe almost all honkyoku as having free rhythm. In the majority of koten
honkyoku, there is no discernible beat, and no meter.

The lack of any discernible beat in honkyoku can be seen in honkyoku scores. In many
honkyoku scores, symbols indicating only very long or very short durations are used
(see Figure 13). In many of the scores used by shakuhachi players today, for example
those of Kinko and Chikuho ryû, duration symbols that were developed to notate
precisely the duple meter rhythms of ensemble pieces (gaikyoku), are also
incorporated in honkyoku notation (see Figures 14 and 15). The rhythmic symbols
however, are either ignored, or, at the very most, used only as a broad guide to the
durations of the notes of the piece, particularly in Chikuho ryû (Lee 1991:32).

It can be said that every note in each performance of any honkyoku has a single,
specific temporal value, from which the performer tries not to deviate. This can be
illustrated by two concerns of the honkyoku performer. With the first concern, the
student of honkyoku is expected to imitate the teacher’s performance of the piece in
every way, including rhythm. During the lesson the advanced student ideally becomes
able to anticipate the teacher’s every breath, length of note, and musical nuance,
becoming “one” with the teacher in a deeper, more metaphysical sense than is implied
by the typical usage of the word “unison” when describing a performance.
Furthermore, the student typically does not have the liberty to determine the durations
of notes and pauses when playing the piece for the teacher during the lesson, striving
instead to reconstruct or imitate the durations of the teacher’s performance.

The rhythmic restriction at this level is only present during the course of a student
learning from the teacher. As mentioned previously, the performance of honkyoku can
transcend strict memorization and repetition of the example provided by the teacher.
Implicit in the term honnin no kyoku is a performance as unique and non-imitative as
the performer himself. The rhythmic determinancy experienced by the student during

170
the process of learning in the context of a lesson does not exist for a performer who
has made that piece “his own”.

There is, however, a second inclination towards rhythmic determinancy besides that
seen in the imitative performance of the student. Contrary to the sense of volition
implied in the expression “free rhythm” is the term zettai no ma (絶対の間, ‘absolute
timing’) 77, used by Yokoyama to express this level of rhythmic restriction. This
concept is so important for Yokoyama as to warrant an entire chapter in his book
Shakuhachi gaku no miryoku 尺八楽の魅力 (‘The Fascination of the
Shakuhachi’ 1985:217-225).

For Yokoyama, “absolute timing” means giving each note, pause, ornament, attack,
i.e., every musical event in honkyoku performance its one, single, correct temporal
value. That single right temporal value is determined precisely by the events leading
to and following the note, pause, etc., in question. Therefore, to be able to play
honkyoku with “absolute timing” requires extreme, almost instinctual reflexes and
sensitivity. Above all, it requires the performer’s consciousness to be completely
focused on the very instant of the the present moment while performing.

Yokoyama uses an analogy of the samurai or swordsman of the Japanese warrior

class to elaborate on the concept of zettai no ma. The analogy is appropriate because
during the Edo period all komusô, who were the only persons legally allowed to play
shakuhachi, had to be of samurai birth. Thus, technically, until the end of the 19th
century, all shakuhachi players were samurai, even though in reality from at least the
18th century there were common townspeople or chônin (町人) playing the
instrument (see pp.139-149). Yokoyama describes the idealized samurai as having to
stake his very life on his ability to perform (with sword rather than shakuhachi) with
zettai no ma. In a sword fight, the person who did not perform with “absolute timing”
lost the fight and frequently his life.

The sword-fighter analogy is only one example showing the extraordinary immediacy
and heightened awareness of “absolute timing”. A more contemporary example of
this might be the experience of a high-speed racing car driver. One’s usual sense of
time is suspended with the single-mindedness of the moment; everything is in “slow-
motion”. One’s actions become gracefully “perfect” and seemingly automatic, with
little element of self-consciousness. Together with this heightened awareness is a
calmness resulting from the absolute acceptance of the inevitable outcome.

Yokoyama points out that the word ma (間), in the expression zettai no ma, is used in
many expressions and set phrases in the Japanese language, and denotes space as well
as time. Zettai no ma thus means ‘absolute space’ or ‘absolute interval’ as well as
‘absolute timing’. The samurai also had to judge absolutely the distance or spacing
between one’s sword and that of one’s opponent. Likewise, the honkyoku player must
create the exact appropriate spaces or pauses between phrases or notes when these
occur. The importance of space or ma is not unique to shakuhachi honkyoku, but is
77
Nakatsuka (1979:377) uses a similar term, zettai ongaku (絶対音楽, ‘absolute music’) to
distinguish honkyoku from “ordinary worldly music”.

171
evident in much of Japanese culture, from large amounts of blank space in brush
painting or long pauses during which the actors do not move in Noh drama, to large
areas of raked pebbles in traditional gardens devoid of plants and long moments of
silence during which actors in many Japanese films do not speak. The notion of ma is
one of the most pervasive and important concepts of Japanese art.

Because the phrase is the single most important divisive unit in honkyoku, the pauses
between phrases are particularly important. Breaths are taken only during these
pauses, so that every phrase is only one breath’s length. In most music for wind
instruments employing temporal values derived from a basic unit, the timing of the
performer’s breathing is determined by the melody. Ideally, one inhales where there
are rests in the music, but frequently one is forced to inhale in the most appropriate
places in the music, and in the time there is between the notes at those places. The
player must learn to snatch breaths as quickly as possible in those cases. At times the
breathing is automatic, with the performer’s consciousness completely on the
“music”, the sound as well as the beat.

In contrast, the timing of the breaths in honkyoku are not subservient to the sound
element of the music. All phrases in koten honkyoku must be performed in a single
breath. The breathing always occurs between the phrases. As there is no set rhythmic
pulse or beat to adhere to, the breaths between each phrase need not fit within a set
space or time. In fact, the time allowed for taking any given breath is in a sense
predetermined by the preceding and subsequent phrases under the concept of zettai no
ma. But conversely, the phrases themselves are just as predetermined by the breath
taken between them. The breath, the space between the notes, is as important as the
notes themselves in honkyoku. This is all the more true because the process of
performing honkyoku is more important than the product. Breathing in the air needed
to play a phrase is as much part of the process of performing as producing the sounds
that make up the phrase. As will be shown in the analysis of “Reibo”, variations in
the placement and number of phrases accur among all ten transcribed performances.
Variations in phrasing are found even between the performances most similar in other
respects, those by Jin and Sakai (see p.386).

Zettai no ma is not a single, rigid ideal, a one “True” and unchanging way of
performing honkyoku. Instead, it is a fluid ideal, differing with each performance.
There may be one single right timing for every single event in any given performance.
But the “absolute timing” of any single event in honkyoku performance is determined
by what has occurred prior to and what will occur following the event. Since these
elements differ to a certain degree with every performer and performance, the
“absolute timing” that is determined by them will differ as well. Because of the
interconnection between all of the events in honkyoku performance, it follows that
how the performer takes his initial breath immediately prior to playing the very first
note of the piece determines the “absolute timing” of the entire performance,
including, for example, the length of the very last note of the piece. Zettai no ma is
absolute, but only for one performer accomplishing a single performance at a specific
time.

Herein lies the reconciliation between the two concepts honnin no kyoku with its
implication of individuality, and zettai no ma and its seemingly contrasting concept of
the “absolute”. In fact, only by making honkyoku “his own” for that particular

172
performance is it possible for the performer to play with “absolute timing”. Both are
manifestations of enlightened awareness. As Yokoyama (1985:222) rightly points out,
zettai no ma is worthy of even more than a lifetime of practice.

5.6 Ideologies of Transmission

The four elements of transmission discussed above, lineages, lessons, notation, and
performance all address the question of how transmission takes place in the honkyoku
tradition, just as the preceding sections in this chapter addressed the question of what
is being transmitted by looking at concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, theories of
orality, and the relationship between performance and documents. Both the “what”
and the “how” of honkyoku transmission are influenced by and in turn influence each
other. The interaction between these two components can be approached via the
ideologies held by members of the tradition regarding transmission. The following
discussion compares the views of three prominent shakuhachi teachers about
transmission as espoused in verbal and written communications. They are a
representative sample of the full spectrum of beliefs that exists in the honkyoku
tradition. It will be shown that what these teachers believe is being transmitted in
honkyoku affects how they endeavour to accomplish the transmission and that how
they transmit honkyoku affects what is transmitted.

5.6.1 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Sacred Object

The first set of doctrines or way of thinking with regards to the “what” and “how” of
honkyoku transmission views honkyoku as sacred objects that can be defined and
owned, and whose transmission can be physically and psychologically controlled.
This ideology is held by Inoue Shôei (井上照影, ne.Shigeshi 重志, b.1922). Inoue, a
shakuhachi teacher in Tôkyô, claims to be the iemoto (家元, head of a shakuhachi
sect or lineage, usually hereditarily or bureaucratically decided) of the originally
Aomori based Kimpû ryû (錦風流), having inherited the school in 1960 from Narita
Shôei (成田松影). This claim is questionable, as Inoue’s name does not appear in the
lineage charts for Kimpû ryû of either Tukitani (in NOD 1989:46) or Yamaue
(1984:169), nor is he mentioned in a book devoted to Kimpû ryû (Uchiyama 1973).
Kudo (1977:20) does list, however, Inoue as head of Kôun kai (江雲会), a sub-branch
of the famous Kawase lineage of Kinko ryû. This sub-branch of Kinko ryû was
founded by Inoue’s father, Inoue Shigemi (井上重美, 1890-1952). In any case, it is
not as leader of a little known, but independent sub-branch of the Kinko ryû, but
rather as iemoto of the quite famous Kimpû ryû that Inoue would like to be known.

As proof of his authority as iemoto, Inoue possesses a shakuhachi instrument that he

claims is the symbol of authority in Kimpû ryû. Like the cloak given by the Zen
master to the one student who had received transmission of the true Dharma as a
symbol of that transmission—only iemoto of Kimpû ryû could possess the

173
instrument. 78 Inoue claims that he received this particular instrument when he
become iemoto on 22 November 1960.

Inoue believes that his being iemoto of Kimpû ryû means, among other things, that his
performance of the Kimpû pieces are the most correct of any shakuhachi player, that
is, that his performances are the least altered and closest to the performances of the
founder of the lineage, Nyui Getsue (乳井月影). Furthermore, as iemoto, Inoue
believes he has a responsibility to preserve the Kimpû repertoire by transmitting it
with as little change as possible. One of the ways available to him to accomplish this
is being able to choose his successor. The student who will become the next iemoto of
Kimpû ryû is, according to Inoue the one who can perform the pieces of the school
with what Inoue perceives to be as little variation and change as possible.

Consistent with the high value Inoue placed on his authority as iemoto, and on the
unchanged purity that he claimed his performance had, was his low opinion of other
performers of shakuhachi honkyoku. In Inoue’s opinion, almost all of the well-known
shakuhachi players, both living and dead, either were not recipients of the honkyoku
tradition, or if they had in fact received the honkyoku tradition, did not faithfully
transmit the tradition as they had received it. They did not know how to perform
honkyoku in the “true spirit” of the tradition, even if they were technically very
proficient. In fact their technical proficiency more often than not made it more
difficult for them to perform honkyoku correctly. Inoue also told this non-Japanese
author that gaijin (pejorative term for non-Japanese) could never really learn to play
honkyoku because they were not Japanese and did not have the heart or spirit (kokoro
心) of the Japanese, which was essential if one were to perform honkyoku correctly.

Although Inoue and his lineage is not the subject of this thesis, a comparative analysis
of transcriptions of honkyoku performances of Inoue’s teacher, Inoue himself, and his
students would most likely show far less variation and change than can be seen in
other lineages where “purity” of honkyoku performance is not such an important issue
(see the analysis of such lineages in Chapter 6). At the same time, it is probable that
far more variation and change has occurred in Inoue’s lineage than he would like to
admit.

For Inoue, the possession of the heirloom shakuhachi instrument as an “unchanging”

material object of transmission, is both necessary for and perfectly suited to his
concept of honkyoku and how honkyoku should be transmitted. The instrument
symbolizes both the successful transmission of the honkyoku repertoire from his
predecessor to himself, as well as the authority and responsibility he has as iemoto to
define and preserve the authenticity of that repertoire. But more than that, the
instrument, a concrete physical object, symbolizes the nature of his repertoire as well.

In Inoue’s mind, honkyoku appears to be an unchanging object which, like the

bamboo instrument, has an existence independent of himself and his students.
Because of this, Inoue may view his task as trying to preserve his repertoire of
unchanging honkyoku, just as he must preserve the old bamboo flute. The process of

78
Inoue appears to ignore the entire Zen story about the cloak, which makes clear that both
the Dharma and its transmission have nothing to do with the cloak (see Aitken 1990:147-
154).

174
transmitting his repertoire would to him be equivalent to the act of transmitting the
shakuhachi instrument itself. For Inoue, his repertoire is an object being passed or
transmitted from himself to his students in a manner that presupposes the repertoire
having some sort of existence independent of himself and his students.

He also believes that he is capable of transmitting the repertoire with completely

transparent communication.

Inoue (n.d.:194) has written that having inherited Kimpû ryû from Narita Shôei, the
two discussed many things concerning the sect. Two of the most important issues
discussed, according to Inoue were: 1) the use of shakuhachi instruments that are two
shaku in length when performing Kimpû pieces; and 2) that all heirs to the position of
head of the Kimpû school use the character 影 (ei) in their name.

Finally, just as there is only the one heirloom shakuhachi invested with the authority
of iemoto, there also can only be a single “right” way to perform honkyoku. Thus,
there is some logic in Inoue believing that just as he is the only shakuhachi player to
possess the heirloom shakuhachi, he is likewise the only shakuhachi player who can
perform correctly the honkyoku of his lineage. Having convinced himself of that, it is
a small mental step to the belief that not only can the honkyoku repertoire of his
lineage be performed correctly by himself alone, but also that only he himself can
truly perform honkyoku of any lineage correctly.

5.6.2 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Music

Another ideological position within the shakuhachi tradition regarding the

transmission of honkyoku is held by Aoki Reibo II. Aoki Reibo is head of Reibo kai
(鈴慕会, ‘Reibo Society’), a sub-school of Kinko ryû, which descended from Kawase
Junsuke I, and therefore is of the same lineage as Inoue; the fathers of both Aoki and
Inoue were students of Junsuke I. There are a number of major differences between
Aoki and Inoue and their ways of thinking.

Aoki’s organization, Reibo kai, is similar to Inoue’s Kôun kai, being an independent
lineage within Kinko ryû. Its administration and finances are completely separate
from other organizations classed under the umbrella term, Kinko ryû. Thus, Aoki
Reibo, as head of Reibo kai, in effect has the authority of iemoto, like that claimed by
Inoue. Despite this Aoki is quick to state that he is not iemoto and in fact is against the
whole iemoto system. What Aoki means by this can be seen in the way his concept of
authority differs from Inoue’s.

Aoki believes that performers of shakuhachi honkyoku have no more claim to

spirituality than any other musicians who perform in public. In his opinion, many
shakuhachi performers who stress the connection between honkyoku and Zen
Buddhism are little more than spiritual charlatans. 79

79
Aoki was quite adamant in expressing these opinions during his interview with me. One
reason for his doing so may have been my having unfortunately begun the interview by

175
What Inoue and Aoki have in common are their ideas about their authority as a
teacher and transmitter of honkyoku. As with Inoue, Aoki believes that his students
must perform honkyoku exactly as he teaches them. Aoki thus considers himself to be
the absolute authority on honkyoku in his lineage. His students must accept this
authority unconditionally without question. Aoki does not see the ultimate basis for
his absolute authority as something outside himself, which had been invested in him
by someone else, as in the case of Inoue and his heirloom shakuhachi. Aoki has no
need for such symbols.

The reason Aoki demands complete authority over his students and the manner in
which they perform honkyoku is, in his own words, because none of his students has
ever even vaguely approached his ability and virtuosity as a shakuhachi performer,
and none are likely to do so. Theoretically, if a student were to become truly better
than Aoki, then the latter’s authority would no longer be valid over that student. In
Aoki’s opinion, it is highly unlikely that such a student might materialize in the
future. Because it is Aoki’s own subjective judgment that determines who is “better”
than whom, he is probably right.

Unlike Inoue’s authority, which is absolute until such time as he decides to bestow it
onto his successor, Aoki’s authority is limited by his own level of performance, and
may be challenged at any time. Thus, for Aoki, honkyoku is not perceived as an
unchanging, sacrosanct “object” that should not be modified or reinterpreted, and it is
not the responsibility of the iemoto to transmit it in its purest “original” form. Instead
and in contrast with Inoue, Aoki believes that honkyoku, as transmitted by his lineage,
is a repertoire of music that might indeed change over time, depending upon the
interpretation of the “best” performer, that is, the one in the position of authority.

Such changes cannot, however, be made by just any performer. A performer may
interpret honkyoku in his own way only if he has the authority to do so by virtue of his
superior level of performing ability. Otherwise, shakuhachi players in Aoki’s lineage
must perform honkyoku exactly as they were taught the piece.

It is interesting to note that Aoki had no desire to discuss the seeming inevitability of
appointing a successor to his position of authority prior to his own retirement, nor the
process in which such an appointment might take place. It is possible that Aoki could
refuse to relinquish his authority to anyone. If that were to happen, the students of
Aoki might codify his performances into inviolate “objects” invested with their own
authority, which would then be transmitted in the same manner and context as the
honkyoku repertoire of Inoue.

It should be noted that Aoki, and his teacher and father, Aoki Reibo I, operated almost
entirely within the context of Kinko ryû. Though administrating their own
independent organization within Kinko ryû, all of their classical honkyoku but for a
few exceptions, are from the Kinko lineage. The Kinko honkyoku repertoire, which
numbers thirty-nine pieces in all, has for the most part been codified since the time of
Kinko I in the 18th century, earlier than that of any other existing lineage (Tukitani et
al. 1991:34). Inoue’s lineage, Kimpû ryû, although completely separate from any and

stating that the topic of my thesis was in part the connection between classical honkyoku and
Zen Buddhism.

176
all independent sub-schools of Kinko ryû, traces itself back to Kurihara Kimpû
(栗原錦風), a high ranking member of the Kinko lineage during the mid-1700s
(Inoue n.d.:194), and thus shares much in common with such organizations as Aoki’s
Reibo kai.

Kinko honkyoku in Kinko notation are generally far more detailed and precise in
performance prescription than are non-Kinko honkyoku scores used by shakuhachi
players who are not associated with Kinko ryû. Furthermore, notation appears to have
been used in the transmission of Kinko honkyoku since at least the early 1800s (HHJ
1984:1106; NOD 1989:332; Syakuhati Kenkyûkai 1990:5), while the Reibo pieces of
the Ôshû lineage, for example, were transmitted without the use of notation at least
until the 1940s (Yamaue 1986:8). 80 Thus, Tukitani can assert that the Kinko ryû piece
“Kokû reibo” has been transmitted relatively unchanged since Kinko I codified it in
the 18th century (Tukitani et al. 1991:34). Any modification or reinterpretation of
Kinko honkyoku that Aoki or his successor might undertake would tend to be minor if
compared with the variation and change that can be seen in honkyoku that have been
transmitted outside the Kinko tradition.

5.6.3 The Ideology of Honkyoku as Transcending “Object” and “Music”

As stated above, the ideologies of the above two shakuhachi players suggest relatively
little variation and change during the process of transmission within their lineage,
although there is no conclusive data to support this, as neither of the two lineages is
represented in the analysis. The shakuhachi players whose performances are analyzed
in Chapter 6 81 appear to share, in varying degrees, a third way of viewing the
transmission of honkyoku. The ideology held by these performers can be seen in their
beliefs and actions, especially those of Yokoyama and Watazumi.

Both Uramoto Setchô and Jin Nyôdo are representative of the era of shakuhachi
players before bureaucratic organizations such as those of Inoue and Aoki became as
pervasive as they are in Japan today. Both players learned pieces from a number of
teachers, though Uramoto (1985:10) primarliy credits Konashi Kinsui as his teacher.
The multifarious influences of their numerous teachers may help to explain the
variation between their performances of “Futaiken reibo”, even though, according to
the genealogy chart, they both learned the piece from Konashi (see pp.398-403).
Uramoto did not create an organized shakuhachi lineage such as those of Inoue and
Aoki, although one can argue that an unorganized lineage of his honkyoku
performance continues to exist through his numerous students. Uramoto has
expressed his belief in the unlimited nature of honkyoku in a way that would seem
incompatible with both Inoue’s ideology of honkyoku as object and Aoki’s ideology
of honkyoku as music (see pp.288-295).

80
The transmission of “Reibo” having taken place without notation until the 1940s has
profound implications for the types and the degree of variation found between performances
of the piece. The analysis presented in Chapter 6 will show a number of prominent features of
the “Reibo” performances which are characteristic of music transmitted orally.
81
These are Uramoto Setchô, Jin Nyodô, Sakai Chikuho, Watazumi dôsô, Yokoyama
Katsuya, and Iwamoto Yoshikazu.

177
Jin’s lineage likewise exists largely outside of any single organization, though his son,
Jin Nyosei (神如正) is head of his official organization. For example, much of Jin’s
honkyoku, which was learned from many individuals, was transmitted and continues
to be performed by members of the organizations of Kurahashi (in Kyôto) (see p.10)
and Sakai. His ideas concerning honkyoku clearly had elements of spirituality as
transmitted by komusô of previous generations (see Jin 1980).

An indirect recipient of Jin’s honkyoku is Sakai Chikuho II. Though Chikuho II

inherited the title of iemoto of Chikuho ryû from his father, the manner in which he
received his honkyoku and his ideas regarding honkyoku transmission differ
considerably from those of Inoue and Aoki. His initial and primary teacher was his
father, Chikuho I, but he learned many honkyoku in his repertoire from other teachers
such as Moriyasu, one of Jin’s students. Sakai learned both “Futaiken reibo” and
“Shôganken reibo” from Moriyasu.

Sakai considered his performance of honkyoku repertoire as only one of many

manifestations of the pieces, and in most cases was open to discussion of how certain
pieces had been transmitted through certain people before becoming Chikuho pieces.
Unlike both Inoue and Aoki, he had no objections to his students going off to study
with shakuhachi performers of different lineages. It appears that he attempted to
consciously imbue his honkyoku performances with a quality uniquely characteristic
of Chikuho ryû, so much so that his brother Shôdô later publicly rejected his
interpretations and scores as being unauthentic (see p.241). In spite of Chikuho’s
attempts to make his honkyoku unique and of Shôdô’s subsequent objections, the
degree of similarity between the “Reibo” performances of Jin and Sakai is among the
highest among the ten performances analyzed (see pp.385-387), even though Sakai
was one generation removed from Jin.

Yokoyama Katsuya is the head and founder of his own shakuhachi organization,
Chikushin kai (竹心会, ‘The Society of the Spirit of Bamboo’). Unlike Inoue and
Aoki, Yokoyama has no claim to leadership of a lineage directly descending from a
major recipient of Kurosawa Kinko’s transmission of his honkyoku repertoire,
although both his father and grandfather were fairly high ranking shakuhachi
teachers. His father was also a highly acclaimed maker of shakuhachi.

As with Aoki, Yokoyama is a noted performer both in Japan and overseas, claiming
to have performed in more foreign countries and on more occasions abroad than any
other shakuhachi player in history. He also has made many recordings, especially of
honkyoku. Unlike both Inoue and Aoki, three persons are publicly known to have
been his shakuhachi teachers. 82 Furthermore, the three teachers represent completely
different lineages. In the light of what has been observed regarding the effects lineage
has on the transmission of elements of honkyoku such as pitch and rhythm (see above,
pp.271-287), this has surely influenced the nature of Yokoyama’s performance. The
relationship between lineage and performance will be demonstrated repeatedly in
the analysis (pp.376-418).

82
There is strong evidence that Aoki has learned at least one honkyoku from persons other
than his publically acknowledged teacher, his father Aoki Reibo I, but he does not publicly
admit to this (p.194).

178
Yokoyama’s father, Yokoyama Rampo (横山蘭畝), belonged to the Kinko style of
shakuhachi playing. Yokoyama’s second teacher, Fukuda Randô (福田蘭童), a
composer of music for shakuhachi and other instruments, played in the Azuma ryû
style. Finally, Watazumi dôso (海童道祖) performs honkyoku originating from many
different lineages but in his own unique style. As was seen in cases of Uramoto and
Jin, the numerous sources of formal transmission represented in Yokoyama’s playing
reflect the transmission practices of the 19th century and earlier, when wandering
komusô would teach and learn honkyoku to and from numerous other komusô from
various districts throughout Japan. It will be shown in the analysis (Chapter 6) that
these transmission practices continue to be reflected in the tradition by the
multifarious variations between performances.

It is therefore not surprising that Yokoyama is eclectic in his view of honkyoku, and
the manner in which it should be transmitted. Yokoyama believes that honkyoku
constantly change as they are transmitted from one generation to the next. He has told
me during lessons what he says is an old Japanese adage: that the art of the student is
usually fifty percent of that of his teacher, with the other fifty percent presumed to be
lost in the transmission. While this may reflect reality in many if not most cases,
Yokoyama points out that if this were true all of the time, the tradition would soon die
out, which has not happened with many traditional arts, including that of shakuhachi
honkyoku. That these arts still flourish indicates that sometimes at least one hundred
percent of the tradition is transmitted. But even that would not be enough for an art to
survive, if so much is usually lost with each transmission between generations.

Yokoyama therefore believes that periodically, one hundred and fifty percent or even
two and three hundred percent of the traditional art is transmitted from teacher to
student. In other words, occasionally a student will far surpass the art of his teacher,
elevating the art to a level much higher than the teacher had achieved, and possibly
even higher than had been achieved in many generations.

If the transmission of honkyoku were portrayed on a graph with the horizontal axis
being transmissions over numerous generations and the vertical axis showing the level
of the art, then Yokoyama believes that the line on the graph would generally be
sloping downward, with occasional sharp jumps of varying degrees upward in such a
way that the overall average level of the art stayed basically the same.

Though Yokoyama does not define what exactly the “level of the art” is regarding
honkyoku, he does state that it cannot be thought of as merely the summation of all of
the individual musical elements such as pitch, timing, tone colour, etc., which are
usually thought of as constituting the pieces, because these individual elements
inevitably change with each transmission. Rather, it includes all of these elements, yet
transcends the sum of these elements. Yokoyama’s concept of the level of the art of
shakuhachi honkyoku may be similar to the indefinable “inner core” or “real essence”
mentioned earlier upon which Hisamatsu urged students of shakuhachi to concentrate.

For Yokoyama, it is not important that his students play honkyoku exactly as he does;
it is in fact impossible for them to do so. What is important is for his students to try to
elevate the level of the art of playing shakuhachi honkyoku above that of their

179
teacher. 83 He believes that his own teacher, Watazumi achieved this, and is himself
striving to do the same. While Aoki acknowledges the possibility of a student
surpassing his own art, Yokoyama actively encourages it. Furthermore, Aoki spoke of
his art only in terms of musicianship, while Yokoyama suggests another dimension to
the honkyoku tradition, which is indefinable and inexplicable.

In contrast to both Inoue and Aoki, Yokoyama believes that in the case of shakuhachi
honkyoku, authority rests ultimately with each individual player. Yokoyama does not
think of honkyoku as something that can be owned. Likewise, neither he nor anyone
can have the authority to determine authenticity. In fact, for Yokoyama, neither
authority nor authenticity is an issue when performing and transmitting honkyoku.
With Yokoyama, there is no object of authority, such as Inoue’s heirloom shakuhachi
instrument, and no demands upon his students to imitate his performances exactly, as
is the case with both Inoue and Aoki.

Of the twenty or thirty pieces that he learned from Watazumi, Yokoyama claims to
have deliberately changed only one piece. Watazumi played the piece Tamuke in a
very light and lively manner, as a min’yô (folksong) might be played. Yokoyama
could not bring himself to play it that way, and so changed his way of playing it to a
slow, solemn tempo and style. Yokoyama did not purposely change the way of
performing any of the other pieces taught him by Watazumi, but says that changes
have occurred nonetheless. According to Yokoyama, the reason for these changes is
because Yokoyama did not have the capability to perform the pieces as Watazumi
played them.

To aid in the formidable task of transmitting honkyoku, Yokoyama uses scores of

traditional notation as one tool of transmission. In contrast to most shakuhachi
teachers, Yokoyama does not offer neatly written and published scores of honkyoku
he teaches. His teacher Watazumi used an extremely skeletal form of the fu ho u
(フホウ) notation system. Because in most cases Yokoyama’s students would find it
took too long to learn the fu ho u system, most of the scores used are written in Kinko
notation, and are more descriptive than the bare bones of Watazumi’s scores.

Yokoyama does not publish scores because of the impossibility of creating a finished
score to his satisfaction. Scores can only be “memos” of honkyoku itself. Over the
past twenty years or so, he has continually revised the scores of honkyoku in his
repertoire. The revision takes on a cyclical form. First more detail is added to describe
the piece. Then, realizing that the added detail does not accurately represent the piece
either, the score is simplified again. The process continues even today, though usually
it is his students who try their hand at notating a piece. In this respect, Yokoyama
concurs with Uramoto’s opinion that too much emphasis placed on notation will
inevitably limit honkyoku (see p.225).

For Yokoyama, the issue of succession, apparently so prominent in the minds of both
Inoue and Aoki, does not even arise. It is as if there is really nothing to succeed to in
Yokoyama’s mind. There are only honkyoku to transmit, however imperfectly or
perfectly. The honkyoku as transmitted by Yokoyama experience constant outward

83
One of Yokoyama’s teachers, Watazumi, takes this concept much further, by completely
repudiating the notion that he ever had a teacher. See below, p.302.

180
change, whether by will or unconsciously, by genius or by inadequacy.
Simultaneously, the essence of honkyoku as transmitted by Yokoyama transcends the
change to which objects or music are subject.

The fifth performer represented in the analysis of “Reibo”, Iwamoto Yoshikazu, is

one of Yokoyama’s early students. He was one of Yokoyama’s first students to
become a professional shakuhachi player, and has spent much of his career in
England. His self-imposed separation from his teacher and the shakuhachi tradition
would indicate a disregard for issues such as succession and lineage. It will be shown
in the analysis that Iwamoto’s performance of “Reibo” reflects his isolation in
England in its relationship to both Yokoyama’s and Watazumi’s performances (see
p.396).

The sixth and final shakuhachi player represented in the following analysis of ten
performances of “Reibo” is one of Yokoyama’s teachers, Watazumi dôsô.
Watazumi’s ideology, though related to those of the other five performers represented
in the analysis, is the most exceptional. It will be shown in the analyses that
Watazumi’s singular ideology is manifestly evident in his performance of “Reibo”,
which is the most dissimilar among the ten performances.

In contrast to Inoue and Aoki, Watazumi does not acknowledge belonging to any
lineage. Furthermore, unlike any of the above-mentioned performers, including
Yokoyama, Watazumi does not even acknowledge any individual as his teacher, as
the original source of his honkyoku repertoire or his performance practices and
techniques. This is so even though it is common knowledge, according to Yokoyama,
that he did learn pieces from such noted players as Uramoto Setcho.

Yokoyama conjectures that Watazumi claims to have had no teacher because he feels
that compared with what Watazumi himself added to the performance of his pieces,
what he may have learned initially from others is so trivial as to not warrant
acknowledgment. 84 Watazumi deals with the problem of authenticity in his usual
inimitable fashion by declaring that he has no teachers and no lineage and therefore
no problem of authenticity (Yokoyama 1989a). In this assertion may be found the
explanation of Watazumi calling what appears to be a close variant of Jin’s
“Shôganken reibo” by the unique name “Furin” (see p.417).

Watazumi pursues this third ideology of transmission much farther than Yokoyama.
Unlike Yokoyama, who calls his instrument shakuhachi and the pieces he plays koten
honkyoku, Watazumi goes so far in repudiating the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition as
to say that he does not play an instrument called shakuhachi. Rather he plays hochiku
(法竹, ‘dharma bamboo’). The pieces he performs are not honkyoku, but dôkyoku
(道曲, ‘pieces of the Way’).

Watazumi’s actions and motivations may be partially explained by a quote by a

member of a tradition far more conservative than the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition,
that of Nô drama. The highly respected Nô actor Kanze Hideo has said:

84
See pp.317-318 for another explanation for Watazumi’s repudiation of his teachers.

181
 In Noh, it is considered crucially important to preserve tradition.... In my
opinion nothing happens unless you are creating new things.....I don’t believe
tradition is something you preserve. If Noh has a tradition at all, it is the
tradition of life through the ages. I’ll be damned if I’m going to devote myself
to protecting somebody else’s mouldy...notion of what Noh was centuries ago.

(In ‘Noh, Business and Art’, “The Drama Review”, Spring 1981)

Like Yokoyama and in extreme contrast to Inoue and Aoki, the issue of succession
does not exist for Watazumi. Watazumi, according to Yokoyama, is one of those
players who, every several hundred years or so, comes forth to elevate the honkyoku
tradition to such a high degree compared with those players who lived during or
immediately prior to his time that he might be considered to have completely renewed
the tradition, if not having created it anew. Watazumi would most likely object to
Yokoyama’s description, since he does not consider himself a member of the
honkyoku tradition and there is in any case, nothing to elevate or renew. In contrast to
Yokoyama, it is reasonable to imagine that Watazumi might assert that, as there is no
honkyoku, there is no “essence” of honkyoku, and nothing to transmit, much less to
change during transmission.

182
 CHAPTER 6
AN ANALYSIS OF SHAKUHACHI HONKYOKU
One of the intentions of this thesis is to find ways of looking at the transmission of the
honkyoku tradition that are valid from a musicological perspective as well as being in
tune with the tradition in an “emic” sense, that is, in a way that is tradition-based.
With this in mind, issues concerning the transmission of the honkyoku “Reibo” of the
Ôshû lineage are examined through the simultaneous application of two analytical
methods to transcriptions of recordings of ten performances.

The first method is as follows: detailed transcriptions are made of ten performances of
pieces that oral histories and genealogies suggest are versions of the piece “Reibo”;
an orthographically simplified transcription is made so that the melodic contour of
one performance can be compared with melodic contours of the other performances.
It will be demonstrated from these comparisons that the pieces chosen for analysis are
indeed versions of the same piece. It will also be shown that the lines of transmission
of the pieces indicated by sources such as oral histories and genealogies are confirmed
by the patterns of similarities and differences that arise from the comparison. At this
stage, the formal structures and melodic formulae of honkyoku become observable.
This method, which relies upon musicological analytical, or “etic” concepts for its
departure point can only be successful if achieved nonetheless through a tradition-
based approach.

The second method of inquiry used in this thesis is completely different from the first
in that it draws upon traditional ways of analyzing honkyoku. It was conceived by
observing how people within the tradition talk and write about honkyoku in an
analytical way, in particular during lessons and in various written accounts. In
contrast to the large scale structures and melodic formulae highlighted by the first
method, this method deals primarily with small and frequently subtle details. Details
of this kind are, to performers of honkyoku, the major issue discussed in the course of
transmission; an examination of such details in performances of the “Reibo” pieces
contributes insights into how insiders to the tradition view the music, and show what
elements are likely to be or not be transmitted from performer to performer.

Both the fundamentally musicological “etic” approach and the detailed, tradition-
based, more “emic” approach used in this thesis rely largely upon data derived from
the transcriptions of performances of “Reibo” pieces by various performers.
Philosophical and technical problems arising both from the transcription of honkyoku
and from the above two analytical approaches are discussed below.

6.1 Musicological Approaches to Honkyoku Analysis

In the following discussion, I will distinguish between formal analyses, by which I

mean analyses that use musicological methods and look primarily at the form or
structure of the music, and informal analyses, by which I mean analyses that use
traditional methods to examine detailed features of the music that most concern the

183
members of the tradition. I will first deal with formal analyses, and then discuss
informal analyses.

Among the limited number of transcriptions and formal analyses of honkyoku—as

distinct from the informal process-oriented analyses made by members of the tradition
and described below—that exist in the literature, the overwhelming majority are by
non-Japanese scholars in sources written in languages other than Japanese. To my
knowledge, Tukitani is the only musicologist writing in Japanese to have extensively
transcribed honkyoku pieces, though most of these transcriptions remain
unpublished. 85 She has also used data from transcriptions in analyzing large-scale
structures of honkyoku and examining hierarchies of pitches as related to theoretical
scales. 86 Since the mid-1970s, however, Tukitani’s attention has shifted from
transcription-based formal analysis of honkyoku, to other issues such as genealogies
of performers and lineages of pieces. This appears to indicate a shift of interest from
the study of structural elements of the music itself to aspects of transmission of more
concern to the honkyoku tradition. There are no other examples, to my knowledge of
transcriptions of honkyoku performances being made or used as data for analysis by
and for members of the honkyoku tradition.

One reason for the relative lack of interest on the part of shakuhachi performers in
formal analysis of the honkyoku is the emphasis placed upon the “process” or act of
performance in the present moment. If one’s attention is constantly focused on the
here and now of performing a piece, formal structures become relatively unimportant.
Thus large scale structural forms are of little interest to honkyoku performers.

Marett (1992) has suggested an analogy to this in Zen practice. The chanting of sutras
are an integral part of Zen practice. These sutras have semantic structure; their words
are profoundly meaningful. Yet during the rhythmical chanting of the Heart Sutra
during a week long sesshin or retreat for example, the consciousness of the chanter
tends to focus down to the level of each individual syllable of the chant. The syntax of
the sentences and even the meanings of the words in the sutra may on that level, be
lost in a way similar to what happens to formal structure in the mind of a honkyoku
player during performance.

Another example of emphasizing the present moment can be seen in the Zen practice
of breath counting during zazen (座禅, ‘seated meditation’). Breath counting is the
practice of counting “one” for the inhalation, “two” for the exhalation, “three” for the
next inhalation, etc., until reaching “ten” on the exhalation. The subsequent inhalation
is then counted as “one” again and the entire process repeated. In breath counting, the
formal structure is clearly the repetition of “1, 2, 3, 4...10”. But as Aitken (1982:11,
24) explains, “you must devote all your attention just to ‘one’, just to ‘two’.... Become
each point, each number in the sequence of counting. You and the count and the
breath are all of a piece in this moment. Invest yourself in each number. There is only
‘one’ in the whole universe, only ‘two’ in the whole universe, just that single point”.

85
In 1989, when I asked about transcriptions of honkyoku, Tukitani showed me several
binders full of transcriptions that she had done during her university days, under the tutelage
of the late Koizumi Fumio. Though Tukitani appears to use data derived from these
transcriptions, she has rarely discussed or included transcriptions in her recent publications.
86
For a more detailed discussion of Tukitani’s work, see below (pp.316-319).

184
The formal structure of breath counting falls into the background, evaporating into a
universe of “just ‘one’, just ‘two’”.

This is not to imply that in traditional honkyoku, structures cannot be perceived.

Contrary to Gutzwiller’s insistence that “it is extremely difficult to observe higher
order formal structure in the pieces of honkyoku” (Gutzwiller and Bennett 1991:58),
there are a number of honkyoku with readily observable formal structure. A prime
example of this is the piece “Kyorei” (虚鈴, ‘Empty Bell’) as transmitted through the
Myôan and Chikuho lineages. The overall structure of the piece, as indicated by an
analysis of the score, is A - A', with A' being a slight variation of A, but played in the
upper octave. Both A and A' have a musical contour which starts on the pitch G
(when played on a 1.8 shaku instrument), climaxes on the pitch D above the starting
pitch G, and ends on the pitch D below the starting pitch G. Figure 16 presents the
score of “Kyorei” as transmitted in Chikuho ryû, transnotated from the traditional
shakuhachi notation into staff notation and annotated to show the structures discussed
above. Examples of other honkyoku which exhibit easily recognizable structural forms
include “San’an” (産安, ‘Safe Delivery’), and the Myôan version “Honte chôshi”
(本手調子, ‘Original Fingering Searching’). 87

There is also in honkyoku a process of structuring through patterned repetition of

particular techniques. For example, in the piece “Ajikan” (阿字観, ‘Seeing the Letter
“Ah”’), the process of performing a number of yuri techniques (various playing
techniques which produce a variety of pitch oscillations) is repeated throughout the
piece. The yuri technique is thus a defining and unifying feature of the piece. The
final phrase of the piece is sometimes played with an extended yuri technique,
completing the unifying process. As will be shown below, formal structure can also
be observed in the Ôshû family of “Reibo” pieces (see pp.360-365).

Despite the existence of formal structures in honkyoku, however, they are nonetheless
given little attention by members of the tradition. Gutzwiller is accurate in stating that
“In Japanese traditional music the essence of music is not an abstract structure whose
beauty could be understood even without playing the music at all, but it is the
performance, the way music is played” (1974:88), and that “We may therefore expect
that ‘structure’ occupies a different place in the mind of a Japanese musician than it
does in the case of his Western counterpart” (1974:87).

This should not be taken to mean that structure has no place at all in the Japanese
musician’s mind, or that formal structure cannot be observed in honkyoku beyond the
individual phrases (Gutzwiller 1974:128). Gutzwiller (1974:130) is inaccurate in
concluding that “vagueness and indeterminancy form the key factor in the
construction [my emphasis] of honkyoku”. Formal structures exist and are frequently
labelled in traditional honkyoku scores. These named sections will be the starting
point of reference from which the comparative analysis of the “Reibo” pieces in this
thesis will begin.

87
The Watazumi version of “San’an” has the overall form AA'BB'C. The Myôan version of
“Honte chôshi” has the overall structure of AA'B.

185
6.1.1 Transcribing Honkyoku

From the above, it is reasonable to conclude that traditionally based methods are
unlikely to be useful in detecting many of the kinds of formal structures that might
exist in honkyoku. If one desires to examine them in any detail (a desire that is not
found within the tradition), one must rely on musicologically (rather than
traditionally) inspired analytical methods, such as the isolation and subsequent
comparison of melodic contours. Although musicologically based methods can be
problematic in their dependence upon either transcriptions of performances or
transnotations of traditional shakuhachi scores into staff notation, it is not necessary
to go as far as at least two western musicologists, Gutzwiller (1974:138) and Stanfield
(1977:190), who conclude that transcriptions of honkyoku are impossible. It will be
argued that as long as due regard is given to the aesthetic parameters of the honkyoku
tradition, transcriptions can contribute to a valid understanding of transmission. I will
begin by summarizing the arguments against transcription of honkyoku and then
present counter arguments.

Gutzwiller has consistently avoided transcriptions of honkyoku because of

philosophical considerations and what he sees as technical difficulties. According to
Gutzwiller (1974:138-142), since the tradition maintains that the process of
performing honkyoku cannot be separated from the product (i.e., the resultant musical
sound), an understanding of any sort of product or “form” in honkyoku can only exist
in the process of performing. This being the case, meaningful transcriptions, which
are possible only if the result is separated from its process, are a violation of the
central aesthetic of honkyoku. Gutzwiller (1974:134) calls the central aesthetic
fukikata (吹き方, ‘way of playing’), which “comprises [of] technique and its result”.
Analyses of transcriptions are consequently considered worthless by Gutzwiller.
Furthermore, leaving aside the question of process and form, Gutzwiller (1974:138-
142) argues that the precision of Western staff notation inevitably distorts the
indeterminacy of honkyoku, both in terms of pitch and rhythm. 88

Though accurate in his assessment of the interrelationship of process and product

within the tradition, Gutzwiller, in concluding that transcriptions of honkyoku using
staff notation violate the spirit of the tradition, risks objectifying, and consequently
distorting the essence of honkyoku just as much as he accuses transcriptions of doing.
Gutzwiller’s statement that “Honkyoku is a non-public music and it will be
understood by exactly as many people as are playing the music” (Gutzwiller
1974:142) is only true in terms of a narrow doctrinaire definition of “understanding”
as the sole prerogative of a performer. For a mature performer, however, there are
many levels of understanding. While the level of understanding one might gain from
an analysis of a transcription of a honkyoku is completely different from the
understanding of a performer during the act of performing, I would argue,
nonetheless, that it is a kind of understanding.

88
Staff notation is even less suited to symbolize timbre, an element of honkyoku at least equal
in importance to pitch and rhythm.

186
Gutzwiller (1974:134-136) equates the Zen kôan (公案), which he defines as “a
problem—usually stated in the form of a question—that has in itself no logical
meaning“, with honkyoku. He argues that if honkyoku is used together with meditation
as “an activity to reach enlightenment” then it must function as a kôan. Aitken
(1990:330), however, defines the word kôan not as a sort of functional tool of
meditative practice, but as “universal particular”. He further elaborates that a kôan is
“a presentation of the harmony of the universal and the particular; 89 a theme of zazen
to be made clear”. Clearly a kôan is not a didactic strategy or tool at all. The same can
be said of honkyoku.

The doctrinaire view of honkyoku held by Gutzwiller early in his career almost twenty
years ago (1974), resembles the view of Zen students who are stuck on the “one
hundred foot pole” and have not stepped off into the “worlds of the Ten Directions”. 90
With a more matured understanding of honkyoku comes the realization of living the
“everyday” or “ordinary mind”, 91 and not trying to hold onto the peak experience of
truth.

The technical difficulties in transcribing honkyoku that Gutzwiller sees as violating

the “way of playing” are equally less of a problem than they are made out to be.
Though the precision of Western staff notation is not ideally suited to represent the
indeterminacy of honkyoku, it is able to represent a single performance of honkyoku.
The performer of honkyoku is faced with infinite possibilities of performance, but
once the performer has chosen and the performance takes place, there is no longer any
indeterminacy, and no problem of representing indeterminacy. What must be
remembered is that a transcription in staff notation of a single honkyoku performance
is just that. It is not honkyoku itself, nor is it a representation of the infinite number of
possible performances of honkyoku.

Transcriptions are analogues, like maps and words. A map cannot be identical with
“the real thing” without becoming “the real thing”, in which case it is no longer a map
but the landscape itself. Yet maps are extremely useful in gaining an understanding of
“the real thing”, for example when negotiating from one location to another.
Likewise, the word “love” is not what it represents, but functions only as an analogue.
As with maps and words, transcriptions can only represent aspects of the recorded
sound (itself already an analogue) of one performance of honkyoku. A single
performance is not honkyoku, but rather only one of an infinite number of
manifestations of honkyoku. A recording of a honkyoku performance is even farther
from the actual honkyoku, in that it cannot reflect the many dimensions of the
performance that are inseparable from the moment of the act of performance (Marett
1992). A transcription of a recording removes one a step further from honkyoku.

89
Though Gutzwiller’s emphasis on “function” misses the point, he is accurate in equating
honkyoku with kôan. There is no better definition of honkyoku than “a presentation of the
harmony of the universal and the particular”.
90
The “hundred foot pole” and the “worlds of the Ten Directions” are referred to in Case 46
in Mumonkan. See Aitken (1990:273-277) for a complete reference to this case.
91
The “ordinary mind” is touched upon in Case 19 of Mumonkan. See Aitken (1990:126-131)
for a complete reference to this case.

187
Nevertheless, when one is clear about what they are, transcriptions, like maps and
words, can be useful in understanding certain aspects of honkyoku.

Stanfield (1977:190)) has adopted the same stance as Gutzwiller on transcribing

honkyoku, stating that “a detailed transcription of any one performance runs counter
to the ‘gestalt’ of the music”. Instead, he attempts to represent “an ideal application of
performance practice details” as taught by his teacher. Ironically, the make-believe
result—a representation of something that has never existed—is even further away
from the reality of honkyoku than transcriptions of recordings of performances that
actually took place. The idealized transcriptions are like maps based upon one’s
idealized memory of the streets of a city rather than upon the city streets themselves.

Contrary to both Gutzwiller’s and Stanfield’s unyielding position, a transcription of

honkyoku in staff notation can be a useful source of data if the limitations (inherent in
any analogue) are always taken into account in deriving conclusions from the data.
Like the image generated by an electron microscope, which is not the object itself, a
transcription of a recording of a single honkyoku performance, though in no way
honkyoku itself, can still be a valuable source of data from which conclusions about
honkyoku can be made.

It is interesting to note that in his most recent article on shakuhachi honkyoku

(Gutzwiller and Bennett 1991:36-59), Gutzwiller presents a computer aided analysis
of the acoustical characteristics of a few honkyoku phrases, which he believes
represent some of the most common tone cells 92 in honkyoku of the Kinko lineage.
The data used in the analysis was generated by actual performances of the phrases, in
this case by Gutzwiller himself. Though Gutzwiller (1974:138) earlier states that
transcriptions of honkyoku are an impossibility, his conclusions in this later article are
based upon the analyses of computer generated images, which are, like transcriptions
in staff notation, analogues of performances of honkyoku.

A parallel paradigm with regards to words (analogues) versus the experience of

realization (honkyoku) exists in the Zen Buddhist tradition. On the one hand, Suzuki
(1966:81) states that “Buddhist faith is not looking outwards but inwards. It denies
any reality in words, in concepts, in language”. It follows that there are many
instances of Zen masters who “sometimes utter a primitive cry or burst out in a
meaningless ejaculation or gesture” (Suzuki 1966:50). Yet Zen literature abounds
with the words of the masters. Twelfth century Zen master Dôgen was especially
prolific in his writings. Kim (1985:58) explains that for Dôgen, “words, like deeds,
have at once limiting and liberating functions, or, as Dôgen himself put it,
‘discriminating thought is words and phrases, and...words and phrases liberate
discriminating thought’”, and “In spite of inherent frailties in their make-up, words
are the bearers of ultimate truth. In this respect, words are not different from things,
events, or beings—all are ‘alive’ in Dôgen’s thought”. On this level of thinking,
transcriptions of recordings of honkyoku performances are also “alive” with meaning.

92
Gutzwiller uses the term “tone cell” to denote what he believes to be a fundamental musical
unit in the honkyoku. See below p.323 for his definition of “tone cell”.

188
6.1.2 Existing Musicological Analyses That Use Transcriptions

Objections to the transcription and analysis of honkyoku and questions regarding their
compatibility with the central aesthetics of the tradition were addressed above. Before
embarking upon the transcription and subsequent analysis of the “Reibo” pieces, a
brief review of existing musicological analyses of honkyoku may suggest analytical
methods to explore or avoid. The following critique of existing analyses looks at their
effectiveness, firstly, as analogues and a means of communicating an understanding
of honkyoku and, secondly, at the degree to which they are accurate analogues.

As mentioned above (p.306), and in contrast to Gutzwiller and Stanfield, Tukitani

transcribes and analyzes honkyoku. Tukitani first used data from transcriptions of
performances in analyses of honkyoku in her M.A. thesis (1969a), and in an article
derived from that thesis, entitled 尺八古典本曲の研究 ー 構成法について ー
(Shakuhachi koten honkyoku no kenkyû; kôseihô ni tsuite, ‘Research into the
Shakuhachi Classical Honkyoku; a Constructive Analysis’) (1969b).

The initial section of Tukitani’s analyses focuses upon “the phrase”, which is defined
within three parameters: scale, dynamics, and rhythm. By scale, Tukitani means the
stability derived from what she calls the core notes or nuclear tones (核音, kakuon, in
contrast to “tonic”, with its harmonic implications of western music theory). In
honkyoku performed on the standard 1.8 shaku length flute, these core tones are d, g,
a, and c (1969b:44), of which d and g are the more fundamental. 93 The dynamics are
the patterns of relationships between loudness and softness and the melodic lines.
Rhythm is the patterns of relationships between note durations and the melodic line.
Examples of dynamic and rhythmical patterns found in honkyoku are also described,
but their sources and the methods of deriving them are not explained in this particular
article.

While this sort of analysis is valuable, it is not as germane to the main theme of this
thesis, the transmission of honkyoku, as the second part of Tukitani’s analysis, which
looks at the overall structures of particular honkyoku. Unlike Gutzwiller, she has no
problem about describing the formal structure of honkyoku she studies. An example of
a structure found in many individual honkyoku is described as having a beginning, a
climax or “high sound” (高音, takane), a “shift” or “change” (転, ten), being a
secondary climax, and an ending. Other structural forms given as examples are more
detailed. For example, the piece “Kokû” as performed at the temple Myôanji in
Kyôto, is said to have the six part structure: A, A', B, C, D, and E. The section A is
made of the phrases a+b; section A' is a'+b'; section B is c+b'+d; section C is e+b'+d;
section D is f+e+b'; and section E is g+b'+h. Tukitani notes that if the b phrase is
thought of as the core, then the sections could be labeled A, A', A", etc. (Tukitani
1969b:50-51).

An article written four years later, entitled 尺八古典における同名異曲の問題

(Shakuhachi koten ni okeru dômei ikyoku no mondai, ‘Questions Concerning
Classical Shakuhachi Pieces of Different Melodies with the Same Titles’) (1973:225-
250), points even more to the direction that this study takes. Tukitani analyzes three

93
The term “core tone“ and Tukitani's definition is adopted in the analysis of this thesis (see
p.363).

189
performances of the piece “Mukaiji” representing three lineages, Myôan Taizan,
Chikuho, and Kinko. In contrast to the previous work, analyses in this article are
comparative rather than structural. In other words, the versions of each piece are
compared with one another rather than individual pieces being taken apart to see how
they work. The comparative analysis between versions of pieces representing
different lineages directly addresses the issue of transmission, a characteristic that
becomes increasingly evident in Tukitani’s later work.

Though Tukitani’s analysis in this article is based upon transcriptions of the entire
piece, transcriptions of only the first seven to eleven phrases of each version are
presented. In the same article, notes representing the melodic contours of versions
within the groups of pieces “Kokû” and “San’ya” are also compared. These notes are
said to be derived from transcriptions, but the transcriptions are not shown and it is
unclear how the melodic contours are derived. The derivation and analysis of
“prominent notes” in Tukitani’s later article suggests a method of analysis adopted in
this thesis.

Both of these early analyses of Tukitani suffer somewhat from the lack of explanation
of the methodology of both transcription and analysis. This thesis, on the other hand,
attempts to make clear the methodology of transcription and analysis. Furthermore, in
the comparative analysis, Tukitani looks at only three lineages, and again does not
clearly state the performer and performance used in the analysis. The basis for the
analysis in the present thesis is broadened to represent particular performances by ten
clearly identified performers who represent at least five lines of transmission.

Finally, in leaving aside the area of formal analysis and concentrating upon
comparative analyses of pieces representing different lineages, the trend in Tukitani’s
later research toward issues almost entirely related to transmission can already be
seen. As stated earlier, this trend suggests that over time, Tukitani is intuitively
focusing more upon the issues that are most pertinent to the performing members of
the shakuhachi tradition. The direction Tukitani’s research has taken validates the
emphasis this thesis places upon the issue of transmission.

Two other analyses based in part upon transcriptions of actual performances of

honkyoku are by Lee (1986) and Takahashi (1990). Transcriptions of performances of
the piece “Kokû” (虚空, ‘Empty Sky’) by three generations of performers within the
Chikuho lineage are analyzed by Lee. Transcriptions of entire performances of pieces
are analyzed and the methodology employed discussed. Solutions to some of the
technical problems in transcribing honkyoku are suggested. For example, the use of a
time line together with the spatial representation of duration of notes is adopted to
reflect the “free rhythm” of honkyoku. Other problems, such as the relationship
between the process of playing notes and pitch, as well as between process and the
important element of timbre, are not, however, addressed. In the present study, a
method of reflecting the relationships between process, pitch, and timbre in the
transcriptions is developed. While similarities and differences in melodic content,
durations, and other components between the three generations of performers are
described by Lee (1986), structural forms and organizational patterns such as tonal
cells are not discussed.

190
Though implicitly about transmission, the subject is not explicitly addressed. Most of
the discussion is about change within the tradition, but not about change and
transmission. In addition, the study is limited in that it discusses the transmission of
only one piece within a single lineage, in this case, the piece “Kokû” of Chikuho
ryû. 94 As mentioned above, the present study looks directly at an issue central to the
tradition, that of transmission, making use of data derived from recordings of ten
performances by players representing at least two versions of a piece and five lines of
transmission.

Takahashi (1990:295-309) makes use of both transcriptions and scores written in

original notations in his analysis of “Honte chôshi” (本手調子, ‘Original Fingering
Tuning’). He concludes that analyses based on traditional scores alone are impossible.
Takahashi’s arguments are discussed in detail below (pp.327-328).

Two of the earliest musicological analyses of honkyoku in non-Japanese literature

were attempted by Malm (1959:158-162) and Weisgarber (1968:313-343). Malm
transcribed and analyzed the piece “Hifumi hachi gaeshi” (一二三鉢返, ‘One Two
Three, Returning the Bowl’). Weisgarber also transcribed and analyzed “Hifumi
hachi gaeshi", 95 as well as the pieces “Banshiki no shirabe” (盤渉の調), and “San-
ya sugaki” [sic] (三谷菅垣, should read “San’ya sugagaki”). One of the problems
with Malm’s transcription and analysis stems from an apparent ignorance of the fact
that “Hifumi hachi gaeshi” is actually two pieces, “Hifumi chô” and “Hachi gaeshi”.

An even greater problem is Malm’s unqualified use of European musical terminology

such as “tonic” and “dominant” together with such conventions as time signatures,
and bar lines. In doing so, Malm arbitrarily forces honkyoku into theoretical
boundaries that are meaningless to traditional ways of viewing the music. The
harmonic framework and hierarchy of pitches implied by Malm’s analysis are not
applicable to honkyoku. 96 Likewise there are no beats in honkyoku, much less a
hierarchy of beats of the type that time signatures and bar lines imply. The result is a
transcription that is culturally inappropriate as an analogue of honkyoku performance.
Malm (1959:160) uses the term “breath phrase” once, but only in the context of a
discussion of “grace notes”. Like Weisgarber (see below), the importance of the
breath in performing honkyoku, as well as the phrase as a formal unit of honkyoku,
escaped him.

Despite the above, it is to Malm’s credit that his observations in a footnote (Malm
1959:162) regarding the fluctuating of the tonal centre hint at the concept of core
notes or tonal centres used by Tukitani, Gutzwiller, and others to describe honkyoku.

There are also a number of problems with Weisgarber’s discussion of shakuhachi

honkyoku, including his analyses and transcriptions. First of all, Weisgarber assumes
that the “tonic” is “g” just because “g” is the final note of the piece, though the

94
Almost all other honkyoku analyses written in a musicological context also deal with only
one lineage of transmission, most commonly being limited to Kinko ryû.
95
Malm and Weisgarber call the piece “Hi-fu-mi Hachi Kaeshi”. “Hifumi hachi gaeshi” is
linguistically more correct.
96
In the transcriptions and analyses, I will also make use of key signatures, but with
qualifications which are clearly stated (see p.356).

191
“tonic” could equally be “d”. Like Malm, Weisgarber ignores the distinction between
the two pieces “Hifumi chô” and “Hachi gaeshi”. The most important unit of
honkyoku, the phrase as delineated by breaths, is also disregarded. Weisgarber uses
the word “phrase” twice but does not define it. In his transcription he uses dotted lines
to indicate “what seem to be the phrase, period, or sectional endings” (Weisgarber
1968:322); these dotted lines do not, however correspond to breath phrases.

Central to his analyses are what Weisgarber calls “patterns” or “cells”. These patterns,
which are arbitrarily labelled with numbers on the transcriptions, are usually segments
of phrases and encompass most of the musical material. Some sections of phrases are
inexplicably ignored, however, being neither part of one of Weisgarber’s “patterns”
nor labelled a pattern in themselves. One of a number of examples of this in
Weisgarber’s transcription and analysis of “Hi-fu-mi Hachi Kaeshi” (Weisgarber
1968:319) occurs on the sixth line of between what is labelled patterns no. 10 and no.
7 (see Figure 17, no. 1).

Also left unlabelled by Weisgarber are segments of phrases which are identical to
segments that are labelled as “patterns”. An example of this is the first phrase of what
Weisgarber calls section 2 (it is in fact the penultimate phrase of “Hifumi chô”),
which is identical with “pattern 1”, the first phrase of the piece, yet is not identified as
such (see Figure 18, no.2).

Weisgarber’s arbitrary and inconsistent labelling and non-labelling of segments of the

transcriptions as “phrases” brings to mind the objections made by Treitler to the
labelling of segments of plainchant as “formulas” in an analysis of plainchant by Levy
(Treitler 1975:15-23). Treitler argues:

If there is any point in speaking of formulas at all, it is that they play into the
transmission, or the composition if you will, of the chants to which they
belong....we must have some boundary criteria for identifying a formula and
distinguishing it from other passages. For the identification of a formula is an
assertion of the existence of a piece of more-or-less fixed or stereotyped stuff-
material that the composer put into this or that place or that the singer held in
readiness for performance upon reaching a certain point in the melody. Either
way, we want to be able to say with some confidence, here is that formula,
there it is not, and there again is a variant of it. If we cannot do these things
with confidence and with criteria that are demonstrable, we will have lost the
point of the analysis, for then we would have no reason to think that the
formula was any more distinct in the mind of the composer or the singer than
in that of the analyst. And in those circumstances we could not make the
assertion we meant to make by identifying the formula in the first place.

(Treitler 1975:15-17)

Treitler’s point that formulae must be able to be identified and distinguished from
other passages with demonstrable criteria before they can be used in the analysis is
applicable to Weisgarber’s article. With his arbitrary and inconsistent “patterns”,
chosen with no demonstrable criteria. Weisgarber cannot, as Treitler says, “make the
assertion [he] meant to make by identifying the formula in the first place”.

192
Gutzwiller is a widely published non-Japanese scholar of shakuhachi (1974, 1983,
1984, 1991). In contrast to Malm and Weisgarber, he writes with the insight of a
shakuhachi performer, and is accurate in many of his observations. Some of his
conclusion, however, are inconsistent or based upon an incomplete understanding of
the honkyoku tradition. Among his arguments against transcriptions of performances
of honkyoku, discussed above (p.311), is his belief that an understanding of any sort
of product or “form” in honkyoku can only exist in the process of performing. Yet
having stated that it cannot be done, he proceeds to convey an understanding of
honkyoku outside of the process of performing, that is, in his writings.

According to Gutzwiller and Bennett (1991:36), “the primary vehicle by which

musical meaning is conveyed” in honkyoku is what he calls the “tone cell”. Similar to
the “patterns” observed by Weisgarber, Gutzwiller’s tone cells are in their simplest
form a main note, which is kari, and an auxiliary note, which is meri. 97 Within these
simple structures are patterns of intricate relationships between pitch movement,
dynamics, and timbre. The pitch of kari notes is fixed, while that of meri notes moves
in specific ways. Both timbre and dynamics develop within a tone cell as determined
by the movement from meri to kari and back to meri again. Tension and release is
achieved in honkyoku through the interplay of the three elements of pitch, timbre, and
dynamics within the tone cell and from one tone cell to the next (Gutzwiller
1983:347-348). More specifically, Gutzwiller’s tone cells have three parts, a
preparatory note, which is unstable in pitch, softer in dynamics, and meri in timbre;
the main note, which is stable in pitch, louder in dynamics, and kari in timbre; and the
ending, which is unstable in pitch, softer in dynamics and meri in timbre (Gutzwiller
and Bennett 1991:54).

One must remember that Gutzwiller’s studies are based solely upon honkyoku of the
Kinko lineage, which make up a fraction of the entire honkyoku tradition. It is not
surprising that, in some cases, his conclusions are applicable only to the Kinko
lineage. They become problematic when applied to studies, such as the present thesis,
which examine transmission over a number of lineages. While his tone cells may
accurately describe Kinko honkyoku, they are less relevant to honkyoku of other
lineages.

For example, elements of Gutzwiller’s tone cells cannot be observed in many of the
phrases in the transcriptions of the ten versions of “Reibo” analyzed in this study. The
most conspicuous examples of this are the reibo no te phrases, many of which have
no stable kari main note at all (eg., phrase 58 of Watazumi’s “Reibo” and phrase 43
of Yokoyama’s “Reibo”), or consist of very long successions of many meri notes
followed by one or two concluding kari notes (eg., phrase 31 of Watazumi’s “Furin”,
phrase 33 of Yokoyama’s “Shôganken reibo”, phrase 32 of Iwamoto’s “Furin”,
phrase 39 of Jin’s “Shôganken reibo”, and phrase 39 of Sakai’s “Shôganken reibo”).
Phrases over twenty notes in length that are entirely meri notes frequently occur (eg.,

97
The terms kari and meri denote performance techniques that change the pitch being
produced without changing the fingering, by altering the angle and distance from which one
blows onto the blowing edge of the mouthpiece. The kari technique raises the pitch, while the
meri technique lowers the pitch. The pitches produced with the standard, open-hole fingerings
(i.e., D, F, G, A, C on the 1.8 shaku length flute) are also called kari notes. The latter meaning
of the word is used here.

193
phrase 23 of Yokoyama’s “Shôganken reibo”). Other phrases may have as many as
twenty-six meri notes with one or two final kari notes at the very end (eg., phrase 31
of Watazumi’s “Furin”). It becomes extremely difficult to determine in Gutzwiller’s
terms what might be called the tone cell in many of the phrases in the “Reibo”
samples. The usefulness of the tone cell concept in this case is much less than it is
with Kinko pieces familiar to Gutzwiller.

As stated above, it is rare for a performing member of the shakuhachi tradition to

transcribe and analyze honkyoku performances. In most of the analyses of
transcriptions and transnotations of honkyoku that have been undertaken by others, the
analyses are comparative, dealing with the similarities and differences that may exist
between versions of the same honkyoku piece or type. Clearly and in marked contrast
to the Western musicology tradition, the act of formally analyzing honkyoku with the
use of either transcriptions or scores is not an established and integral part of the
shakuhachi honkyoku tradition. Musicological methods, nevertheless, facilitate the
examination of elements of the honkyoku, for example, music contour and formal
structures. These elements may be of little interest to honkyoku performers, but a
knowledge and understanding of their existence is one kind of insight into the process
of transmission.

6.1.3 Analyses of Honkyoku Scores

In contrast to the few analyses of transcriptions of honkyoku performances in the

literature, there are a number of examples of analyses of scores of honkyoku which
rely solely upon either scores written in traditional notation or transnotations of such
scores from traditional shakuhachi notation to staff notation. In this thesis, I do not,
however, rely heavily upon traditional scores or their transnotations as sources of
analytical data. Analyses of this type do not address the process of performance in
what remains largely an oral tradition. I have outlined elsewhere (Lee 1991:18-35)
some of the problems which arise in attempting to interpret honkyoku scores as
representative of performances; for example, I draw attention to the numerous
discrepancies between what notation symbols mean and how they are realized in
performance. Takahashi (see below, p.327) has also examined these problems.

Though the methodology of such analyses have little bearing upon the present study,
they illustrate the importance placed on the tracing of lineages and genealogies in the
shakuhachi tradition, thus helping to validate the focus of the present study—
transmission. The importance given to lineages and genealogies is further emphasized
by the amount of literature on the subject, including oral and written genealogical
histories.

In the present study, where data is taken from traditional scores (i.e., the labelling and
placement of formal divisions of the “Reibo” pieces), interpretation of notation
symbols is not required. Furthermore, the data derived from the traditional scores is
directly confirmed by transcriptions of performances of the pieces (see p.363).

Of the existing studies which are based upon scores, only one, by Takahashi (see
below), addresses the process of performance and deals with the discrepancies

194
between traditional scores and their realization. Other score analyses do not deal with
the process of playing honkyoku nor do they attempt to elucidate aspects of the music
such as formal structure. Instead, almost all of the analyses of this type attempt to
show similarities and differences in the notation which are then explained by
similarities and differences in either lineages or historical periods.

Takahashi (1990:295-309) makes use of both transcriptions and scores written in

original notations in his analysis of “Honte chôshi” (本手調子). He also discusses an
area of transmission that brings into question the validity of analyses based upon
transnotations, namely, that of the construction of the instrument itself and how it has
affected pitch in honkyoku playing. He describes how variations in traditional
shakuhachi construction methods, including two systems of placing finger holes, have
affected the musical realization of the scores, in particular the phenomenon of tonal
ambiguity. The variations in construction, which can be grouped into two methods
corresponding to the two major shakuhachi centres of Edo-period Japan, Edo and
Kyôto, result in variations in pitch production.

Takahashi also observes the ambiguity of pitch in traditional notation which is

manifested in the performance of honkyoku. He concludes that transnotations into
staff notation of the piece “Honte chôshi” cannot be made by using the data presented
in the original written score alone (1990:301), a conclusion which has implications for
other transnotations. Traditional honkyoku scores may give only one tablature symbol
where in fact there are two pitch possibilities. For example, the finger position ツ (tsu)
(only the bottom finger hole open) produces the pitch f on a standard length
shakuhachi. Two pitches, e and e-flat, can be produced with the same finger position
by using different degrees of the meri technique. 98

Yet in some honkyoku scores of “Honte chôshi”, only one type of tsu meri symbol is
used. According to Takahashi, whether to play e or e-flat is part of the orally
transmitted tradition.

Tukitani’s treatment of two versions of the piece “Tsuru no Sugomori” (鶴の巣篭,

‘Nesting of the Cranes’), namely those of Kinko and Tozan lineages (Tukitani
1976:80-87), is an example of total reliance on transnotations of traditional scores for
analysis. In an article entitled 「尺八古典における同名異曲の問題」 (Shakuhachi
koten ni okeru dômei ikyoku no mondai, ‘Some Questions on Shakuhachi Pieces of
Different Melodies under the Same Titles’), Tukitani looks at three to nine versions of
the four pieces “Kyorei”, “Kokû”, “Mukaiji”, and “San’ya”. Segments of
transnotations of the versions are used as a basis for comparison. Though some
conclusions regarding the transmission of these pieces are made, the problem of
notation versus performance is not addressed. Furthermore, the transnotations from
traditional scores to staff notation adds a layer of interpretation between the data and
the conclusion.

98
Deviations in pitch up to a perfect fourth can be produced on the shakuhachi with no
change in finger positions through what are called the meri/kari techniques. These techniques
involve subtle changes in the distance from the lips to the blowing edge, and to a lesser
degree the angle from which the air stream leaves the lips of the performer and is deflected by
the blowing edge of the instrument. The meri technique lowers the pitch, while the kari
technique raises the pitch of any given fingering.

195
Gutzwiller (1984), writing in German, also presents a comparative analysis of
honkyoku using the transnotations of scores written in traditional notation. Three
lineages within Kinko ryû are represented in his analysis, those of Araki Kodô
(荒木古童), Miura Kindô (三浦琴童), and Kawase Junsuke (川瀬順輔). The piece
he compares is the classic “Shin kyorei” (真虚霊). As with the above example, the
subject of transmission is a focus of the study, but the issue of discrepancies between
scores and performances is not addressed.

Another score analysis was published in 1984 by Toya Deiko in his book Komusô
shakuhachi shinan (虚無僧尺八指南, ‘Teachings of the komusô shakuhachi’) (Toya
1984:97-101). Toya gives a brief analysis of scores of “Hifumi chô” (一二三調, ‘One
Two Three Searching’), in an attempt to show how the piece has changed over time in
mode and ornamentation. In contrast to Tukitani and Gutzwiller, whose transnotations
insert a layer of interpretation, Toya worked directly from the traditional scores
written in shakuhachi notation. Like Tukitani, he does not consider the discrepancies
between notation and realization in performance.

Yamaue is a shakuhachi honkyoku performer who amassed a large collection of his

own hand-written honkyoku scores representing many lines of transmission, some of
which have been published. In the book, Yamaue Getsuzan shûshû shakuhachi fu:
Ôshû hen and kyûshû hen (山上月山蒐集尺八譜 奥州編·九州編, Yamaue
Getsuzan’s collection of shakuhachi scores; Ôshû and Kyûshû editions) (Yamaue
1984), are a number of comparisons of traditionally notated scores. Yamaue has
written out the scores of different versions of the same piece parallel to each other,
lining up what he assumes are the same phrases in different versions. In one case,
Yamaue (1984:54-59) compares two versions of “Reibo”, that of Jin Nyodô (written
in red) and that of Orito Nyogetsu and Takahashi Kûzan (written in black). In a
second case, three versions, that of Sakata Tôsui (written in red), Gotô Tôsui (written
in black), and Uramoto Setchô (written in red) are lined up together (Yamaue
1984:60-66). The titles of formal divisions of the pieces, such as Take shirabe (竹調,
‘bamboo searching’) and Hachigaeshi (鉢返し, ‘returning the bowl’) (see p.361) are
prominently notated. 99

As is the case with many honkyoku performers, Yamaue was particularly fascinated
with the issue of transmission, as evidenced not only by the above comparisons, but
also his extensive genealogies (see Chapter 4, p.177). As with the previous examples,
however, Yamaue does not address the relationship between scores and performances.
A further problem with these comparisons is that all of the scores were originally
written by Yamaue, presumably after he had learned the pieces, and consequently
may display more similarities than actually exist between the lineages represented.
Finally, Yamaue does nothing beyond lining up the notes of the scores; no
conclusions are drawn from the collation of the scores.

In all of the above examples of shakuhachi honkyoku score analyses, the main theme
is transmission, particularly in terms of lineages and transmission lines. Similarities
and differences between individual transmission lines are compared on the level of

99
Relationships between the titles of formal divisions that can be found in traditional scores
of “Reibo” pieces are discussed in this study (see pp.360-366).

196
individual notes. There are no cases of the traditional scores or transnotations being
used to formally analyze the music in a western musicological sense. In only one of
the examples of analyses of scores (Takahashi) is the relationship between the
notation and the process of the performance discussed. The aspect of the honkyoku
tradition that is orally transmitted is ignored altogether in studies such as the above
examples, which are based entirely upon scores. Though the focus of analyses of this
type helps to validate the emphasis placed upon transmission in the present study, the
methodology and the conclusions have little relevance to this thesis.

6.2 Tradition-Based Approaches to Honkyoku Analyses within the

Shakuhachi Tradition

While musicological approaches to analyzing honkyoku yield insights into such

elements as the structural organization of the music and lines of transmission, the
analytical approaches that members of the tradition use during the process of
transmission yield another kind of insight, which cannot be drawn from musicological
methods. In particular, tradition-based approaches to honkyoku analysis increase an
understanding of the experiential elements of honkyoku transmission as it occurs
within the tradition. More significantly, tradition-based approaches show what the
tradition sees as the most important elements of the honkyoku during the process of
transmission. It is primarily for this reason that this thesis incorporates a method of
analysis based upon traditional methods.

The following translations of excerpts of written tradition-based analyses and

discussions of oral analyses are presented in order to evolve strategies that can be
used in this study to reveal some of the experiential elements of honkyoku
transmission as it occurs within the tradition.

One type of tradition-based analysis is the written descriptions of pieces or parts of

pieces which adopt an approach similar to the teaching method a teacher would use
during a shakuhachi lesson: explaining the details of performance of a honkyoku one
phrase or performance technique at a time. In contrast to analyses of European art
music tradition, as well as the majority of ethnomusicological analyses of other music
cultures, these types of analyses of the honkyoku are based upon neither transcriptions
of performances nor scores of the pieces. Though they may annotate in detail existing
scores written in traditional shakuhachi notation, the scores themselves are not what is
being analyzed. Instead, the scores are used only as a form of reference, as opposed to
an object of analysis, to show which phrase or performing technique is being
discussed. 100

Most importantly, only a shakuhachi performer already able to perform a given

honkyoku is able to analyze the piece in such a manner. Furthermore, the function of
the analysis is to assist the reader in performing the piece, rather than to enhance
his/her intellectual understanding or appreciation of the piece and its form. The

100
See Lee (1991) for a detailed description of traditional shakuhachi notation and its
relationship to performance.

197
emphasis is on the “doing”, the experience of performing the piece, rather than the
intellectual manipulation of theories to verbally describe the piece.

A prime example of this type of analysis can be found in Ichi On Jôbutsu (一音成仏;
‘One Sound Becoming Buddha’), a periodical catering to shakuhachi honkyoku
enthusiasts. In Issue No.5 (June 1, 1983), Okamoto Chikugai (岡本竹外) (1983:2-22)
examines the method of performing the piece “Ôshû Reibo” as part of an article
entitled “About ‘Ôshû Reibo’” (奥州鈴慕について, Ôshû reibo ni tsuite). The
following translation is taken from the third section of the article, called “The method
of blowing Zen for ‘Ôshû reibo’” (奥州鈴慕の吹禅法, Ôshû reibo no suizenhô).
Terms for specific shakuhachi performance techniques will be defined in the
translation only if the context warrants it.

This presents a summary of the “method of blowing Zen” (吹禅法, suizenhô),

as transmitted by the shakuhachi player Konashi Kinsui (小梨錦吹) and
inherited by his student Daimon Nyogen (大門如玄) (See genealogy chart,
p.192). This offering of instruction is respectfully dedicated to “blowing Zen”
(吹禅, suizen).

(Bamboo Searching) 101

This sound is blown two times. 102

The first thing in the act of “tuning” the breath and the heart, according to one
way of thinking, is the warming up of the bamboo, which also has the effect of
normalizing the melody (調子, chôshi). This is especially true in the case of
long instruments. In the process of playing the instrument, the pitch (音律,
onritsu) will become higher, so it is necessary to consider this area.

[The second phrase of the piece.]

The fingering position ツ (tsu) is played from a chû meri (中メリ, middle
meri) 103 position of pitch. Using the wedge blowing technique 104 until a
lingering tone remains, one then moves to the next note, ロ (ro). With this line

101
This is the first of three divisions notated in the score used by Okamoto. The three sections
are Take shirabe (竹調べ, ‘Bamboo Searching’ or ‘Bamboo Melody’) Reibo (鈴慕,
‘Yearning for the Bell’); and Hachi gaeshi (鉢返し, ‘Returning the Bowl’).
102
丗乃音吹込ニ回 (Sono oto fukikomu nikai). The piece is treated as follows: first the
tablature notation of one or more phrases is given, and then explanations of the performance
of the phrase or phrases are presented. The first phrase of the score, however, is the
performance command “This sound is blown twice” rather than tablature notation.
103
Meri (メリ) is a technique which flattens and mutes the sound. Chû meri (中メリ,
‘middle meri’) refers to the degree of flattening.
104
楔吹き, kusabi buki. An appropriately named blowing technique which begins with the
note or phrase played loudly and fully and gradually decreasing in dynamics and energy until
the sound disappears. This technique is especially common in certain lineages of the Myôan
style of playing.

198
 [in the score, which also includes phrases three and four], unless the spirit
(気合, kiai, literally ‘spirit uniting’) is full or replete, one is justified in
repeating this melody any number of times. There is an oral tradition that this
melodic figure (旋律, senritsu) must be called the “bamboo melody (竹調べ,
take shirabe, literally, ‘bamboo searching’) of the tuning of the breath and
heart”.

[Okamoto does not discuss individually the third and fourth phrases of the piece. The
fifth phrase is divided into two sections by Okamoto.]

[The fifth phrase of the piece.]

The symbol [of the first section] is the yuri technique (ユリ, a bending of the
pitch by changing the angle and distance of the lips from the blowing edge)
which is executed by revolving the chin as if drawing circles. Also, the tail
end of the sound is played meri. The symbol [of the second section of the
phrase] indicates a yuri sound which is an exhalation that is alternatively
strong-weak-strong-weak, produced while blowing in a manner that is exactly
like eating food.

Regarding the yuri sound, when it is written 「揺り音」 (yuri oto, literally ‘yuri
sound’), one shakes one’s neck from left to right as with a boat rolling side to
side and pitching up and down. Of course, besides this there are the jôge yuri
and the fune no kubi yuri. 105

However, it is easy to understand why the yuri of the Tohoku lineage is

written with the characters 「淘り」. 106 Grains which have been put into a
container overflowing with water can be selected out while shaking the
container. Likewise, the sound is shaken when playing the technique. It is like
the water that falls from the container, and is not the so called 「揺り」 (yuri,
shake, sway) technique.

These two yuri are given the following expedient names: 「回はしユリ」
(mawashi yuri, ‘turning, revolving yuri’) and 「平ユリ」 (hira yuri, ‘common or
flat yuri’).

With the fingering ル (ru) at the end of the hira yuri of the ツ fingering, the
third finger hole is hit. The ツ is written as being chû meri (‘middle meri’).
However, with bamboo whose hole placements are determined in the old way
of flutes made without ji (地, ‘filler’), 107 the first hole [from the bottom] is
lower than on modern instruments. Therefore, [the first hole open] will

105
Jôge yuri: 上下揺, ‘up and down yuri’). Fune no kubi yuri: 舟首揺, literally ‘ship neck
yuri’. The fune no kubi is the spar in the very front of the boat.)
106
The character 淘 is normally pronounced tô, and has the meaning ‘select’.
107
See pp.274 for a discussion of flutes constructed with and without ji.

199
 produce the pitch of chû meri. There is nothing to say other than one must
listen with a discriminating ear. 108

[The sixth phrase of the piece.]

[Okamoto also divides the sixth phrase into two parts for discussion.]

[The first part of the sixth phrase] is applying the meri technique to the ツ
fingering downward a little, returning to the original [pitch] and then moving
on to the レ (re) fingering. With the note ツ, kari and meri are quickly scooped
up with the chin, moving on to レ. Next, the hira yuri of the yuri sounds is
played. The 押し (oshi, literally ‘push’) technique is applied to the fourth hole.
After this, the oshi technique is also applied to the third hole. In this case,
however, a special fingering technique is used. The finger of the third hole is
slid up and down so as to produce a sound like the nayashi technique. In the
latter part of phrase six, the レ is given a large nayashi, after which the oshi
technique is applied to the four hole. The oshi is the same as before.

(Okamoto 1983:6-7) 109

Okamoto continues in the same manner, eventually analyzing the entire piece. At the
end of the analytical section is a reproduction of the entire score of the “Reibo” under
scrutiny.

Four main points of Okamoto’s analysis that are useful in arriving at an analytical
method for this thesis can be seen in the above excerpt. Firstly, the importance of the
line of transmission to which the described performance methods belong is evident
from the initial sentence and elsewhere. Throughout the text, performance details are
discussed as they are related to transmission. For example, in his discussion of the
fifth phrase, Okamoto explains the manner and meaning of the way the technique yuri
is written by a specific line of transmission, the Tohoku lineage.

Secondly, the method of describing the piece in terms of the minute details of the
process of playing is central to the analysis, especially the various meri techniques
and special finger movements. The emphasis of process can be seen in Okamoto’s
method of dealing with pitch, which is important not only as specific frequencies of
sound waves, but also in its relationship to the spirit of the performance and
performer. In fact, the particular pitches that are produced by the performance
techniques are not specified directly.

Thirdly, Okamoto’s analysis of “Reibo” assumes that the reader has a working
knowledge of both the symbols and the terminology used in discussing and notating
basic shakuhachi performance techniques. His analysis is a commentary directed to
insiders to the tradition. It is not a step-by-step “how to” description of the piece.

108
The point Okamoto is making here is that in aiming for the same pitch, the performer
needs different techniques with different flutes.
109
See Appendix 4 for the original Japanese text of this passage.

200
Okamoto does not comment at all on places in the score where he assumes that the
notation gives enough information on its own.

Fourthly, Okamoto’s analysis in some instances assumes a knowledge of the piece

which only a member of his lineage, or one who has already been taught the piece,
might have. For example, the first line of the score is a performance command, which
reads, “This sound is blown two times”. This sentence on its own is so ambiguous as
to be meaningless. What sound is to be repeated? It could be the first sound of the
first phrase, the entire first phrase, or the entire section. The meaning of this phrase
cannot be known without explanation, yet Okamoto offers none.

It is important to emphasize the distinction of Okamoto’s use of the score as an

adjunct to performance. It is clearly not the object of analysis.

An earlier example of this type of honkyoku analysis is to be found in the writings of

Uramoto Setchô, 110 noted honkyoku performer of this century (see p.192). Uramoto’s
writings are compiled and edited by Inagaki and published in a book entitled “Master
Uramoto Setchô, Who Loved Shakuhachi Honkyoku and old Flutes” (Inagaki, ed.
1985). In an article written in 1929 (in Inagaki, ed. 1985:156-170), Uramoto analyzes
six pieces which he calls the Take shirabe (竹調べ, ‘Bamboo Searching’) pieces. 111
The six pieces are “Hifumi chô” (一二三調, ‘One, Two, Three, Searching’); “San’ya
shirabe” (三谷調, ‘Three Valleys Searching’); “Sugomori chôshi” (巣篭調子,
‘Nesting of the Cranes Tuning’); “Yamato chôshi” (大和調子, ‘Yamato Tuning’);
“Take shirabe” (竹調, ‘Bamboo Tuning’); and “Honte chôshi” (本手調子, ‘Original
Fingering Tuning’).

In some instances, Uramoto gives little more information than a brief explanation of
the piece as transmitted by various lineages, the number of minutes and seconds
within which the pieces should be performed, and a sentence or two about the
performance practices of several of the phrases of the piece. With other pieces, he
gives more elaborate performance instructions similar to those of Okamoto. For
example, in his discussion of the piece “Yamato chôshi” (大和調子), he writes:

An area where care must be taken in the manner of playing is the places where
the spaces between phrases are cut off and not connected with a trailing off [of
the ending note]. For example, the ハイハ (ha i ha; producing the pitches ‘c d
c’ on a 1.8 shaku flute) 112 at the end of the second phrase and the レチレ (re
chi re; ‘g a-flat g’) at the end of the fourth phrase are like this. Among the six
Take shirabe [pieces] mentioned herein, this is a unique [melodic] figure.
Also, in melodic lines such as ツローハハーハイハ (tsu ro - ha ha - ha i ha;
‘e-flat d - c c - c d c’) or ツーツロハハーハイハ (tsu - tsu ro ha ha - ha i ha;

110
Uramoto is one of six honkyoku players whose performances form the basis for the
analysis in this thesis.
111
These pieces are also called Shirabe (調, ‘Searching’) or Chôshi (調子, ‘Melody’ or
‘Tuning’) pieces. They frequently act as preludes to larger honkyoku.
112
The pitches produced on a 1.8 shaku flute by playing the fingerings noted by Uramoto
here and elsewhere are given in order to facilitate an understanding of what Uramoto is
saying.

201
 ‘e-flat - e-flat d c c - c d c’), the ハ (ha; ‘c’) after the ロ (ro; ‘d’) being played
brightly as well as strongly are places from which the distinctiveness of this
piece comes out.

(Uramoto, in Inagaki, ed. 1985:164)

In his discussion of the Take shirabe pieces, Uramoto frequently uses the German
word “thema” (テーマ, te—ma) (Inagaki, ed. 1985:157, 160, 163,). He states, for
example, that most of the pieces introduce a theme that is presented in the larger
honkyoku that is performed afterward. The themes of three of the pieces are identified.
For example, in one instance, Uramoto writes, “What must be called ‘the theme’ of
the piece, ‘Yamato Chôshi’ are the two phrases ツレーレチレ (tsu re—re chi re; ‘e-flat
g - g a-flat g’), and ツローハハーハイハ (tsu ro—ha ha—ha i ha; ‘e-flat d—c c—c d
c’). These phrases are repeated twice, the second time being the variation
ツーツハハーハイーハイハイハイハハーイハ (tsu - tsu ha ha—ha i—ha i ha i ha i
ha ha—i ha; ‘e-flat—e-flat c c—c d—c d c d c d c c—d c’)” (Inagaki, ed. 1985:163).
Uramoto does not elaborate on the “themes” that he identifies. He does not use the
idea of a theme in any way to describe the structural form of the pieces.

Elsewhere in the same book (Inagaki, ed. 1985:184-188), Uramoto discusses and
analyzes the piece “Yamato chôshi” a second time. He also presents two different
scores of the piece, not to give a comparative analysis of those scores, but rather to
help illustrate two of the many ways that the piece is performed.

Another example of this kind of written analysis of honkyoku is given by Toya Deiko
(戸谷泥古, b.1920), who analyzes the piece “Honte chôshi” (本手調子, ‘Original
Fingering Tuning’) (1984:149-155). As was the case with Okamoto’s analysis, Toya
explains in detail how to execute the techniques involved in performing a phrase or
section of a phrase, and ignores a few phrases that require no explanation.

A number of elements of Uramoto and Toya’s analyses are useful in establishing an

analytical methodology for this thesis. Some of them also reinforce what was
observed in Okamoto’s analysis. First of all, the process of performance at a minute
level is paramount. Secondly, the similarities and differences between versions of
what are considered to be the same piece are important. In Uramoto’s analysis, the
elements of dynamics and duration are mentioned. Finally, the phrase or sections of
phrases are the primary level of analysis rather than large-scale form or structure.

Similar analyses of honkyoku have appeared in English publications in recent years,

and are aimed primarily at the large “teach-yourself” market outside of Japan.
Because their readership is, for the most part, novices unfamiliar with most of the
standard technical devices which, for example, Okamoto and Toya took for granted,
these analyses are more detailed than their Japanese counterparts. Every phrase is
discussed, and as much of the performance techniques as possible is described. Two
examples of honkyoku analyses of this type in English are by Samuelson (n.d.:31-39)
and Grous (1978:40-72-99). Samuelson describes the first phrase of the Kinko piece,
“Hifumi hachigaeshi” (一二三鉢返し, ‘One Two Three Returning the Bowl’) as
follows:

202
 (Samuelson n.d.:36)

An innovation introduced by Samuelson is the graphic display of pitches and pitch

changes by the up and down placement and movements of a single line, with timings
indicated as the line progresses horizontally left to right (see Figure 18). The English
language analyses are like the Japanese language analyses in their focus on the
process of performance at the level of detailed technique, and in the importance
placed on the phrase in organizing the analysis.

Analyses of shakuhachi honkyoku found within the tradition, whether written in

Japanese or in English, deal with the performance of the piece or pieces in question.
Attempts to examine honkyoku as an independent musical entity, separate from the act
of performance, as typically occurs in the analysis of European art music, are rare in
traditional shakuhachi contexts.

The analyses described above can be characterized in the following ways. They
emphasize the transmission of the piece, both in terms of the lineage and the act of
transmission from the writer to the reader of the analysis. They do not analyze scores
of the pieces as separate from the performance of the pieces. They focus upon
technical details involved in performing the piece, in particular finger movements and
the meri technique. Most of the analyses also examine the similarities and differences
between pieces that are considered versions of the same piece or family of pieces.
Most importantly, they all analyze the pieces from the standpoint of a performer.
None of their analyses would be possible without the knowledge and experience of
one who performs the pieces. As will become evident later (pp.370-418), all of the
above elements are useful in evolving a methodology of analysis appropriate to this
thesis.

6.2.1 Informal Oral Analyses

Another type of tradition-based analytical procedure can be seen in the shakuhachi

honkyoku tradition. Within my experience, members of the shakuhachi tradition
frequently analyze orally the similarities and differences between performance
practices of various performers in general, as well as individual performances. These
verbal analyses are similar to the “blow by blow” description of the piece “Ôshû
reibo” given by Okamoto and partially translated above. The manner of execution of
particular phrases or, even more commonly, performance techniques encompassing
less than a single phrase is the topic of discussion. As with most of the written
analyses discussed above, the emphasis is on details. Rarely have I encountered
discussions of formal structures of either honkyoku or phrases within them.

The following is a description of one such analytical discussion which illustrates the
above. One of the most evocative and frequently performed honkyoku is the Kinko-
lineage version of “Shika no tône” (鹿の遠音, ‘Distant Sound of Deer, a duet’). My
first teacher, Chikuho II, taught me the piece as transmitted by the Myôan lineage,
which is very different from the version transmitted through the Kinko lineage.
Eventually, I learned the Kinko version with the help of shakuhachi playing friends

203
who were of the Kinko lineage, and from numerous available recordings by various
performers. 113

About ten years ago, I performed in concert the Kinko version with Osaka based
Tajima Tadashi (田嶋直士, b.1942). At that time Tajima said that it was interesting
how I had incorporated performance practices and techniques from Kinko performers
who represented a number of distinct sub-lineages of the Kinko lineage (see p.251).
These performers each had unique, recognizable ways of playing certain phrases of
the piece. While each individual’s performance practices might change with every
performance, those variations are usually much less than the differences between
performers representing various sub-lineages. 114

Tajima proceeded to informally analyze my performance. He said, for example, that

he recognized a Yamaguchi Gorô influence when I entered one phrase in the
uppermost register from an almost imperceptibly quiet and smooth pianissimo. Other
performers attack the note more loudly. Elsewhere, Tajima recognized in my playing
the powerful breathiness combined with a certain pattern of pitch bending for which
Yokoyama Katsuya is noted when performing that particular phrase. Finally, in a
series of phrases that are said to represent the guttural coughing of the deer, Tajima
said that he detected in my playing the embellishment techniques which he associates
with Aoki Reibo. This kind of informal, oral analysis or critique is fairly common
amongst honkyoku performers.

It appeared that where differences occurred between performers of various sub-

lineages of the Kinko lineage, I had, in part unconsciously, incorporated the
performance practices which most appealed to me. My eclectic version of the piece
was ultimately validated amongst members of the honkyoku tradition in 1989, when I
was requested to record the piece with Yokoyama on a CD released by the prestigious
Ongaku no Tomo Sha label (Yokoyama 1989b) thereby establishing my version as an
orthodox one within the tradition. Tajima’s analysis of my performance of “Shika no
tône” is especially relevant to the theme of transmission since it shows how a specific
version of a piece came to happen.

Informal oral analyses such as the above example are similar to the written analyses
discussed earlier in the following ways: they pay particular attention to lineage; they
treat the music from the viewpoint of an experienced performer rather than a listener,
however knowledgeable; they deal with details of performance at the level of the
phrase or, more commonly, at a level of performance technique which constitutes
only a part of a phrase; they consider pitch, timbre, dynamics, duration, and
ornamentation as elements of the performance; finally they look at the similarities and
differences between versions of the same piece.

113
See p. 247 for a discussion of the ways in which readily available recordings have become
part of the transmission process of the honkyoku tradition over the past several decades.
114
Note the emphasis Tajima places upon lineages and transmission in his interest in my
performance of “Shika no tône”.

204
The following is a summary of the main points gleaned from both the written and oral
tradition-based analyses discussed above:

These approaches will be incorporated as much as possible in the analytical methods

used in the present study of honkyoku. Regarding points three and four, however, it is
not practical to assume that the readers of this thesis have a working knowledge of the
symbols and terminology used in the honkyoku tradition, or that they possess the
knowledge of members of particular shakuhachi lineages. Explanations and
annotations will be given where deemed necessary. Nonetheless, care will be taken to
examine honkyoku as much as possible from the knowledgeable performer’s point of
view.

The preoccupation with comparing pieces which share similar names and/or melodic
material seen in the examples of analyses presented above, and of which this thesis is
also an example, may be attempts to define the honkyoku itself. It is indicative of the
elusive quality of honkyoku, which is changing with every performance and whose
form is vagueness. It is appropriate that the analysis in this thesis is primarily a
comparative one. In the following section, versions of the piece “Reibo” will be
analyzed in a number of ways that will take into consideration most of the elements
which have been observed in the analyses discussed above.

6.3 Methodology of Transcription and Analysis

As stated above, the analyses in this thesis compare the transcriptions of ten
recordings of single performances of honkyoku whose relationships have been
determined by genealogies based upon oral and written histories of honkyoku
transmissions. Two methods of comparative analysis have been devised, a
musicologically inclined method and a more tradition-based method.

First of all, the ten recordings are transcribed in detail, in a way that allows
“outsiders” to relate them to the recordings. The transcriptions attempt to embody the
process of performing the pieces as well as the product of performing the notes. In
particular, the processes involved in producing the meri and kari notes (see pp.269-
270) are incorporated in the transcriptions through a system using colour as a code
(see below, p.353). The meri and kari notes are significant in terms of both pitch and
timbre. They are also embedded with philosophical meaning.

Secondly, the transcriptions are orthographically simplified by replacing frequently

occurring musical elements with signs or symbols and by omitting certain elements
such as embellishments used to articulate or re-articulate notes. For the purpose of
comparision, these orthographically simplified transcriptions are arranged in such a
way that corresponding material is lined up according to principles outlined below
(p.359), in order to show similarites and differences between the transcriptions. Once
the individual phrases and notes are lined up, the transcriptions are compared on a
number of levels.

On the basis of these comparisons, observations can be made between specific

performers representing a number of lines of transmission. The central questions to be

205
addressed in the analysis are: do the transcriptions of performances support or refute
the lines of transmission shown in a lineage chart based upon evidence such as oral
histories and genealogies; and in what ways do the lines of transmission manifest
themselves in the analysis of transcriptions of recordings by performers on the chart?

Comparisons will be made between a number of categories: between the Futaiken and
Shôganken groups of pieces, between lineages, and between individual performers.
Comparisons will be made on the basis of elements such as large scale structures and
melodic contours (as encapsulated in orthographically simplified versions of the
transcriptions), distinctive melodic, cadential formulae, and finally, details of the
performances.

Patterns of transmission between the pieces represented in the ten performances are
thus brought to light. These patterns occur in the ways in which musical elements are
retained, omitted, or changed during transmission according to the performer, the
lineage, and/or the group. At the highest level of detail, the largely musicological
methods applied to the first levels of analysis become less appropriate. The second
method of comparative analysis applied to the details of the performance has been
developed from tradition-based models of describing honkyoku. This second method
is similar to the way in which the phrases might be explained in a traditional teaching
situation. It entails examining the process of performing the details of the pieces as
they occur phrase by phrase.

I will show, largely by musicologically-based methods, that large-scale structural

analysis of the transcriptions of the performances of ten honkyoku examined in this
thesis confirms the genealogy constructed in Chapter 4: that the ten performances are
essentially manifestations of what is conceptualized as “Reibo”, but that the ten
performances can be divided into two groups which are in turn transmitted by
basically two lineages or lines. In some cases, this commonality between the ten
pieces has been forgotten or overlooked by some members of the honkyoku tradition.
It is appropriate to use non-traditional methods to establish their shared identity.

The tradition-based method of analysis facilitates the observation of the elements of

honkyoku most important to the members of the tradition. Meaningful comparisons of
the “Reibo” pieces using this second method can be made, however, once the identity
of the pieces has been established by the first method of analysis outlined above.

Before either the musicologically based or the tradition based comparative analysis
can be made, it is necessary to explain the method of acquiring and organizing the
analytical data. The following discussions explain the methods of transcription and
how the transcriptions are used as data for comparison, after which the analyses of the
data will be presented.

6.3.1 The Recordings

The data used to analyze the “Reibo” pieces at the three levels of the first,
musicologically-based method outlined above are derived from transcriptions of
recordings of performances of the pieces. Both philosophical and practical issues

206
pertaining to the transcribing of honkyoku have been discussed above (p.310-315). A
detailed examination of the transcription methods used in this thesis is undertaken
below. Transcriptions of recordings of six performers, Uramoto, Watazumi,
Yokoyama, Iwamoto, Jin, and Sakai playing pieces known as “Reibo”, “Futaiken den
‘Reibo’”, “Futaiken reibo”, “Shôganken den ‘Reibo’”, “Shôganken reibo”, and
“Furin” form the basis for the analysis in this thesis.

According to the lineage chart constructed in Chapter 4, all of these pieces, with the
exception of Watazumi’s “Furin”, can be traced back to one player, Hasegawa
Tôgaku of the Ôshû district of northern Japan, who performed a piece which may
have been called “Reibo”. Watazumi’s “Reibo” is also an exception because he does
not acknowledge Uramoto as his teacher, although the genealogy chart indicates that
Uramoto taught Watazumi the piece. Implications of Watazumi’s exceptional position
are manifested in many ways in the analysis (pp.404-418).

As explained in Chapter 4, the genealogy tracing these pieces and their exponents is
based upon reliable data from within the shakuhachi tradition. In the discussion that
follows, I will show that this genealogy, including Watazumi’s “Furin” and “Reibo”,
is confirmed by the analysis. Through the analysis, I will further argue that some of
the specific lines of transmission recorded in the lineage chart are reflected in many
aspects of the performances.

Chart 7

Performers whose recordings are transcribed are marked “(T)”.

The ten recordings represent two groups of pieces and two lineages of honkyoku
performers. Groups “A” and “B” are two distinct versions the piece “Reibo” of the
Ôshû district. These two versions or groups of pieces will be referred to in the
analysis as the “Futaiken reibo” group and the “Shôganken reibo” group in
accordance with the findings of the genealogy. The transmission lines of [Konashi] -

207
Uramoto - Watazumi - Yokoyama 115 and [Konashi] - Jin – Sakai 116 are represented in
group “A”. The transmission lines of Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto and Jin-Sakai
are represented in group “B”. Chart 7 gives the genealogy of the ten performances in
question. The details of the ten recordings are presented below:

Recordings in Group “A”

1. Uramoto Setchô “Reibo” 1985

TRS-5084 Privately released LP recording
2. Watazumi dôso “Reibo” 1968
Crown SW-5006. LP recording
3. Yokoyama Katsuya “Reibo” 1985
Ongaku Tomo no Sha OMC1912.
Cassette recording
4. Jin Nyodô “Futaiken den ‘Reibo’” 1980
Teichiku GM6007. LP recording
5. Sakai Chikuho II “Futaiken reibo” 1978
Adamu Êsu AAC-2001. LP recording

Recordings in Group “B”

6. Watazumi dôso “Furin” 1971

Phillips PH-7503
LP recording
7. Yokoyama Katsuya “Shôganken reibo” 1985
Ongaku Tomo no Sha OMC1912
Cassette recording
8. Iwamoto Yoshikazu “Furin” 1975
NHK (Japan National Radio) 17 November
Radio broadcast
9. Jin Nyodô “Shôganken den ‘Reibo’” 1980
Teichiku GM6007. LP recording
10. Sakai Chikuho II “Shôganken reibo” 1974
Columbia KX7002. LP recording

The recordings are part of a collection of twenty-nine recordings of “Reibo” pieces

115
As discussed above (p.349), Watazumi refutes the suggestion made by many members of
the tradition that Uramoto taught him the piece “Reibo”. The analysis to follow bears out, to
a certain degree, his claim that Uramoto was not his “teacher”, as well as the seemingly
contradictory belief that the piece “Reibo” was transmitted from Uramoto to Watazumi.
116
Jin did not teach Sakai directly, but rather transmitted both “Futaiken reibo” and
“Shôganken reibo” through Sakai’s immediate teacher, Moriyasu Nyotô (森安如涛).
Regrettably, recordings of Moriyasu do not appear to exist.

208
from the Ôshu district in my possession.117 The ten recordings chosen for analysis
from this group were selected because they represent two lineages over two or three
generations which have each transmitted two versions of the “Reibo” piece. Another
major consideration in their selection is my being the recipient of both the two groups
of pieces and the two lineages of performers. 118 Besides the obvious personal
interest and satisfaction I stand to gain from such a choice, I would argue that my
intimate understanding as a performer of each of the two lineages and two groups is
not only desirable but imperative in order to successfully analyze them (see p.369).
This is particularly important for the second tradition-based method of analysis. The
necessity to rely in part upon one’s knowledge as a performer for the musicologically
based method of analysis will also become clear.

Throughout this thesis, the importance of the experience of performing honkyoku has
been emphasized. If a transcription is to provide accurate data about a honkyoku, it
must represent the process of the performance as well as the sound product. Such a
transcription demands an intimate knowledge possessed only by one who can perform
the piece.

6.3.2 Transcription Method

The transcriptions of the ten recordings of the Ôshû family of the piece “Reibo”
attempt to embody the process of performing the pieces as well as the notes produced,
in particular the processes involved in playing meri and kari notes (see p.265). There
are, for example, at least five different combinations of fingerings and meri/kari
techniques all of which produce the pitch g' (on a standard length 1.8 shaku flute)
(Table 1). Each of the combinations produce sounds that are the same pitch but that
are distinct in timbre and other qualities such as the sound produced when they are re-
articulated.

In notation systems such as western staff notation, which denote pitch and rhythm but
in which timbre and fingering technique are not integral to the system, the differences
between the five playing methods mentioned above are not easily represented. While
it might be possible to notate some of the playing methods with the use of double
sharps, double flats, and a combination of sharps and flats, the result would be unclear
and misleading in terms of tonality. Figure 19 illustrates some of the problems of staff
notation using only sharps and flats in attempting to transcribe passages of honkyoku
that contain meri/kari techniques.

In the transcriptions in this thesis, the meri/kari processes are reflected in the notation
by the use of coloured note heads; blue note heads are meri notes and orange note
heads are kari notes. The important distinction is immediately apparent in the
transcription between notes that are identical in pitch but that are produced with

117
Many of the recordings were collected in Japan in 1988-1989, with the assistance of Ms.
Tukitani and the Syakuhati kenkyûkai (尺八研究会, ‘Shakuhachi Research Group’).
118
Sakai taught me his versions of what he called “Shôganken reibo” and “Futaiken reibo”
between the years 1973 and 1975, and Yokoyama taught me his versions of what he called
“Shôganken reibo” and “Reibo” in 1989.

209
contrasting meri/kari techniques. Figure 20 shows transcriptions of the preceding
examples, but with the use of colour to indicate the meri/kari processes. Not only is
the transcription more readable, but one aspect of the process of performance, the
meri/kari techniques, becomes readily apparent.

It is important to point out that the choice of colours, blue for meri and orange for
kari, is consistent with the philosophical symbolism of the yin/yang duality
underlying the meri/kari techniques. As explained elsewhere (p.269), meri notes
represent yin (earth, night, darkness, female, softness), while kari notes represent
yang (heaven, day, light, male, hardness). The colour blue is appropriate for
representing the meri (yin) notes, while the colour orange is appropriate for
representing the kari (yang) notes.

The second major weakness of staff notation in transcribing performances of

honkyoku is that of rhythm. The precise rhythmical markings based upon metrical
beats of the staff notation system are inappropriate for notating the “free” rhythms of
indeterminate meter of classical honkyoku. In the transcriptions in this thesis,
durations are indicated both spatially and by using modified rhythmical markings of
staff notation. Durations are indicated linearly on the staff with one centimetre
representing one second in time. Accordingly, a note that is held eight seconds, is
separated from the subsequent note by eight centimetres. One staff line, being about
sixteen centimetres in length, represents approximately sixteen seconds of real-time
performance, while one page of transcription represents a little over two minutes of
performance. The accuracy of this method of representing duration is obviously not
exceedingly high, especially in the case of notes of very short durations. It does,
however, give an immediate and easily understood indication of the relative lengths of
notes and phrases.

The spatial representation is reinforced by the use of the standard rhythmical

markings of staff notation, which have been arbitrarily assigned the following values.
Semibreves are used to indicate notes with durations of over four seconds. Minims
indicate durations between two and four seconds. Crotchets indicate durations
between one and two seconds. Quavers indicate durations between one and one-half
seconds and semiquavers indicate durations of less than a half second.

The modified rhythmical markings, which make no differentiation between a note

held four seconds and one held fourteen, are less precise than the spatial
representation of durations, but only when judged by western musicological criteria.
Their very imprecision in fact mirrors the “insider’s” way of looking at duration: in
the performer’s mind, a note with a “long duration” is held a “long time”, not “four
seconds” or “eight seconds”. How long the note ends up being held depends upon the
circumstances of the individual performer and performance. The two complementary
systems of notating duration in the transcriptions allow for both an “objective”
musicological and a “subjective” insider way of viewing the music.

The performers of the ten recordings used a variety of lengths of shakuhachi. In order
to facilitate the comparison of the performances, the transcriptions are transposed so
that the fundamental pitch (the lowest pitch produced with all finger holes closed) of
all instruments equals the pitch D above middle C. Honkyoku, when performed on a
standard length 1.8 shaku, employ primarily the miyako bushi mode, consisting of the

210
pitches D, E-flat, G, A-flat, and C, or the pitches D, E-flat, G, A, and B-flat. In other
words, when the pitches D, G, and C occur, they are almost always natural, and when
E and B occur they are almost always flattened. The pitch A occurs both as A-flat and
A-natural.

The consistent flattening of the pitches E and B suggests the use of a key signature in
order to eliminate the majority of accidentals that would otherwise occur in the
transcriptions. Therefore, the two flats, E-flat and B-flat, appear in the key signature
of the transcriptions, but not in the order traditionally assigned to them. Writing the E-
flat before the B-flat is my attempt to avoid the standard interpretation of key
signatures and their harmonic implications. Finally, A-flat does not appear in the key
signature even though the pitch A-flat frequently occurs in the transcriptions, because
A-natural also appears with regularity. In contrast, E-natural and B-natural are almost
non-existent.

The transcriptions have also accommodated the honkyoku performing tradition by not
notating any “grace note” caused by the standard technique used in shakuhachi
playing to repeat or re-articulate a note. In performing traditional shakuhachi music,
this technique replaces tonguing to repeat a note. 119 The technique is nearly identical
to what is used in the performance of bagpipes (where tonguing is impossible), and
involves the rapid opening and closing, or hitting, of a finger hole, producing an
extremely brief sound in between the notes being repeated. Although these sounds
could be considered grace notes and notated as such in the staff notation system, they
are neither conceived of nor heard as grace notes in the honkyoku tradition. Non-
standard techniques used to repeat notes are noted in the transcription.

In the course of performing, the finger hole opened and closed, or hit, is determined
according to the note being repeated. This standard system is one of the first things a
shakuhachi player learns as a beginner. The standard repeats are neither notated nor
discussed in traditional shakuhachi notation. They are not considered “notes”. For
these reasons, and in order to make the transcriptions more legible, the standard re-
articulations are not notated.

In honkyoku performance, however, there are alternative re-articulations. Finger holes

other than those used for standard re-articulations are opened and closed, or hit, or
combinations of techniques are used to repeat notes. In contrast to the standard re-
articulations, which pass without comment in a lesson, these alternative re-
articulations are emphasized in honkyoku lessons and are frequently notated in
traditional scores. Sounds produced by re-articulations other than those that are
standard will therefore be notated in the transcriptions.

Likewise, articulations used to stress the beginning of notes are executed by striking
or lifting one or more finger holes. Again, tonguing is never used in honkyoku
performances to articulate a note. These beginning articuations are common, but
unlike re-articulations, there are no standard methods of articulating notes which are
internalized by the beginner shakuhachi player. These articulations are notated in the
transcriptions.

119
Tonguing is used only in playing certain modern pieces dating from the 20th century.

211
With the above minor changes to the staff notation system, it is possible to transcribe
honkyoku in such a way that the important features of the music are retained in a form
that is relatively easily and widely understood. The transcriptions of the recordings of
the ten performances mentioned above can be found in Appendix 1.

6.3.3 The Orthographically Simplified Transcription

Once the transcriptions are completed, the second step towards a comparative analysis
is the simplification of the transcription for the purpose of comparison. This
simplification allows the phrases and the notes within the phrases to be lined up. In
this thesis, the transcriptions are simplified by a systematic replacement of frequently
occuring musical elements with signs or symbols, and by the elimination of details
that are not musically significant. It is important to note that the result is a simplified
orthography that facilitates comparison but does not eliminate significant detail.

Many of the details of the original transcriptions are utilized in the final analysis, but
tend to hide the elements being looked for at this level. The simplified transcription is
derived by making the following changes in the original transcriptions:

Coloured note heads indicating instances of meri and kari techniques are also retained
in the melodic contour. With the above changes in the transcribed score, the broad
melodic contour of the pieces can be more readily observed and the pieces in question
compared. 120 Similarities and differences between the transcriptions on a macro level
are used to draw conclusions about the large scale structure of the “Reibo” pieces,
about the degree of change and the plausibility of the claim of shared origins between
pieces. It will be seen that both similarities and differences between the transcriptions
of the ten performances support the findings of the research into lineages as shown in
the genealogy chart. Furthermore, the location of similar and different musical
material in the transcriptions validates the claims by many members of the
shakuhachi tradition that the transmission of honkyoku in general and the Ôshû
“Reibo” pieces in particular is largely oral in nature. The orthographically simplified
transcriptions of the ten performances of “Reibo” are found in Appendix 2.

6.3.4 Lining up the Orthographically Simplified Transcriptions

Once the ten transcriptions representing the recorded performances are simplified
orthographically, attempts can be made to arrange the transcriptions so that a location
in one transcription can be compared with a corresponding location in another
transcription. The lineage chart discussed in Chapter 4 (p.192) suggests the possibility
of arranging the transcriptions so that one might assume that phrases in one
transcription are lined up with the corresponding phrases in the other transcriptions. A
successful attempt to line up most of the data provided by the transcriptions would
largely validate, independently of any data used to create the lineage chart, the
conclusion of the lineage chart that the ten versions all share a common identity,

120
See pp.569-594 for the orthographically simplified transcriptions of the “Reibo” pieces.

212
which in this case can be traced back to the “Reibo” as transmitted by the komusô
Hasegawa Tôgaku.

The musical material of the ten transcriptions at first seemed hopelessly confusing in
both the degree of divergence and the repetition of material. The method of
organization I found most successful relies heavily upon my practical knowledge of
the pieces as a recipient of four of the versions.

The first step toward arranging the simplified transcriptions in the manner described
above is to look at those traditional scores which label the placement of formal
divisions. Beginnings and ends of formal sections are marked in the traditional scores
of three of the pieces in one group and two of the pieces in the other group. These
traditional markings can be used to determine the beginnings and ends of the formal
sections in all ten of the pieces, which in turn can become the starting point from
which to line up the transcriptions.

In the traditionally notated scores of “Shôganken reibo” as transmitted by Jin, Sakai,

and Yokoyama (transcribed by Furuya Teruo 古屋輝夫), six sections are clearly
marked and named. The names of these sections, which are identical in the three
versions are: Take shirabe [竹調] (‘bamboo searching’), Honte [本手] (‘original
pattern’), Takane [高音] (‘high sound’), Takane gaeshi [高音返し] (‘repeating the
high sound’), Hachi gaeshi [鉢返し] (‘returning the bowl’), and Musubi [結]
(‘closing’).

Tukitani describes the six sections as follows:

Take shirabe [竹調] (‘bamboo searching’): a sedate introductory section,

suggesting the atmosphere of the entire piece, and introducing certain motifs.

Honte [本手] (‘original pattern’): the section presenting the main motifs of the
piece such as the “Reibo” theme. This theme varies slightly with each piece.

Takane [高音] (‘high sound’): a beautiful melodic line beginning in and

descending from the highest register, followed by a repetition of the main
theme of the honte section.

Takane gaeshi [高音返し] (‘high sound returning’): a repeat of the takane

section, with a variation of the honte section.

Here, the komusô would return the bowl, having received the alms, and
perform the following section as a sign of gratitude. 121

121
Tukitani here refers to the practice of mendicancy performed by komusô. The most
common form of alms received by the mendicant priests was uncooked rice, brought out in a
bowl (hachi). The priest, stopping in the middle of performing the honkyoku, would empty the
bowl of rice into his collection bag, and then return the bowl to his benefactor. The komusô
would then continue playing, performing the section, “Returning the bowl”.

213
 Hachi gaeshi [鉢返し] (‘returning the bowl’): a transposition 122 of the theme,
using the tamane [玉音] (‘ball-like sound’) technique. 123 This section is a
“change” within the piece as a whole.

Musubi [結] (‘closing’): a short concluding section, played in the high register,
though many variants finish in the low register.

(Tukitani 1990b:15)

The location of these divisions in the transcriptions corresponding to the scores that
indicate them is facilitated by the close correlation between the performances and the
corresponding scores. For example, the number of phrases notated in the score used
by Sakai is identical to the number of phrases in the transcription of Sakai’s
performance.

Once the divisions are located in the transcriptions of the three “Shôganken reibo”
pieces performed by those using traditional notation with the divisions labelled, it is
possible to look for the formal divisions in the transcriptions of the remaining two
performances included in the “Shôganken reibo” group, those of Watazumi and
Iwamoto. 124 On the basis of the conclusions made upon examining the endings and
beginnings of the divisions in the above three transcriptions, one can determine where
the divisions exist in the other two pieces. The remarkable extent of agreement
between these two transcriptions and the first three transcriptions above, including
cadential formulae shared by all five transcriptions, is sufficient to locate the formal
divisions in the latter two transcriptions with relative certainty. The cadential
formulae will be discussed below (pp.379-382).

Figure 22 shows parts of the transcriptions of the five performances of

the “Shôganken reibo” pieces, which correspond to segments of the initial and final
phrases of the formal divisions of the piece, whose location has been substantiated by
the three traditional scores of “Shôganken reibo” mentioned above. In the
transcriptions of all five performances, all but one of the sections ends on the pitch D,
which is the fundamental note of the instrument (on a 1.8 shaku length flute), that is
one of the primary core tones (kakuon) in the honkyoku (see p.316). The final musubi
section is the exception. In the case of the ending of the musubi section (which
corresponds to the end of the piece), there is likewise a sustained D in all five
transcriptions. In the three transcriptions representing the Watazumi lineage
(Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto), however, a final phrase, which ends on the
pitch A and which is not present in the Jin-Sakai transcriptions, is added after the

122
Tukitani is not clear in her use of the word “transposition” (転調, tenchô) here. In musical
terms, the word can also mean “modulation” and “transition”.
123
The tamane technique is similar to flutter tonguing, except that the uvula is “fluttered”
instead of the tongue. The result is a softer sound.
124
Though Watazumi and Iwamoto use the title “Furin” for their pieces, they are initially
included in the “Shôganken reibo” group. Their inclusion is based on the oral and written
information used to assemble the genealogy chart (see Chapter 4). Data derived from the
transcriptions, beginning with the initial and final phrases of the formal divisions, discussed
here, validate their placement in the “Shôganken reibo” group.

214
phrase with the sustained D. The implications of this difference will be addressed
below (p.378).

For the most part, the formal divisions, as notated in the traditional scores,
substantiate the hypothesis that the five transcriptions represent pieces that are closely
related, if not the same. The similarity of material that can be found at the beginnings
and endings of what are believed to be the formal divisions clearly establishes their
location in all five transcriptions.

Having established the location of the formal divisions in the five transcriptions of the
“Shôganken reibo” group, the same process can be applied to the “Futaiken reibo”
group of pieces. 125 In contrast to the case of “Shôganken reibo”, the formal divisions
of the piece “Futaiken reibo” are labelled only in the traditional scores of Jin and
Sakai. Furthermore, there are only five sections instead of six. The five sections of
“Futaiken reibo” as found in the scores of Jin and Sakai are Take shirabe, Honte,
Takane, Hachi gaeshi, and Musubi. As in the case of “Shôganken reibo”, the location
of these divisions in the transcriptions of Jin and Sakai’s performances and the
corresponding locations in the transcriptions of the remaining three performances can
be pinpointed with relative certainty due to the high degree of similarity between the
five transcriptions. 126 Figure 23 shows the initial and final phrase segments of the
divisions in the five “Futaiken reibo” transcriptions as marked in traditional scores.

Similar divisional markings can be found in traditional scores representing other

lineages of “Reibo” pieces, although frequently with different titles. Scores of eight
versions of the “Reibo” piece are included in the published honkyoku scores of
Yamaue (Yamaue 1984). They exhibit the following variations from the above
division of formal sections:

1. The piece “Reibo” of Futaiken (布袋軒, a sub-temple), as transmitted by

Sakata Tôsui (坂田東水) through Sanô Tôkai (佐野東界), is divided into
take shirabe, ichi no takane (high sound 1), ni no takane (high sound 2),
san no takane (high sound 3).
2. The piece “Reibo” of Futaiken, as transmitted by Konashi Kinsui
(小梨錦水) through Goto Tôsui (後藤桃水), is divided into take shirabe,
taki otoshi (瀧落シ, falling waterfall), take ne (taki otoshi no uchi) (high
sound within the falling waterfall [section]), hachigaeshi, and tsuyu kiri
(露切, literally ‘cutting the dew’). 127

125
The five pieces grouped under the name “Futaiken reibo” are Jin’s “Futaiken den
‘Reibo’”, Sakai’s “Futaiken reibo” and Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto’s “Reibo”. The
grouping together of these five pieces is initially dictated by the written and oral information
used to derive the “Reibo” lineage chart (see Chapter 4), and, as with the “Shôganken reibo”
group, data from transcriptions validate the grouping.
126
Though the label takane gaeshi does not occur in either of the traditional scores of
“Futaiken reibo”, musical material that corresponds to varying degrees to the takane gaeshi
sections of the “Shôganken reibo” pieces can be found in all five versions of the “Futaiken
reibo” transcriptions. Discussion of this will be deferred until later (see p.374).

127
The term tsuyu kiri is occasionally used to denote the final section of a honkyoku. The
“dew” refers to the condensation that forms inside the shakuhachi while playing.

215
 3. The piece “Reibo” of Futaiken, (also called “Miyagino Reibo”
宮城野鈴慕) as transmitted by Konashi Kinsui through Kobayashi Shizan
(小林紫山), is divided into take shirabe, taki otoshi, takane, and
hachigaeshi.
4. The piece “Reibo” of Futaiken, as transmitted by Konashi Kinsui through
Uramoto Setchô (浦本浙潮) and then Tanikita Muchiku (谷北無竹), is
divided into take shirabe, taki otoshi, ichi no takane, ni no takane, and
hachigaeshi.
5. The piece “Reibo” of Kinjôji (金城寺, a temple) and Garyôken (臥龍軒, a
sub-temple), as transmitted by Hasegawa Tôgaku (長谷川東學) through
Onodera Genkichi (小野寺源吉) and then Orito Nyogetsu (折登如月),
and also transmitted by Takahashi Kûsan (高橋空山), is divided into take
shirabe, reibo (honte), takane, honkyoku (main piece), and hachigaeshi.
6. The piece “Reibo” of Shôganken (a sub-temple), as transmitted by Jin
Nyodô (神如道) is divided into take shirabe, honte (reibo), takane,
honkyoku, and hachigaeshi.
7. The piece “Ôshû reibo” as transmitted by Tsuruta Nandô (鶴田南童) has
no formal divisions.
8. The piece “Bôno reibo” (芒野鈴慕) is divided into an unnamed
introductory section, takane, a second takane, and an unnamed concluding
section (Yamaue 1984:12-35).

Finally, in the book, Kinpû ryû honkyoku den (錦風流尺八本曲伝, ‘Transmission of

Kimpû ryû shakuhachi honkyoku’) (Uchiyama 1972:77-78), the score of the piece
“Miyagi reibo” (宮城鈴慕) as transmitted by Onodera Genkichi is given as divided
into shirabe, reibo, honkyoku kaeshi, and hachigaeshi.

The majority of the above names of formal divisions of “Reibo” pieces coincide with
those of the “Shôganken reibo” and “Futaiken reibo” groups examined earlier. Table
2 summarizes the sections as found in the ten versions of the “Reibo” pieces studied
in this thesis and comparing them with the sections named in the nine traditional
scores mentioned above. Similarities between the formal divisions are apparent,
despite differences in naming the divisions. In particular the use of the names Reibo,
Honte and Taki otoshi to indicate the section after the Shirabe section, further
substantiate the hypothesis that they are all pieces belonging to the “Reibo” family.

Once the beginnings and endings of the various sections of all ten transcriptions have
been located, it is possible to begin organizing for comparative analysis, the
remaining portions of the transcriptions, that is, the material between the beginning
and ending of each division. Immediately apparent are the notes that are core tones
(see p.316), that is, the pitches D, G, A, and C. A number of these core tones are
sustained for over two seconds. Figure 24 shows a page of the lined up
orthographically simplified transcriptions with a box drawn around all of the core
tones held for two seconds or more.

In a few cases, especially in passages in the upper register, there are sustained notes in
the different transcriptions that are also easily lined up. These notes, however, being
the pitches A-flat, B-flat and E-flat, are not core tones. These pitches, which are

216
usually performed with the meri technique, are almost always played using the kari
technique when in the context of obvious correlation.

After the beginnings and ends of formal sections and the core tones are lined up, the
remaining intervening notes can then be scrutinized. In many cases, distinctive
melodic formulae can be used to line up the transcriptions. These distinctive features
or melodic formulae act as the “signposts” which are known to operate in
remembering oral music (Treitler 1974:344-345) (see p.220). The most obvious
melodic formula is the reibo no te (鈴慕の手, the ‘“Reibo” pattern’ or ‘fingering’).

The term reibo no te is used by members of the honkyoku tradition in talking about
“Reibo” in the context of lessons and elsewhere. The reibo no te is a pattern of notes
which may be less than a phrase, an entire phrase or more than one phrase. It is
always in the upper octave range (甲, kan), is predominately performed with the meri
technique, is usually characterized by a density of notes far greater than the average,
and has elaborate ornamentation.

The pattern of notes centres primarily around the pitch g" and to a lesser degree a-
flat", and frequently concludes with the pitches e-flat" and d". One difficulty in
defining a phrase as reibo no te is the frequent occurrence of what could be called
fragments of reibo no te, e.g., without the e-flat" - d", often within phrases that
contain non-reibo no te material as well (see the latter half of S:Y39). 128 In this study,
material will be termed as reibo no te only in places that were so defined to me.

Variations of reibo no te occur repeatedly in all ten versions of “Reibo” transcribed in

this study. Figure 25 gives two examples of reibo no te from the transcriptions used in
this study. The two examples are from recordings of performances by the same person
(Watazumi), and represent both the “Shôganken reibo” and the “Futaiken reibo”
groups. They show the extremes the reibo no te pattern can have in length and
complexity.

Melodic passages considered reibo no te are labelled and discussed as such in the
honkyoku tradition, for example during lessons. Because the notes in reibo no te are
usually not core tones and are of extremely short duration, the placement of the reibo
no te passages are most helpful in collating material that are neither beginnings and
ends of formal divisions nor core tones. All of the reibo no te are marked with
brackets in the completed lining up of the orthographicaly simplified transcription.

There is some material in the orthographically simplified transcriptions which does

not fit in any of the three categories mentioned thus far: beginnings and ends of
sections, core tones, and distinctive melodic formulae. The less obvious the
correlation between notes becomes, the more arbitrary the decision becomes to
determine their placement. Notes that do not seem to line up with any notes in other
versions are given an isolated position.

128
In the analysis, specific phrases of individual performers are denoted by either F or S
followed by the initial of the performer, and then the number of the phrase or phrases. For
example, S:Y39 is phrase 39 of Yokoyama’s version of “Shôganken reibo”.

217
It soon became apparent that my attempt to line up the transcriptions would not
succeed without relying on my intimate and intuitive understanding of the piece as a
recipient, performer, and teacher of four of the ten versions. The choice of notes or
phrases to use as correlative “signposts”, which most likely corresponded with each
other and between which the other notes had to fall, could in many instances only be
made with such an understanding. Yet once those choices were made, the high degree
of correlation between the transcribed material which remained to be lined up
reinforced the original decisions.
In all phases of the arrangement of the transcriptions the two groups of pieces,
“Shôganken reibo” and “Futaiken reibo”, are dealt with separately, as explained in
the case of lining up of the beginnings and endings of formal divisions. Only after the
correlation of the pieces within each group is independently established are the notes
from the pieces of both of the two groups lined up. It should also be noted here that
the various levels of material used to line up the simplified transcriptions confirm
each other. For example, the placement of the core tones confirms the locations of the
formal divisions and distinctive melodic formulae. Likewise, the locations of the
distinctive melodic formulas confirm the placement of both of the previous levels of
core tones and formal divisions.

The successful arrangement of the ten transcriptions confirms a common identity

shared by the ten pieces represented in the transcriptions, as is strongly suggested by
the genealogy chart. To what extent and in what ways the common identity is
manifested in the ten transcriptions, and how they are related to the lines of
transmission are addressed in the analysis.

The completely lined up orthographically simplified transcriptions of the ten

recordings can be found in Appendix 3.

6.4 Comparative Analysis of “Reibo”

Although the impetus behind a comparative analysis of the melodic contours and the
details of the “Reibo” pieces comes largely from a musicological perspective, the
methodology of the analysis relies very much on a tradition-based understanding of
the pieces. The method of analysis used in establishing contours is based upon
knowledge of, and processes found within, the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition in its
execution.

With the large data base of the transcriptions of ten recordings, representing the
lineages, generations, and individual performers outlined earlier, comparisons will be
made on a number of levels, and between a number of subjects in a number of
combinations:

1. Between the two groups of “Reibo” pieces (the "Futaiken reibo" group vs.
the “Shôganken reibo” group) in order to show similarities and differences
which define the two groups.
2. Between the two lineages within each of the two groups of pieces (the FR
versions of the Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage vs. the FR versions of the
Jin-Sakai lineage, and the SR versions of Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto

218
 vs. the SR versions of the Jin-Sakai lineage) in order to show the level of
consistency between performers within the same lineage.
3. Between individual performers of different lineages within the same group
(Jin’s FR version vs. Uramoto’s FR version). In this and the following
combination of comparisons, patterns of variation between individuals can
be seen.
4. Between individual performers within the same lineages (Uramoto’s FR
version vs. Watazumi’s FR version).

The comparisons focus upon the similarities and differences between such elements
as formal divisions, the placement and frequency of core notes (see p.366), the
location and execution of cadential and other distinctive melodic formulae, the details
of performance such as attacks and re-articulations, and the details of pitch.

Through the comparisons, the following questions can be addressed: In what ways
can the two groups of “Reibo” be defined? Given the ten different performers
representing two different lineages within the two different groups of pieces, what
patterns of similarities and differences can be seen? How are these patterns related to
the transmission between the performers, and to the issue of stability and change? To
what extent do patterns occur which support or refute what is known about individual
performers and their beliefs concerning the nature and essence of honkyoku?

Before such comparisons can be made, however, it is necessary to clearly establish

that the ten performances represented by the transcriptions share similarites and
differences to a degree that indicates that they are all identifiable as valid
manifestations of “Reibo”. The genealogy charts (see pp.173-196) have already
suggested this, which has been further substantiated by the successful arrangement of
the orthographically simplified transcriptions (see pp.569-594).

6.4.1 Establishing a Common Identity for the Ten Pieces Using Data from the
Transcriptions

In the context of theories of orality (pp.218-223), “Reibo” is not a single piece. There
is neither an “original” “Reibo”, nor versions of an “original” “Reibo” piece. There is
no single underlying text of “Reibo”. In trying to establish whether or not the
performances represented by the ten transcriptions are all identifiable as “Reibo”, one
must look at the amount and placement of shared material. The more material that is
common to all ten of the transcriptions, the more likelihood of a shared identity. If the
shared material includes such important material as core notes, beginnings and
endings of formal sections and distinctive melodic formulae, then this likelihood
gains even more credence.

A great deal of shared material between the ten pieces can be seen in the arrangement
of the orthographically simplified transcriptions described previously (pp.359-369).
Particularly significant are notes sustained for long durations. In Figure 26, it can be
seen that certain notes of long duration in the first seven to thirteen phrases of the
initial shirabe section are shared by the majority of the pieces. These are arranged in
the same way as in the orthographically simplified transcriptions in the previous

219
section. Notes appear only if identical notes are found in at least six among all ten of
the “Reibo” versions, and the note in at least one of the versions has a minimum
duration value of a minim (i.e., at least two seconds in length). Most of the phrases in
the shirabe section of all ten transcriptions share at least one of these notes. A similar
degree of shared material can be seen throughout the entire piece.

In addition to the notes of long duration discussed above, other material supports the
idea of a common identity of the ten pieces, in particular the material at the
beginnings and ends of formal divisions (Table 3). The following observations can be
made regarding the main divisions of “Reibo”.

In all ten performances of the “Reibo” piece except that of Uramoto, the take shirabe
section ends on the fundamental note of the instrument (d') (Figure 27). The honte
section, which follows the take shirabe section, begins on the first octave above the
fundamental note (d") in all performances. This division is one of the most easily
recognized in the transcriptions in both groups.

It was stated earlier (p.364) that the “Futaiken reibo” group has only five sections
marked in the traditional scores, while the “Shôganken reibo” group has six. This is
because there is no formal division marked in the traditional scores at the location in
the FR pieces which corresponds to the location of the division between the honte and
takane sections in the SR pieces (see Table 3). The final phrase of the honte section of
the SR pieces ends on d" (Figure 28). The FR phrase, which should correspond to the
final phrase of the “Shôganken reibo” honte section, ends on g". Both of these notes
are “core notes” (see p.316), and are important in their function as cadential endings
or “tonics” (see the discussion of orality, pp.218-223).

These notes are held for over four seconds in all of the FR pieces and for over two
seconds in all of the SR pieces. Therefore, it is reasonable to draw a parallel between
the g" of the FR pieces and the d" of the SR pieces at this point. Furthermore, the
following phrase in FR follows the same melodic line as the corresponding SR
phrase, that is, the beginning phrase of the SR takane section. One may therefore
conclude that there is a division in the FR pieces at a point which corresponds to the
end of the honte section and the beginning of the takane section in the SR pieces,
even though this division is not labelled in the traditional scores. If we count this
unmarked division, the number of formal divisions of the “Futaiken reibo” pieces
become equal to the six marked divisions of the “Shôganken reibo” pieces.

As shown in Figure 29, what is labelled the final phrase of the honte section of FR in
the traditional scores, corresponds to the final phrase of the takane section of SR (see
Table 3). Though the names of the sections differ between the two groups at this
point, the cadential and initial formulae at this formal division are related to each
other. In all ten versions, there is a sustained (over four seconds) d" at this point,
followed by a short melodic figure in all of the SR versions, and a brief final note in
Jin’s FR version.

What is called the takane section of FR is labelled the takane gaeshi of SR (see Table
3). In the five FR pieces, the main note of the initial phrase of this section is g". In the
SR pieces, the g" phrase does not occur. There is, however agreement between the SR
group and three versions of the FR group in the subsequent material, beginning with

220
the note b-flat", followed by a long c"'. These three are the third phrase of the takane
section of both Watazumi (F:W52) and Yokoyama (F:Y51) and the second phrase of
Sakai (F:S31). After the long c"', which is found in eight of the ten transcriptions, all
ten versions coincide with phrases that play between d"' and e-flat"', resolving on c"'.

The final phrase of the takane section in the FR versions (F:U33, etc.) and the takane
gaeshi section in the SR versions (S:W 47, etc.) (Figure 30) resolves on a sustained
d". In all ten versions, the d" is followed by the short melodic figures discussed in
more detail below (see p.379).

In all ten versions, the section following the above division ending is labelled the
hachigaeshi section (Figure 30). Also in all ten versions, this section begins with a
distinctively intense b-flat" played with the kari technique, followed by variations of
an oscillation between a" and b-flat".

In the FR versions, the ending of the hachigaeshi section and the beginning of the
musubi section occurs at F:U38, according to divisions mentioned in the scores of Jin
and Sakai (Figure 31). Though there is no sectional division labelled at this point in
the SR versions, the corresponding phrase in the SR versions (S:W59, etc.) also
begins with the pitch g'. In two of the versions (Watazumi and Jin) the note is
sustained over four seconds. Material in this phrase in the SR group parallels that of
the FR group. One might therefore conclude that there is a weak unlabelled division at
this point in the SR group, which corresponds to the beginning of the musubi section
of the FR group (see Table 3).

Though there is less correlation between the beginnings and endings of the musubi
section of the two groups of pieces than can be observed in the rest of the piece, in the
context of this discussion it is important to observe that both groups have final
sections identically labelled as the musubi section.

The data in the transcriptions at the locations of the beginnings and endings of formal
divisions manifest to a great extent a common overall structure shared by all ten of the
performances. The amount and type of similarity seen between the ten transcriptions
at these points also correspond to characteristics in tune with theories of orality
regarding structural points (see pp.218-223). The degree of similarity at the points
immediately before and after the divisions between large scale structures in the
pieces, especially the frequent occurrence of shared cadential formulae, is also in
accord with theories of orality, in particular where pertaining to the use of salient
features and the beginnings and ends as focal points in the process of constructing the
oral performance (see p.221).

The material at the formal divisions substantiates the observation concerning notes of
long duration shared by all ten performances discussed above. A third indication that
the ten performances are all manifestations of “Reibo” is the existence and location of
the distinctive melodic formula described earlier, reibo no te (p.368). This formula
can be found in all ten of the transcriptions. Table 4 summerizes the occurrences of
reibo no te within the formal divisions of the ten performances. Though there are
differences between the details of the various reibo no te, for the most part they occur
in the same places in all ten of the pieces.

221
Two of the discrepancies between the ten trascriptions in the occurrences of reibo no
te underline the differences between the two groups of pieces. In the hachigaeshi
section, a single reibo no te occurs in all five of the SR versions, but in none of the FR
versions. Also in the musubi section, one reibo no te occurs in four of the FR
versions, but not in any of the SR versions.

Some of the other differences in the occurrences of reibo no te indicate patterns of

variation other than those related to the two groups. For example, the second
occurrence of reibo no te in both the honte and the takane sections of the FR group is
performed by the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage but not the Jin-Sakai
lineage. Differences relating to lineages and other elements of transmission are
discussed in the analyses to follow.

The above discussion presents ample evidence that the performances represented by
the ten transcriptions used in this study are all manifestations of the piece “Reibo”,
with both a great number of shared similarities and a substantial amount of possible
cross-fertilization where differences occur. This was shown by the notes of long
duration, the material at the formal divisions of the pieces, and the distinctive melodic
formula known as reibo no te.

6.4.2 Comparison of the Two Groups, “Futaiken reibo” and “Shôganken reibo”

The previous section established a commonality between the performances

represented by the ten transcriptions. This section focuses upon the differences that
can be found between the two groups at the locations of the formal divisions, between
cadential formulae and between other material that is present in one group but not the
other. These differences are analyzed for relationships between the ten performances
in order to show to what extent similarities and differences indicate patterns of
variation that can be explained in terms of transmission.

Of all the divisions noted in traditional scores, the endings of the hachigaeshi sections
and the beginnings of the musubi sections appear to bear the least correlation between
the SR and FR groups. According to divisions marked in the Jin and Sakai scores, the
final phrase of the FR hachigaeshi section (Figure 32) ends with a sustained d"
followed by a short c", similar to patterns of other section endings. At this point, there
is no division marked in any of the SR scores. The SR versions also have phrases
ending on d" and c", but the d" in the SR versions is short in duration.

Variation amongst the SR versions can also be seen at this point. In Watazumi’s SR,
this phrase (S:W58) does not have the final c", while in Iwamoto’s SR version
(S:I58), the phrase ends on c"', an octave higher than the others. As will be seen in the
analyses that follow, Watazumi’s versions of both the FR and SR groups most
frequently diverge from the other versions. The versions of the other members of his
lineage, that is Yokoyama and Iwamoto, also frequently exhibit differences.

In the FR versions, the following phrase (F:U39, etc.) (Figure 32), marks the start of
the FR musubi section. In all but one of the FR versions the phrase begins with a
sustained g', which is preceded by one or two notes of brief duration. Watazumi’s FR

222
version is the exception (F:W78), omitting the g'. Immediately after the difference in
the initial phrase, the Watazumi version parallels the other FR versions except
Yokoyama’s version, which omits a number of phrases at this point. The differences
seen here between the performances not only differentiate the two groups, but also
point to a number of other patterns of variation, discussed below, such as divergences
within a single lineage, in this case, that of Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama.

The division between the hachigaeshi and musubi sections in the SR versions, as
labelled in the Yokoyama, Jin, and Sakai scores, does not occur until several phrases
later (S:W60) (Figure 33). The final phrase of the SR hachigaeshi section conforms
with the cadential pattern c"-g' (see below, p.379). There is nothing in the FR versions
to suggest a similar pattern or a cadential ending, a clear case of variation following
the parameters of the group.

The SR musubi section begins with a b-flat", played with the kari technique, which
then alternates in various patterns with a". In Yokoyama’s version, the initial note is
a", but the overall pattern is the same (S:Y67). No such kari b-flat" - a" pattern can be
seen in the FR versions at this juncture, except in Watazumi’s version (F:W88),
which, once again, exhibits a high degree of divergence from other FR versions.

In all of the beginnings and ends of sections of the piece, the ending of the “Reibo”
pieces exhibits the least conformity between the two groups. In the SR versions of the
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage (S:W62, S:Y68, S:I63) (Figure 34), the final
phrase of the piece ends on a sustained a-natural", which is preceded by b-flat". In the
Jin (S:J81) and Sakai (S:S80) versions, this entire phrase does not occur. These two
versions conclude on the phrase corresponding to the penultimate phrase of the
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto versions, which ends on the notes c" - d", with the d"
sustained. A virtually identical phrase is notated in the Yokoyama score as the final
phrase of the piece, but is not performed. 129 The pattern of variation seen here
clearly reflects transmission between members of the same lineage within each group.

The FR versions do not have the b-flat" - a-natural" phrase that concludes the SR
versions. Instead, up to eight phrases later (Figure 35), all versions conclude on a
sustained d', preceded by a shorter c' in Uramoto’s (F:U51) and Watazumi’s (F:W99)
versions and the pitch g' in Yokoyama’s (F:Y82), Jin’s (F:J66), and Sakai’s (F:S60)
versions. Thus, the final note is d' in five of the ten versions (the five “Futaiken
reibo” pieces), d" in two versions (S:J and S:S), and in one version the final phrase is
d" in the notated score but not in the performance (S:Y). The piece ends on a" in three
of the versions (S:W, S:Y, S:I). The variation seen in the endings is not confined to
the final note, but is evident in the entire final phrase.

The differences observed in the endings of the piece can be classified in the following
manner. The greatest differences can be seen between the two groups of pieces.
Within both groups, the differences coincide with the different lines of transmission,
with the single exception of Yokoyama’s FR version.

129
When Yokoyama taught me “Shôganken reibo” in 1989, he said that the c" - d" phrase
was one way to end the piece, but that he preferred ending on the a-natural".

223
The data in the transcriptions at the locations of the beginnings and endings of formal
divisions not only manifests to a great extent a commonality between all ten
performances, but also reflects lines of transmission defined by both the two groups
of pieces and the lineages within each group. The greatest degree of similarity is
found in comparisons of the FR Jin and Sakai pieces, the SR Jin and Sakai pieces, the
FR Uramoto, Watazumi, and Yokoyama pieces, and the SR Watazumi, Yokoyama,
and Iwamoto pieces.

In addition to the material at the formal divisions, another feature which distinguishes
the two groups of pieces is the distinctive melodic formulae ‘d-c’ (hereafter referred
to as cadential formula 1) and ‘d-c-g’ (hereafter referred to as cadential formula 2)
(see Figure 36). These two melodic formulae are particularly significant because they
are often cadential phrases and are found in a number of locations throughout all ten
transcriptions. Cadential formula 1 is found only in the FR versions, while cadential
formula 2 occurs most often in the SR versions. The absence or presence of a final g'
differentiates the two formulae, and hence the two groups of pieces. The following
discussion compares the two groups of the “Reibo” piece, focusing upon these
distinctive melodic formulae.

Figure 36 shows the first example where melodic formula 1 or melodic formula 2 is
found in all ten versions (F:U14, etc.). This phrase concludes with a sustained d",
followed by either formula 1 or 2. In all versions the phrase after the melodic formula
culminates in a sustained g", the first occurrence of this core note in the upper octave.
Thus an important cadential point occurs here.

Looking first at the FR group, variations of cadential formula 1 are found in all five
FR versions. In the SR group, variations of cadential formula 2 are found in all five
SR versions. As stated above, the main difference between these formulae is the
presence of the g' in all of the SR versions and the absence of the g' in all of the FR
versions.

Figure 37 (S:W21, etc.) gives the second and third occurrence in the SR versions of
the cadential pattern (formula 2). There are no corresponding cadential formulae in
any of the FR versions. This pattern, which is found with minor variations in all five
of the SR group, is preceded by a phrase dominated by a sustained d" and marks the
end of an example of a distinctive melodic pattern called reibo no te (see above,
p.367).

Cadential melodic formula 2 occurs again in the SR versions during the final phrase
of the honte section (S:W23, etc.) (see Figure 38). This section concludes with a
sustained d", followed in all of the SR pieces by cadential formula 2, except S:W. The
Watazumi version ends with a single sustained d", another of many examples of
variation between Watazumi and the other performers within the group. As was the
case in the previous example, there are no corresponding cadential formulae in any of
the FR versions, though there is a sustained g" marking the corresponding point in the
five versions of the FR group. As explained in the discussion of large scale structure,
there is no formal division labelled in the traditional FR scores at this point, but an
important cadential point does occur.

224
The fifth and sixth occurrences of cadential formula 2 in the SR group are shown in
Figure 39, marking the end of the takane section. The formula occurs only once in
Jin’s SR version (S:J44). In contrast, in the FR versions, cadential formula 1 is found
in the location corresponding to the fifth occurrence in the SR pieces of formula 2. No
cadential formulae is found in the FR pieces in the location corresponding to the six
occurrence of SR formula 2.

The section marked takane in the SR group (S:W36, etc.) (see Figure 40), once again
concludes with cadential formula 2. In this case, the pattern in the Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto SR versions omits the c", being only d" - g', while the Jin-Sakai
SR versions retain the c". In the FR pieces, this point is the final phrase of the honte
section and ends with one or more sustained d"s. A variation of cadential formula 1
occurs only in Jin’s FR version. The phrasing at this point corresponds to a pattern of
variation frequently observed, with these notes making a separate phrase in the
Watazumi-Yokoyama versions (F:W49, F:Y48). In contrast, they conclude a longer
phrase in the Jin-Sakai versions (F:J29, F:S29), as well as the Uramoto version
(F:U24).

The final phrase of the takane section in all of the FR versions and the final phrase of
the takane gaeshi section in all of the SR versions (Figure 41) resolves on a sustained
d". In all of the pieces in the SR group, this note is followed by cadential formula 2.
These notes form a separate phrase in the Jin-Sakai SR versions (S:J62, S:S62). In all
of the FR versions, the d" is followed by a variation of cadential formula 1.

As explained in the discussion of large scale structure, there is no formal division

labelled in the traditional SR scores at this point, but an unmarked minor division
does occur. The final phrase of all of the FR hachigaeshi sections also concludes with
cadential formula 1, (see Figure 42). Uramoto’s version differs from the other
versions by omitting the c" (F:U38). In all of the SR versions at the corresponding
point, the phrase ends on a d", followed in every version except Watazumi’s with a
short c". Watazumi again is the exception, omitting the c" (S:W58).

The phrase preceding the SR musubi section, that is, the final phrase of the SR
hachigaeshi section (see Figure 43), conforms with the previous examples by ending
with a sustained d" followed by variations of formula 2. As seen earlier, these notes
form a separate phrase in the Jin-Sakai SR versions, and conclude a larger phrase in
the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto SR versions. The cadential formula does not
occur in the FR versions at this point.

In the above instances, the consistency and variation of melodic formulae almost
always corresponds to the two groups of pieces and the different lineages within the
two groups. Figure 44 illustrates this correspondence. It is possible to conclude that
the final g' of cadential formula 2 is a defining feature of the “Shôganken reibo”
group. There are no instances of the g", which differentiates formula 2 from formula
1, occurring in the cadential patterns of any of the “Futaiken reibo” pieces.

Besides the differences that are found at the formal divisions and between the form
and number of occurrences of the cadential formula, other material differentiates the
two groups of pieces . There are a number of instances of material of one or more
phrases that is present in all five versions of one group that is not found in any version

225
of the other group. There are also a number of instances of a series of phrases present
in most or all of the versions of one group which are not found at all in the versions of
the other group.

The first major example of this is found in the honte section at the location
corresponding to S:W21 (Figure 45). Three phrases that occur in all five of the SR
versions are completely absent in all five of the FR versions. Secondly, in what
corresponds to F:W57 in the takane section of the FR versions (corresponding to the
takane gaeshi section of the SR versions), a phrase of reibo no te material (see p.367)
that occurs in all of the FR versions (except that of Uramoto), does not occur in any of
the SR versions (Figure 46). The opposite phenomenon occurs a few phrases later,
with another reibo no te occuring in the SR versions (Figure 47) but not found in any
of the FR versions.

It is the hachigaeshi section, however, which contains the longest occurrences of

material found in the versions of one group but not in those of the other. At the point
corresponding to F:U36 (Figure 48), between two and six phrases of material is found
in all five of the FR versions and in none of the SR versions. In the same relative
location (S:W54, etc.) (Figure 49), up to four phrases present in all five of the SR
versions are not found in the FR versions. Several phrases later (S:W58, etc.) (Figure
50), a reibo no te occurs in all of the SR versions but does not appear in any of the FR
versions.

There are also a few occurrences of the above phenomenon in the musubi section. A
phrase in the SR versions at what corresponds to S:W59, which is part of the
hachigaeshi section in the SR versions but still a part of the musubi section in the FR
versions (Figure 51), has no counterpart in the FR versions. At the same relative
location, beginning at F:W79 (Figure 52), there are up to five phrases of material in
the FR versions that does not occur in any of the SR versions. Finally the final phrase
in SR versions of Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto (S:W62, etc.) (Figure 53) does
not occur in the FR versions, and up to eight phrases at the very end of the FR
versions have no counterpart in the SR versions (Figure 54).

These instances of material shared by all of the versions of one group and none of the
other group, like the note g' in the cadential formula discussed above, can be used to
define the two groups.

Despite the similarity exhibited by all ten pieces on many levels, there is a high
degree of variation between the two groups. Variation between different lineages and
even between pieces of the same group and the same lineage was also observed in the
above discussion. The existence of the innumerable variations between all
performances of “Reibo” is a characteristic of honkyoku frequently ignored and even
suppressed in the more rigid lines of transmission and in some of the literature. (see
pp.288-295) In the remaining analyses, numerous patterns of variation between all of
the ten performances will be seen repeatedly. Many of these variations may illustrate
the incorporation of the concept of honnin no kyoku (see pp.229,255,267) in honkyoku
performance.

The previous sections compared the first and broadest classification of transmission,
the two groups of pieces, first by looking at the similarities and then the differences of

226
the FR and SR pieces. The following section looks at the second classification of
transmission, that of lineage.

6.4.3 Comparisons within a Single Lineage within One Group

Not surprisingly, the performances of “Reibo” whose transcriptions exhibit the least
difference and the most similarity between each other are those within a single lineage
in a single group. Nevertheless, varying degrees and kinds of differences can be found
within these lineages. Many of the similarities and differences between transcriptions
of performances of the same lineage and group have been seen in earlier comparisons.
The following discussion further explores the relationship between the versions of
Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama FR lineage, the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto SR
lineage, and the Jin-Sakai FR and SR lineages.

The discussion of performers within a single lineage will first examine the
transmission within the Jin-Sakai FR and SR lineages, followed by an examination of
the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama FR and the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto SR
lineages. As explained previously (p.349), although Uramoto and Watazumi belong to
the same lineage and group according to the genealogy chart, their relationship is an
exception; the transmission between Uramoto is not acknowledged by Watazumi. In
contrast, the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto transmission is similar to the Jin-Sakai
transmission in that it is clearly acknowledged. In the final part of this section a
detailed look is taken at the straightforward, clearly acknowledged Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage. The more ambiguous Uramoto-Watazumi transmission
will be dealt with separately (p.404-418).

6.4.3.1. Jin-Sakai Lineage

The greatest similarity between performances can be seen in the Jin-Sakai lineage of
both the FR and the SR versions. This is the case in spite of the fact that the two
shakuhachi players do not represent a direct transmission. Instead, Sakai is one
generation removed from Jin, with Jin’s student, Moriyasu, the intermediary between
them (see genealogy Chart 7, p.351). Although not direct, the transmission is openly
acknowledged by all parties concerned. Sakai in particular made it clear that the
transmission of the “Reibo” pieces should be traced back to Jin (and beyond). It is
therefore not surprising to observe more similarities than differences between both the
FR and the SR versions of Jin and Sakai, although variation between the
performances of the two does occur. In general, Sakai’s versions of both groups of
pieces adhere closely to those of his predecessor Jin. A similar degree of similarity
can be observed between Watazumi and Iwamoto, also performers of the same
lineage but one generation removed on the genealogy chart (see below, pp.389-397).

The similarity between the performances of Jin and Sakai is especially apparent in the
melodic line and in the phrasing. The total number of phrases in Jin’s SR version is
eighty-one, compared to eighty phrases in Sakai’s SR version. There is more
discrepancy between the FR versions of the two players, where a total of sixty-six
phrases in Jin’s FR version contrast with only sixty phrases in Sakai’s FR version.
The difference between the number of phrases in Jin and Sakai’s FR versions is still,

227
however, significantly less than the difference between any two of the three members
of the other FR lineage: the total number of phrases in Uramoto’s FR version is fifty-
seven, compared to ninety-nine phrases in Watazumi’s FR version and eighty-two
phrases in Yokoyama’s FR version.

The differences between the versions of Jin and Sakai occur primarily where Sakai’s
version becomes more complex or elaborate than that of his predecessor. For
example, the initial phrase of Sakai’s FR version is much more developed than Jin’s
initial FR phrase (Figure 55). The same pattern can be seen in the third phrase of Jin’s
and Sakai’s SR versions (Figure 56), in the fifth phrase of Jin’s and Sakai’s SR
versions (Figure 57), in the ninth phrase of Jin’s and Sakai’s FR versions (Figure 58),
and again in the twenty-third phrase of Jin’s SR version (phrase twenty-five in Sakai’s
SR version) (Figure 59). In one instance, Sakai performs an entire phrase which has
no counterpart in Jin’s version (S:S45) (Figure 60). In contrast, there are very few, if
any instances of either Jin’s FR or SR versions being significantly more elaborate
than Sakai’s FR and SR versions.

The same tendency towards elaboration in Sakai’s performance compared with Jin’s
performance is reflected in all aspects, including minute details. Because the
similarities and differences between the Jin and the Sakai performances are so clear in
the comparison of their large scale features, these details will not be discussed here.

Sakai Chikuho’s elaboration of Jin’s performance may be part of the elements of

playing that he used to give his honkyoku a flavour unique to Chikuho ryû and that his
successor, Sakai Shôdô, later so emphatically repudiated (see p.241). Yet, other than
the type of elaboration seen in the above examples, there is very little deviation
between the transcriptions of the Jin and the Sakai versions of the “Futaiken reibo”
and “Shôganken reibo” pieces. This may be indicative of the more ryû oriented
context in which Sakai operated, in contrast to the recusant nature of Watazumi’s
transmission, the second lineage of this analysis.

6.4.3.2 Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto Lineage

The second lineage represented in the ten transcriptions is that of Uramoto,

Watazumi, Yokoyama and Iwamoto. Though the transmission between Uramoto and
Watazumi is not acknowledged by Watazumi, there is some evidence that supports
the genealogy chart, which traces a line of transmission through them. Examples of
this evidence, which are presented below, incorporate Uramoto’s performance in the
examination of the entire lineage, and compare the performances within the lineage
with those of the Jin-Sakai lineage.

There are many examples of similarities shared by the Uramoto-Watazumi-

Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage that are not present in the Jin-Sakai lineage. These
examples demonstrate a simple correlation between persons within one lineage in a
single group, indicating a direct transmission. For example, in the phrase which
corresponds to F:U8 (Figure 61), Uramoto plays a series of notes (a-flat'-g', etc.) that
are also played by Watazumi and Yokoyama, but which are omitted completely by Jin
and Sakai.

228
Although essentially the same material, there is slight variation between Uramoto and
Watazumi with regard to phrasing and the complexity of notes within the phrase. For
example, the beginning of Uramoto’s phrase eight begins a note earlier than the
beginning of the same phrase in Watazumi’s transcription. Also, Watazumi takes a
breath at F:W13 and F:W14, while Uramoto does not. These differences fit the
general pattern of variation between the two players, with Watazumi performing more
phrases (a total of ninety-nine) than Uramoto (a total of fifty-seven) throughout the
piece.

Uramoto and Watazumi exhibit slight differences between the short notes in what
corresponds to Watazumi’s phrase fourteen. Even more variation occurs in the
version of Yokoyama, who performs a number of short a-flat' and g' notes (F:Y13)
rather than the single sustained a-flat' found in both Uramoto and Watazumi’s
versions.

A clear pattern of transmission between three generations of the same lineage can be
seen. There occurs some variation in the complexity of the phrases from Uramoto to
Watazumi, with more complexity occurring from Watazumi to Yokoyama. This
tendency towards elaboration is similar to that which was seen in the Jin-Sakai
lineage.

The similarity which exists between the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto

performances is thrown into strong relief when compared with the Jin-Sakai
performances; representing a different lineage or line of transmission. For example, at
the point corresponding to the sustained a-flat' and g' in Uramoto’s phrase eight and
Watazumi’s phrase thirteen, Jin and Sakai do not play anything. Instead there is no
correspondence until the end of F:U8, etc. Turning to the SR groups, one finds a
similar pattern of variation differentiating the Watazumi lineage from the Jin lineage.
For example, at a nearby point in the SR versions, (see Figure 61), there is no material
in the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto SR performances (at the end of S:W7, etc.)
corresponding to phrase 13 in the Jin-Sakai SR performances. These and other
examples found in the transcriptions support the genealogy chart in classifying within
a single lineage the performances of Uramoto, Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto.

6.4.3.3 Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto Lineage

The lineage chart and the examples presented above notwithstanding, Watazumi
refuses to acknowledge Uramoto as his teacher of “Reibo”. In contrast to the
unacknowledged transmission between Uramoto and Watazumi, the Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage corresponds to the Jin-Sakai lineage in the
straightforward, acknowledged nature of the transmission it represents. The Uramoto-
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage will be further scrutinized by looking at just
its Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto component. The unique Uramoto-Watazumi
tranmission will be discussed separately (pp.404-418).

The pattern of similarities and differences corresponding to the Watazumi-

Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage is especially noticable in the details of performance, an
area of analysis as yet untouched. In order to compare the details of performance

229
between performers and lineages, the method of analyzing them must be introduced
and explained.

While analyses of written transcriptions using the methods outlined above can shed
light on certain questions relating to transmission by showing large scale structures,
melodic contour, and distinctive melodic formulae, they do not address the elements
which, from the point of view of the performer, most distinguish one performer,
generation, or lineage from another. These elements are the details of performance;
these include embellishments and other minute performance techniques. The existing
written and oral analyses of honkyoku by members of the tradition, described above
(pp.331-342), confirm that it is these elements that most concern the performers
themselves. In terms of the shakuhachi tradition, this level of analysis is central to an
understanding of honkyoku as a process rather than a product.

The method of analyzing the details of performance that is used below is based upon
the traditional methods of discussing honkyoku. With this method, the transcriptions
into staff notation function as points of reference rather than a source of analytical
data. Such a detailed commentary on a particular technique, note, or segment of a
phrase, is based on the language used in teaching, and in tradition-based discussions
of the honkyoku tradition.

Because of the nature of the analysis, it is necessary to confine the discussion to a

small portion of the pieces. A detailed analysis of all ten transcriptions based upon
tradition-based methods is not practical due to the large amount of manipulation of
data and analytical discussion it would entail. The only option was to choose a limited
amount of material from the transcriptions, basing the choice as much as possible on
my own knowledge and understanding of the “Reibo” piece as a performer of the
piece and recipient of the tradition represented by the two groups of pieces and the
two lineages within each group.

Consequently attention is focused on a single melodic formula only. Although

representing only a fraction of the piece, I believe that the sample is large enough to
draw a number of conclusions regarding elements that are and are not transmitted
from one generation of performers to another in the honkyoku tradition. Although the
detailed analysis is limited to one melodic formula, corresponding examples,
observations, and cross-references will be drawn from the entire piece.

I have chosen to use as the basis of this analysis, elements of the reibo no te pattern
(see p.367), a melodic figure which is found throughout the piece. In particular, I will
focus on reibo no te found in the honte section (Figure 62). My reasons behind this
particular choice for analysis are as follows:

1. Reibo no te is the most important melodic pattern in the “Reibo” piece. It

is given a specific name within the tradition, and is often discussed in the
process of transmission, for example during lessons.
2. Reibo no te contain minute embellishments and performance techniques,
including pitch and timbre variations generated by the meri and kari
techniques. These details and performance techniques too are frequently
discussed in tradition-based analyses, and in the context of teaching.

230
 3. This particular reibo no te pattern is present in all ten of the transcriptions,
thus allowing observations to be made across the whole sample of
recordings.

As stated previously, (p.367), reibo no te is a pattern of notes which may be less than
a phrase, an entire phrase or more than one phrase. It is always in the upper octave
range (甲, kan), and is predominately performed with the meri technique. It is usually
characterized by a density of notes far greater than found in the rest of the piece.

The pattern of notes centres primarily around the pitch g" and to a lesser degree a-
flat", and frequently concludes with the pitches e-flat" and d". The note g" is the
primary note in all instances of reibo no te in nearly every version of the piece. There
are, in the context of reibo no te, three methods used to produce the pitch g" (see
Table 5). These methods are distinct from each other and, for the most part, are not
interchanged in the context of reibo no te. Which method should be used in a
particular instance is an important aspect of what is taught and learned in the course
of transmitting the piece “Reibo”.

The first and most common method of playing the note, which I will call “method A”,
entails covering (counting from the bottom finger hole) the second, fourth, and fifth
(back) finger holes and using the meri technique. 130 The second method, which I will
call “method B”, is the same as the first except that the second finger hole is left open.
This raises the pitch, so the application of far more of the meri technique than is
employed in the first method is required to lower the sound to the proper pitch. The
third method of producing g", which I will call “method C”, is by using the standard
fingering (finger holes one and two open, with finger holes three, four and five
closed) and the kari technique. Method C is not used in the main body of reibo no te.
Instead, it is frequently used to produce the g" immediately after reibo no te,
providing a sense of resolution to the reibo no te phrase.

Similar usage of the above-mentioned three methods of playing the note g" in reibo
no te are most apparent in versions by performers of the same lineage. These
similarities manifest themselves over the same lineage regardless of group, FR or SR.
In the Jin-Sakai performances of both the FR and the SR groups, only method A is
used in the main body of reibo no te. In contrast, in the Watazumi, Yokoyama, and
Iwamoto versions of both the FR and SR groups, both methods A and B are used.
Method B is utilized most often to produce the initial g" in the reibo no te in the
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto performances. Data from the level of detail described
above and conclusions based thereon will be incorporated in the remainder of the
analysis where appropriate.

Turning now to more large-scale features of the performances, transcription-based

analysis at times show that Iwamoto (third generation) adopts and further adds to
variation that Yokoyama (second generation) has added to the version played by
Watazumi (first generation). This pattern is also frequently the case in the “Futaiken
reibo” Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage. But, as well as tending towards
elaboration as seen in the Jin-Sakai lineage and the FR Uramoto lineage, the variation
can also be one of simplifying. An example of this type of pattern of transmission can

130
See p.265 for a definition of the meri technique, and its opposite, the kari technique.

231
be seen at S:W15 (Figure 63). Yokoyama abbreviates a series of e-flat"-d"s found in
Watazumi’s transcription. Iwamoto adopts Yokoyama’s abbreviated variation and
abbreviates further by omitting the f" that follows the e-flat"-d" pattern in both
Watazumi and Yokoyama’s versions.

Another, quite different pattern can be seen in the transmission of “Shôganken reibo”
between Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto which may, in fact, best typify these
three versions. This pattern is one whereby variations added by Yokoyama to
Watazumi’s versions are not adopted by Iwamoto. In other words, in many cases
Iwamoto’s version is more similar to Watazumi, his teacher’s teacher, than it is to
Yokoyama, his teacher.

This can be seen from the beginning of the transcriptions (Figure 64). Here
Yokoyama plays in three phrases what Watazumi plays in two. Yokoyama’s
additional breath, which occurs after the initial sustained d', is not adopted by
Iwamoto. Although Iwamoto’s version incorporates the additional sustained d' found
in Yokoyama’s version at the end of phrase two but not in Watazumi’s version, it
again does not follow Yokoyama’s version in the next phrase (S:Y3). A single
sustained e-flat' in Watazumi’s version is performed as an elaborate pattern of e-flat'
and d' notes in Yokoyama’s version. In Iwamoto’s version, the sustained e-flat'
appears again, followed by only two notes, e-flat'-d', to suggest the elaborate pattern
of Yokoyama’s version.

The variations seen here could be explained in the following manner. Yokoyama
appears to have added the extra d’s to the end of Watazumi’s first phrase, which he
then transmitted to Iwamoto. The extra d' also appears in Yokoyama’s FR version,
indicating a possible cross-over from one group to the other. Yokoyama may have
added the extra phrase after transmitting Watazumi’s version, without the extra
phrase, to Iwamoto. In taking the extra breath, Yokoyama might have been reflecting
the performance practices of the FR version, in which he, and all of the four other
players, take the extra breath. Equally possible is his being influenced by the
performances of the SR version by Jin and Sakai, which has the extra phrase. This
same scenario may explain the g' played by Yokoyama before the e-flat' in his phrase
three. There are no notes before the e-flat' in either the SR or the FR Watazumi
performances.

There are numerous other examples in the transcriptions of what seems to be a

borrowing or cross-over from the FR to the SR, or the SR to the FR pieces. The
borrowed material may be from the performer’s own version of the piece in the other
group, or from another performer’s version in the other group. A possible reason as to
why Yokoyama’s elaborate pattern of e-flat'-d's was not transmitted to Iwamoto will
be given below.

Another example of this pattern of transmission between Watazumi, Yokoyama, and

Iwamoto is in phrase S:W11 (Figure 65). Yokoyama’s version varies from
Watazumi’s version at the end of this phrase with the addition of a sustained c"
followed by the two notes c"-g' of short duration. These three notes are not, however,
incorporated into Iwamoto’s version.

232
A final example of this pattern of transmission is located in S:W25 (Figure 66). First
of all, the breath that marks the beginning of this phrase in Watazumi’s version is not
present in Yokoyama’s version. This variation in phrasing is not adopted in
Iwamoto’s version, which follows that of Watazumi. Secondly, the pattern in which
sustained and short e-flat"'s and d"'s are found in Watazumi’s S:W25 is varied in the
corresponding phrase of Yokoyama’s version. This variation is not adopted by
Iwamoto, which follows the original pattern found in Watazumi’s version.

Finally, the phrasing in Watazumi’s SR version is followed more closely by Iwamoto

than by Yokoyama, as evidenced by the total number of phrases. Watazumi’s SR
version has a total of sixty-two phrases, compared to sixty-eight phrases in
Yokoyama’s version and sixty-three phrases in Iwamoto’s version.

Because of these and other similar examples of this pattern of transmission found in
the transcriptions, one might, if one did not have access to genealogical data, assume
that rather than Yokoyama being Iwamoto’s teacher, the line of transmission was
Watazumi-Iwamoto-Yokoyama. The anomaly in the relationship between variation
and transmission can be explained by an element of change and stability in the
honkyoku tradition as yet not touched upon in the above analyses, namely that of date
of transmission and date of recording.

Though it is not known when Yokoyama learned “Shôganken reibo” from Watazumi,
we do know that Yokoyama taught Iwamoto the piece before the late 1970s, when
Iwamoto went to England, where he has lived since. The recording used as the basis
of Watazumi’s transcription was made in 1971. Iwamoto’s recording was made four
years later, in 1975. That is, Iwamoto’s version reflects fairly consistently the version
that Watazumi was playing just before Iwamoto left Japan for England. Yokoyama’s
version on the other hand was not recorded until 1985.

Taking this chronology of the recordings into consideration, the following seems
possible. Yokoyama learned the piece from Watazumi, and then taught the piece with
only minor variation to Iwamoto. Iwamoto then performed the piece for recording in a
way that reflected the similarity between Yokoyama’s and Watazumi’s performance
at that time. By 1985, however, when the recording of Yokoyama’s performance was
made, Yokoyama’s way of playing the piece had evolved to become more different
from Watazumi’s recorded performance than Iwamoto’s recorded performance.

It is possible that by the date of Yokoyama’s recorded performance, Iwamoto’s

performance would still have closely resembled that of Watazumi. Iwamoto, in
England being relatively isolated from his teacher and the rest of the shakuhachi
tradition in Japan for over a decade, might exhibit in his performance of honkyoku the
conservatism seen in the language patterns and the performance of traditional music
by groups of peoples and their successive generations who have migrated away from
their native country. 131

131
As one example, Ryan (1989:327) describes many of the performances of traditional
music by Brazilian migrants in Sydney as “marked by rhythmic simplification and
standardization”.

233
Yokoyama’s (1985:116-120) account of his experience of being taught the honkyoku
entitled “San’an” (産安, ‘Safe Delivery’) by Watazumi further illustrates the
relationship between the passage of time and and the transmission of honkyoku.
Before he became Watazumi’s student, Yokoyama had in his possession a recording
of the piece “San’an” as performed by Watazumi. Because it was one of Yokoyama’s
favourite honkyoku, he was naturally pleased when Watazumi finally decided to teach
the piece to him. But when Watazumi began to teach “San’an” to Yokoyama, it had
changed. In Yokoyama’s ears, Watazumi was not teaching him the “San’an” that
Yokoyama had grown fond of by listening to the recording. Consequently Yokoyama
resisted learning the piece as Watazumi was teaching it. Because Watazumi would not
accommodate Yokoyama’s desire to be taught “San’an” as performed on his
recording, it took Yokoyama three years to learn the piece.

It might be possible to address the element of passage of time in relation to the

transmission of honkyoku with a comparison of transcriptions of a set of recordings
of, for example, three generations of performers made over a span of time. A
comparison of the similarities and differences between transcriptions of several
performances by the same person over many years, and between transcriptions of
performances representing different generations might show patterns of variability
that could be attributed to the effects of the passage of time, as well as other variations
that could be attributed to the transmission process from generation to generation. In
the case of this present thesis, however, with the ten transcriptions described above as
its subjects for analysis, little more can be said than has been conjectured above.

6.4.4 Comparison between the Transcriptions of Uramoto and Jin

The previous section focused upon the most direct lines of transmission, firstly by
looking at the Jin-Sakai lineage. Secondly, the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama-
Iwamoto lineage was examined. Finally, the component of this second lineage which
is openly acknowledged by both teacher and student, that is, that of Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto, was further discussed. Relatively simple and direct correlations
between performances and lineage were observed, especially in the Jin-Sakai
versions. Variations between performers within the same lineage and group could be
found, however, especially in cases involving Watazumi, and to a lesser degree
Uramoto.

The unique relationship between Uramoto and Jin has yet to be studied. According to
the genealogy chart, they both learned “Futaiken reibo” from the same teacher,
Konashi Kinsui. They are therefore of the same generation and, in terms of their
teacher, the same lineage. For this reason, a comparison of their performances adds
another dimension to the discussion of transmission of the “Reibo” piece.

Although there appear to be no recordings of Konashi Kinsui, a comparison of

Uramoto’s and Jin’s “Futaiken reibo” versions could indicate characteristics of the
transmission that occurred between their common teacher and themselves. Comparing
Uramoto’s and Jin’s versions may show ways in which pieces change and remain
constant during transmission from a single teacher to different students. Among the

234
ten transcriptions used in this study, this kind of relationship is found only with
Uramoto’s and Jin’s FR versions.

Reference must also be made to the variable date of transmission. As was seen in the
example concerning the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage, the dates of
transmission between teacher and student, as well as the dates of the recordings from
which the transcriptions are made, may have a signifcant bearing upon the patterns of
similarities and differences between performances. It is not known when either
Uramoto or Jin learned their FR versions from Konashi. Though the dates of the
recordings are 1985 for Uramoto and 1980 for Jin, both of these dates represent when
the recordings were released, not the much earlier dates of the performances.
Therefore, in the following comparison, it is not possible to take into account any
similarity or difference which may have arisen from differences in the times of
transmission from Konashi and the times of recording the two performances.

The performances of “Futaiken reibo” by both Uramoto and Jin begin in a similar
fashion. By the third phrase (Figure 67), however, the two begin to vary. In
Uramoto’s version, the third phrase begins with a sustained e-flat', a note that does not
occur in Jin’s version. The third phrase of Jin begins on the note g', which is followed
by the note d'. Both of these notes are core notes and are sustained for over four
seconds. There is neither the beginning of a phrase nor the note g' at this point in
Uramoto’s version, though a note d' does appear, which might correspond with the
sustained d' in Jin’s version. Uramoto, however sustains the d' for less than two
seconds. In other words, there is musical material present in both Uramoto’s and Jin’s
FR versions which is not present in the other’s version.

Once again transmission lines seen in the genealogy chart are reflected in the
comparisons, in that Watazumi’s and Yokoyama’s versions basically follow that of
Uramoto, with the note e-flat' beginning their third phrase. Likewise, Sakai’s version
follows that of Jin, his predecessor on the genealogy chart, by not playing the note e-
flat'.

In this case, Sakai’s version once again parallels that of Jin, his predecessor, almost
note for note, by omitting the e-flat' of Uramoto’s version in phrase three, and instead
performing a sustained d', followed by a sustained d' in a single phrase. The closeness
seen here between Jin and Sakai’s versions has been observed previously.

In contrast to the similarity between Jin’s performance and that of Sakai, material that
is performed by Jin but not Uramoto, as well as material played by Uramoto but not
Jin can be found in Watazumi’s performance. Comparison of the performances
of “Futaiken reibo” by Uramoto, Jin, and Watazumi, accentuates patterns of
divergence in the performances. These divergences, anticipated by orality theories,
are not compatible with literate-based concepts such as “original” or “authentic”
versions or performances.

The corresponding point in the SR versions further substantiate this conclusion. The
e-flat', which occurs in the third phrase of Uramoto’s FR version but not in Jin’s FR
version, occurs in all of the SR versions, including that of Jin. The g' which occurs in
the third phrase in Jin’s FR version but not in Uramoto’s version, occurs in Sakai’s
SR version. It does not occur in any of the other SR versions, including that of Jin.

235
The sustained d' which follows the g' in four of the FR versions, and the shorter d' at
the corresponding point in Uramoto’s FR version, is found in phrase four of Jin and
Sakai’s SR versions. The note does not occur in any of the other SR versions. Again,
both the e-flat' not played by Jin and the g' not played by Uramoto, are represented in
at least one of the SR versions, and in the case of the e-flat', in all five of the SR
versions.

In the previous example, the FR versions of Uramoto and Jin did not agree with each
other, while Watazumi’s FR version contained all of the core notes found in both
Uramoto’s and Jin’s versions and Sakai’s version agreed with that of Jin’s. An
example of similarities occurring between Uramoto and Jin, which are also played by
both Watazumi and Sakai, can be found in the initial few phrases of the takane
section in the “Futaiken reibo” group (F:U25, etc.) (Figure 68), implying a simple
transmission from Konashi to both Uramoto and Jin and on to Watazumi and
Yokoyama and to Sakai. In both Uramoto’s and Jin’s FR versions, there is an initial
phrase centering around a sustained g". This material occurs in the other three FR
versions, though in a more elaborate form. In the FR versions of Uramoto and Jin, this
initial phrase is followed by a phrase beginning with the distinctive notes d"' and e-
flat"', the highest pitches in the piece. These notes also occur in the other three FR
versions.

An example of similarities occurring between Uramoto and Jin, which are played by
neither Watazumi nor by Sakai, can be found in the same initial few phrases of the
takane section in the “Futaiken reibo” group (F:U25, etc.) (Figure 68). Deviating
from the Uramoto and Jin FR versions, the other three FR versions (Watazumi,
Yokoyama, and Sakai) all share what appears to be additional material between the
initial phrase and what is the second phrase of the takane section in the Uramoto and
Jin versions. This additional material also creates a difference in phrasing between the
Uramoto and Jin versions and the other three versions. It must be pointed out that the
additional material found in the versions of Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Sakai, but not
in the versions of Uramoto and Jin, corresponds to the notes that are the beginning of
the first phrase of this section in all of the SR pieces (including Jin’s SR version), that
is the note b-flat", followed by a long c"'. After the long c"', all ten versions coincide
with phrases that play between d"' and e-flat"', resolving on c"'. The multiple patterns
of transmission seen here can best be described in terms of the cross-over and
variation which occurs among performers within an oral tradition, in which the most
“authentic” performance is the one most recently performed.

In the example above, the performances representing the first generation among the
ten transcriptions agree with each other in the FR group in both material and phrasing
at an important juncture in the piece, the beginning of a formal division. The three
transcriptions representing the subsequent generations in the FR group, that of
Watazumi, Yokoyama and Sakai, all have material not found in the transcriptions of
the previous generation. The “added” material is, however, shared by not only the two
different lineages in the FR group, those of Watazumi-Yokoyama and of Sakai, but
also by all of the SR versions, including Jin. In this case, new material was neither
created nor added to the FR piece, by either Watazumi or Sakai, because variations of
the material are found in all of the SR versions. The cross-over between both different
lineages (Watazumi-Yokoyama and Sakai) and the different groups of pieces (FR and
SR) is again evident here.

236
There is only one instance where a long and complex passage is found only in
Uramoto’s FR version. Located in the musubi section (F:U42-44) (Figure 69), the
material is performed over three phrases. Only the initial note, c"', is found in
Watazumi’s FR version (F:W83). The rest of the passage, which contains a number of
core notes as well as a reibo no te, is not found in any of the other nine transcriptions.
This is the only instance in the entire “Reibo” piece where a substantial amount of
musical material occurs in only one of the ten versions. Watazumi is thus not the only
performer to exhibit characteristics unique to his performance.

There are in fact, relatively few major musical events, such as phrases, melodic
segments, beginnings of phrases and even solitary core notes, which occur only in one
performance. This characteristic implies a cohesiveness or unity within the “Reibo”
tradition that transcends lineage or grouping.

The transcriptions of Uramoto and Jin, who are of the same “generation” on the
genealogy chart and were both taught by Konashi, exhibit the non-uniform and
relatively high degree of variation that is found in comparisons between transcriptions
of other performers who do not have the same close relationship in terms of teacher.
There is less agreement between the Uramoto and Jin transcriptions than is found in
the more stable, acknowledged teacher-student transmission of both the Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage and the Jin-Sakai lineage. As stated earlier, it is not
known how much the disparity observed between Uramoto’s and Jin’s performances,
(or between any of the performances) is due to differences in the dates of transmission
and recordings. The influence and effect that the numerous teachers both performers
appear to have had may be another factor in the variation between their performances
(see p.160). Finally, in the comparison between Jin and Uramoto’s performances, a
number of instances of cross-over between the two groups of pieces and the two
lineages can be observed. For example, there is material that occurs in all of the SR
performance which also occurs in the FR versions of Watazumi and Yokoyama, yet is
not present in the FR performances of Uramoto and Jin.

6.4.5 Analysis of the Uramoto-Watazumi Transmission

Of all of the lines of transmission on the level of individual performers of the same
lineage, including that of Uramoto and Jin (see above), the greatest degree of disparity
is found between Uramoto and Watazumi’s FR performances. A comparison of their
performances testifies to the recusant nature of Watazumi’s ideology, discussed above
(p.303-304). An extreme example of this disparity can be seen in the initial phrase of
the musubi section (F:U39, etc.) (Figure 70). Uramoto’s version is not only more
similar to that of Yokoyama than it is to that of Watazumi, but is also more similar to
Jin’s and Sakai’s versions, which completely omit the material in the other versions.

The relationship between Uramoto and Watazumi is a special one, deserving

particular attention in the present examination of the processes of transmission
operating in all ten transcriptions. Because the transmission that is said to have
occurred between Uramoto and Watazumi is not clearly acknowledged, at least by
Watazumi, it is more problematic than the distinct, acknowledged transmissions
between Jin and Sakai, or between Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto. Thus, a more

237
focused comparison of Uramoto and Watazumi, looking at both similarities and
differences, is presented below.

The pattern of incongruity between the performances of Uramoto and Watazumi can
be expected for two reasons. First of all, Watazumi claims that Uramoto did not teach
him the piece “Reibo”. As discussed earlier (p.303), this is in keeping with
Watazumi’s philosophy regarding the nature of honkyoku, i.e., the essence of
honkyoku cannot be taught or learned; Watazumi claims that no one did or was even
able to teach him honkyoku. Secondly, Watazumi’s reputation for eccentricity in
expressing his individualism and his repudiation of hierarchical and frequently
constraining systems of transmission, such as the iemoto system (see p.288), are
consistent with his honkyoku performance.

Nevertheless, there are numerous similarities between Watazumi’s performance and

that of Uramoto. The single most outstanding agreement between Uramoto’s and
Watazumi’s performances of “Futaiken reibo” can be seen in the melodic line. The
high degree of correspondence between Uramoto’s and Watazumi’s orthographically
simplified transcriptions reveals agreement between the two versions at this level. The
similarity is particularly evident in the case of core notes that are sustained over two
seconds.

Another similarity between Uramoto’s and Watazumi’s performances, but one which
cannot be seen in the transcriptions, is the degree of accuracy of the intervals between
pitches, or relative pitch. 132 Both Uramoto and Watazumi perform intervals between
notes fairly consistently, especially when compared to Jin, whose relative pitch is
quite variable, and Sakai. Not surprisingly, the relative pitches of Watazumi’s student
Yokoyama, and Yokoyama’s student Iwamoto are also quite accurate and consistent.

A similar pattern can be seen in a detailed analysis of one instance of reibo no te (see
p.367). In both methods “A” and “B” of producing the note g" (see p.388), the meri
technique must be applied to a certain degree in order to produce the desired pitch. If
the meri technique is not sufficiently applied, both the g" and the a-flat" in reibo no te
will be sharp relative to the final g" produced by method “C”. The relative pitch of the
meri notes in this and all reibo no te in the versions of the Uramoto-Watazumi-
Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage is consistent, relative to the g" produced by method “C”.
By contrast, both the FR and SR versions of the Jin-Sakai lineage exhibit a-flat" and
g" meri notes that are sharp relative to the kari note g" of method “C”. The degree of
sharpness is generally greater in Jin’s versions than in Sakai’s versions.

Of the two performers Uramoto and Watazumi, however, Watazumi’s relative pitch is
more consistent than Uramoto’s pitch, particularly in the case of some meri notes.
Uramoto performs these notes relatively sharp on occasion, especially during the
distinctive reibo no te phrase. An example of the differences in pitch control can be
heard in the initial phrase of the piece. In Uramoto’s performance, the initial e-flat' is
slightly sharp relative to the following d'. No such pitch variation can be heard in
Watazumi’s performance.

132
See Chapter 5 (pp.271-282) for a discussion of pitch and interval relationships in the
honkyoku tradition, and how these are transmitted though lineages and individuals.

238
This is not to imply that the Uramoto lineage is more “correct” in producing the meri
g" than the Jin lineage, or that Watazumi’s pitch is generally “better” than Uramoto’s.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the importance placed upon the accuracy of relative pitch
varies from performer to performer and from lineage to lineage. In terms of the values
of Uramoto and of the Jin-Sakai lineage, the pitch of the notes in question is not
incorrect or “out of pitch”. The above observations regarding pitch amongst the ten
versions are judgementally neutral, and are made for comparison, just as observations
regarding the number or length of notes are made for comparison.

It should also be pointed out that a small part of the variation in pitch heard in the
performances of Uramoto and Jin may be attributed to their being of an older
generation. Their lives were closer to the historical period in Japan which predated the
wide-spread introduction and consequent influence of western music and its
standardization of pitch than were those of the generations that followed them. Also,
the shakuhachi instruments available for much of their lives generally produced less
standardized pitches than those instruments which became available to later
generations (see p.281).

As stated above, although Uramoto nominally transmitted “Reibo” to Watazumi and

thus is technically part of the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage within
the “Futaiken reibo” group, Watazumi claims that Uramoto exerted minimal
influence over his playing. We have already observed a number of examples of
differences in performances between Uramoto and Watazumi in the various
comparisons made above. An examination of formal divisions shows a number of
other differences between the transcriptions of the two performers that, because of
their location, are particularly conspicuous. They become even more so when
compared to the similarities that occur between other performers within direct
teacher-student relationships.

For example, at the formal division between the shirabe section and the honte section
(Figure 71), Watazumi’s performance differs quite noticeably from Uramoto’s
performance in both the final phrase of the shirabe section and the initial phrase of the
honte section. There are no major differences at this point between any of the other
performers within a single lineage, that is, between Watazumi’s and Yokoyama’s FR
version, between either Jin’s and Sakai’s FR or SR versions, and between
Watazumi’s, Yokoyama’s and Iwamoto’s SR versions.

Characteristic differences between the performances of Uramoto and Watazumi can

also be seen from the initial notes of the transcriptions at the very beginning of the
piece (Figure 72). In this first phrase and throughout the piece, Watazumi makes use
of more embellishment than Uramoto does. A second major difference is the number
of phrases. Uramoto plays his version of “Futaiken reibo” in fifty-one phrases, while
Watazumi performs the piece in ninety-nine phrases. The total elapsed time of this
particular performance of Uramoto’s version is 10 minutes 34 seconds, compared
with Watazumi’s 16 minutes 2 seconds. In most cases, Watazumi incorporates the
pauses or breaths made by Uramoto, and adds many of his own.

The length of the versions both as expressed in elapsed time and in number of phrases
demonstrates a pattern which occurs throughout the piece. Watazumi’s version
of “Futaiken reibo” is far more complex than Uramoto’s version not only in

239
embellishment, but also in melodic line and phrasing. Again an example of this can be
seen soon after the beginning of the piece. The material between the initial series of
the note d' and the first instance of the sustained note a-natural' in Uramoto’s version
consists of two notes, e-flat' and d' (not including embellishments), performed in a
single phrase (F:U3). The corresponding material in Watazumi’s version covers five
phrases (F:W3-5) and consists of seven notes (also not including embellishments) (see
Figure 73).

Besides the elements discussed above, little else can be said about the similarities and
differences between the FR versions of Uramoto and Watzumi without reference to
the other versions, not only within the same FR group, but also from the other SR
group.

The importance of basing all but the most rudimentary conclusions on comparisons of
transcriptions of more than any two single performers, such as Uramoto and
Watazumi, can be seen in the following examples. There are numerous occasions
where the transcriptions of Uramoto and Watazumi do not correspond at all. For
example, in the final phrase of the first formal division, take shirabe (Figure 74),
Uramoto plays two sustained g's. In Watazumi’s version, there are no g's, either in the
final phrase or the preceding phrase. Instead, his final phrase consists of a series of
sustained d' notes alternating with shorter c's.

This clear example of Watazumi’s version differing markedly from Uramoto’s

version is all the more prominent because it corresponds to the end of a formal
section. Taking into account only the transcriptions of Uramoto and Watazumi, one
could assume with reasonable confidence that the difference was consciously and
deliberately effected by Watazumi.

It is incorrect, however, to assume that the many conspicuous and seemingly

deliberate discrepancies between the two FR versions discussed above are
Watazumi’s creations or compositions. In the first example (Figure 74), the final d'
found in Watazumi’s FR transcription is found in all of the other FR and all of the SR
transcriptions. Furthermore, the c' is also found in the SR version of Jin and Sakai. On
the other hand, the sustained g's which Uramoto performs occur in both the FR and
the SR transcriptions of Jin and Sakai, while they do not occur in the FR and SR
transcriptions of Watazumi and Yokoyama, and the SR version of Iwamoto.

In a second example (Figure 75), musical material that is found in Watazumi’s FR

version, but not in Uramoto’s FR version, is performed in an even more elaborate
form in all five of the SR versions (S:W8, etc.).

Thus, it cannot be concluded that, in his FR version, Watazumi either made up or

deleted the material mentioned above since the SR versions of the Jin-Sakai lineage
either have or lack the same material as Watazumi’s version. Watazumi might still be
credited with (or “accused of”) changing the FR version of “Reibo”; he may have
(perhaps even unconsciously) borrowed additions and omissions from the SR version
and inserted them into the FR version transmitted to him by Uramoto. Many such
crossovers between the two groups of pieces have been observed elsewhere.

240
Major examples of the ways in which the performances of Watazumi and Uramoto
differ are found by comparing phrases eight through ten of Uramoto’s FR version
with the latter part of phrase twelve and phrases thirteen though nineteen of
Watazumi’s FR version (see Figure 76). The difference in phrasing and the higher
number of phrases in Watazumi’s is consistent with what has been observed before.
Other major differences in the transcriptions of Uramoto and Watazumi begin at this
point.

The final note of phrase fourteen in Watazumi’s version is the core note g', sustained
for over four seconds. This prominent note is not found in Uramoto’s version.
Uramoto also does not perform the material that makes up Watazumi’s next phrase
(F:W15). Yokoyama’s FR version parallels his teacher in both phrasing and material
played. The Jin and Sakai FR versions, like that of Uramoto, do not have this
material.

Both Uramoto and Watazumi perform the note g' at the point corresponding to the
beginning of phrase nine of Uramoto’s FR version (Figure 76). This note is not
present in any of the other eight versions. Watazumi’s agreement with Uramoto,
however, is soon over. Watazumi begins a new phrase (F:W17) with the note a'-
natural. Uramoto does not begin a new phrase here, nor is there an a-natural in his
melody. Yokoyama follows Watazumi, also beginning a new phrase here with a'-
natural. Thus, we can observe an element of variation between Uramoto and
Watazumi that is transmitted to the next generation, Yokoyama.

This material does not occur in the FR versions of Jin and Sakai, nor is it heard in the
SR versions of Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto. The a'-natural and the beginning
of a new phrase is, however, found in the SR versions of Jin and Sakai. Once again,
the patterns of similarities and differences suggest a cross-fertilization that overrides
the immediate influence of one’s teacher, especially in the case of the Uramoto-
Watazumi transmission. Such an overriding cross-fertilization is an important feature
of transmission within the honkyoku tradition.

At the point corresponding to F:U10 (Figure 76), Uramoto plays two g's, which
together are sustained for over four seconds. Uramoto’s version is the only one in
which these notes end the take shirabe section. These highly visible core notes are not
performed by Watazumi, in either his FR version or his SR version. In Watazumi’s
FR version, the take shirabe section ends with a new phrase centering on three
sustained d' notes. In Yokoyama’s FR version, there is also a new phrase, with two
sustained d' notes. There is a single d' note in Jin and Sakai’s FR versions, although
they are not in a separate phrase.

The variation at this point between Uramoto and Watazumi, and between the
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage and the Jin-Sakai lineage is particularly
significant because it occurs at a boundary in the piece. In the light of theories of
orality, it is unlikely that the variations at this point occurred unintentionally.
Furthermore, the patterns of variation suggests that Watazumi was largely the
initiator.

Table 6 summarizes the manner in which the elements of the phrases F:U8-10 in
question line up with each other in the ten transcriptions. Besides the differences

241
between groups, the most noticeable features of the table are the similarities between
versions belonging to acknowledged lines of transmission (Watazumi-Yokoyama-
Iwamoto; Jin-Sakai), and the differences between both the Watazumi-Yokoyama-
Iwamoto line and Uramoto, and the Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto line and the Jin-
Sakai line. A similar pattern can be observed throughout the entire transcriptions.

Another musical element which reflects the nature of transmission between Uramoto
and Watazumi, as well as the other lines of transmission, is reibo no te (鈴慕の手,
‘“Reibo” pattern’) (see above p.367).

Figure 77 (corresponding to F:W36-37) shows an instance where Watazumi

characteristically performs reibo no te quite differently from his nominal teacher
Uramoto, especially regarding complexity. There are only ten notes altogether in this
Uramoto version of reibo no te (F:U16). The sparseness of this instance of Uramoto’s
reibo no te is reflected most in the FR versions of Jin, and the recipient of Jin’s
transmission, Sakai (F:J22. F:S22). Other examples of similarities between Uramoto
and Jin, who according to the genealogy chart had the same teacher (Konashi Kinsui),
were given above (p.187).

At the next occurrence in the transcriptions of reibo no te, Watazumi’s FR version

again bears little resemblance to Uramoto’s FR version. Although in this instance,
two reibo no te patterns (Figures 78 and 79) can be identified in all three versions of
the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage (in F:U19 and F:U22, in F:W42 and
F:W43-44, and in F:Y42 and F:Y43), there are noticeable inconsistencies between
Uramoto’s version and Watazumi’s version.

For example, this occurrence of reibo no te begins in the middle of a phrase in

Uramoto’s version (F:U19), while it corresponds to the beginning of a phrase in
Watazumi’s version, (another example of the phrasing differences in the two
versions). The only other performance to begin this instance of reibo no te in the
middle of the phrase is Sakai’s FR (F:S25). Watazumi’s more complex and dense
reibo no te compared to Uramoto’s also follows previously observed patterns. As
observed earlier, in general, Watazumi plays more phrases with more notes and more
embellishments than does Uramoto.

Instances in which the Uramoto version differs from versions of the Watazumi-
Yokoyama lineage more than from versions of the Jin-Sakai lineage, in spite of
Uramoto nominally belonging to the former, are also apparent on the level of
performance details. Differences between the Uramoto and Watazumi FR versions
(same lineage, same group) are at times not only greater than differences between the
Uramoto FR version and the Jin-Sakai FR versions (different lineages, same group),
but are also greater than differences between the Uramoto FR version and the Jin-
Sakai SR version (different lineages and different groups). A partial reason for this
might be that Uramoto and Jin, though considered belonging to different lineages in
this analysis, both learned from the same teacher, Konashi Kinsui (see p.187).

Two clear examples of Uramoto’s performance differing from Watazumi’s

performance more than from Jin’s performance can be seen in the details of
performance. First of all, Uramoto produces all of the g"s in reibo no te by method A
(see p.392), covering the second finger hole. This is also the case in Jin and Sakai’s

242
versions of both the FR and the SR groups. By contrast, in the Watazumi and
Yokoyama versions of both the FR and the SR groups, as well as Iwamoto’s SR
version, some of the g"s in reibo no te are played with method B, requiring more meri
technique than method A.

The difference noted here is especially significant. Both Uramoto and Jin, who
learned from the same teacher (Konashi), do not use method B, while Watazumi, and
the other performers of his lineage, Yokoyama and Iwamoto, do employ method B.
The changes in technique involved in going from method A to method B are not
likely to have been made unintentionally. Method B is, therefore, almost certainly an
addition made by Watazumi.

The second example of differences between the performances of Uramoto and

Watazumi being greater than differences between the performances of Uramoto and
Jin/Sakai can be seen in the sequence of notes of reibo no te. In his reibo no te
version, Uramoto plays a number of sequences of notes, the basic pattern being a-flat"
- g" - e-flat" - g", which is often preceded by the grace notes b-flat" or a-flat". This
series of notes, or variations of it, occurs in reibo no te of all ten versions of the piece
(bracketed in Figure 80). In Uramoto’s version, the initial occurrence of this series at
the beginning of reibo no te is, in effect, two series, which are defined by the two
occurrences of the note e-flat" (marked “X” in Figure 81). The e-flat" notes are not
present, however, in the initial series of notes in any of the versions that are nominally
considered to be the same lineage as Uramoto, that is, the FR versions of Watazumi,
Yokoyama, and the SR versions of Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto (Figure 80
“A”). The note, e-flat", is, on the other hand, present in all of the versions that are
considered not the same lineage as Uramoto, the FR and SR versions of Jin and Sakai
(Figure 80 “B”). In this instance, the data again points clearly to Watazumi as the
source of innovation in transmission. In this case the two occurrences of the note e-
flat" are part of what was transmitted from Konashi to Uramoto and Jin, but was later
omitted by Watazumi.

In Uramoto’s version, if a g" follows an a-flat", the next note is always an e-flat". The
same rule applies to both the FR and the SR versions of both Jin and Sakai (bracketed
in Figure 82). The simple a-flat" - g" - e-flat" series of notes does not occur in the
other versions of Uramoto’s FR lineage, those of Watazumi and Yokoyama. In
contrast, in both Watazumi’s and Yokoyama’s FR versions, a variety of combinations
of a-flat", g", c", and d" notes are performed before the e-flat" note (Figure 83 “A”).

The simple a-flat" - g" - e-flat" series of Uramoto’s FR version can be found,
however, in the SR versions of Watazumi, Yokoyama, and Iwamoto (Figure 83 “B”).
But the complex series that were not found in Uramoto’s FR version also occur in the
SR versions of Watazumi and Yokoyama, though not in Iwamoto’s SR version
(Figure 83 “C”).

This series of notes in Uramoto’s version is more similar in its simplicity to Jin and
Sakai’s versions (of both groups) than it is to the more complex series in Watazumi’s
and Yokoyama’s versions (of both groups). The exception to the above pattern is
Iwamoto’s SR version, which, is more like Uramoto’s, Jin’s, and Sakai’s versions
than like Watazumi’s and Yokoyama’s versions. This exception cannot be explained

243
by either lineage or by such elements as the passage of time between transmission and
performance.

The ending of phrase F:U22, and the corresponding phrases in the other versions,
(Figure 84) further illustrates the complexity of similarities and differences not only
between Uramoto and Watazumi, but also between all ten of the transcriptions.
Looking first at similarities, a reibo no te ends with a sustained a-natural" in the FR
versions by Uramoto, Watazumi, and Yokoyama (a similarity within a single lineage
in a single group). This also corresponds to the a-natural" in the SR versions of the
Watazumi-Yokoyama-Iwamoto lineage (a similarity within a single lineage in two
groups). The a-natural" is also the final note in Sakai’s version, but it is extremely
short in duration (slight similarity between different lineages within the same group).
The short notes after the a-natural" in Watazumi’s and Yokoyama’s FR versions
parallel their SR versions (similarities within the same lineage but in different
groups). These are some of the ways in which the identity of “Reibo” is maintained in
various performances.

Turning to the differences between the performances, the a-natural" is the final note
of the phrase in F:U22, but is followed by three short notes (b-flat" - a" - g") in F:W
and two short notes (g" - g") in F:Y (differences within a lineage within a group). The
corresponding note in the F:J version is also the final note and is short in duration, but
is an a-flat" instead of a-natural" (differences within a lineage within a group).

One can only conclude from reibo no te that while similarities and differences most
often correspond to shared lineages and/or groups, this is frequently not the case. The
manner in which similarities and differences between reibo no te fall sometimes along
the lines of the group, sometimes along the lines of lineage with a disregard to group,
and sometimes along a combination of the lines of both group and lineage can be
observed throughout the transcriptions of the piece and on all levels of analysis.

Throughout the above analyses, one of the most commonly recurring patterns is the
frequent involvement of Watazumi when variation between shared lineages or groups
do take place. As noted elsewhere, this is to be expected in light of Watazumi’s
rejection of Uramoto as his teacher of “Reibo”. Watazumi’s assertion that he did not
learn “Reibo” from Uramoto might best be interpreted, however, less as an assertion
of fact and more as a statement concerning the relative freedom one must have to
develop one’s own version into honnin no kyoku or “one’s own piece”, not bound by
tradition (p.229). Watazumi rejects the doctrinaire approach to honkyoku performance
with the spectacular incongruity between Uramoto’s performance and his own. By
making it difficult to establish connections between himself and others, both in his
performance of “Reibo” and in his giving the title “Furin” to one version of the
piece, Watazumi emphatically affirms his insight into the nature of performance and
transmission of classical shakuhachi honkyoku.

Yokoyama addressed this issue, and at the same time, provided a partial explanation
to the high degree of variation between the ten versions with the following statement:

Playing honkyoku is a way of searching for one’s own ideals. So when you
transmit a honkyoku, you are also trying to transmit your ideals. In doing so, it
is essential to eventually cut yourself off from your teacher, while at the same

244
 time still respecting your teacher. You must be as strict as that, otherwise the
transmission of your own ideals will not occur.

(Yokoyama 1989)

Applicable as this may be to the above analyses and to the honkyoku tradition in
general, Watazumi goes much further than what Yokoyama suggests in the above
quote. Yokoyama’s instruction regarding “cutting off yet still respecting one's
teacher” is not even an issue with Watazumi. Since Watazumi emphatically insists
that he does not have a “teacher”, there is neither a teacher to cut off, nor one to
respect. Watazumi takes the discussion one magnitude higher by stating that he does
not even play honkyoku. Instead, he performs dôkyoku (道曲, ‘pieces of the Way’).
Furthermore, his instruments are not shakuhachi. Instead he plays dôgu (道具, ‘tools
of the Way’). The authority Watazumi exercises over his performances of dôkyoku
with his dôgu is absolute. They are just “That”.

245
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION
This thesis has attempted to combine the insights and concerns of performance
with the methods and strategies of scholarship to look at the shakuhachi
honkyoku tradition, with the belief that the intersection of these two
approaches will provide a valid understanding of the tradition. The opening
chapters described my position as both performer and scholar, or participant
within the honkyoku tradition and outside observer of that tradition. It also
introduced the two-fold aim of this thesis: to enhance our understanding of the
tradition by looking at the nature of transmission of honkyoku and to
disseminate that understanding. In subsequent chapters, the environment in
which this study was undertaken was described from a number of
perspectives. These included the literary context in which this thesis was
located (Chapter 2), a historical account of the honkyoku tradition (Chapter 3),
the genealogy of “Reibo”, the piece central to the analysis (Chapter 4), and an
exploration of the theoretical and philosophical bases from which an analysis
of honkyoku could be undertaken (Chapter 5).

A number of specific questions about the shakuhachi honkyoku tradition have

been asked in this thesis, in particular questions about the processes of
transmission within that tradition. Is the nature of the transmission of
honkyoku perceived differently by different teachers and students? How does
the transmission from teacher to student, from individual to individual, and
from lineage to lineage differ? What can be learned of the transmission of
“Reibo” by looking at the processes of performing the piece? What, precisely,
is transmitted?

In the course of the thesis all of these questions have been addressed, if not
fully answered. Three different ways of perceiving the honkyoku and the
nature of its transmission were discussed with reference to the ideology of a
number of shakuhachi players: Inoue’s ideology of honkyoku as object, Aoki’s
ideology of honkyoku as music, and the ideology of honkyoku as transcending
both object and music shared by Uramoto, Yokoyama, Watazumi, and others
(see pp.287-304). In the analysis (Chapter 6), a comparison of ten
performances of players who represent primarily the third ideology showed
that many of the patterns of similarities and differences observed between the
performances correspond to transmission patterns between teacher and
student, within lineages, and between individuals (pp.376-416). In most cases,
performances by teacher and student displayed the most similarity, for
example Watazumi and Yokoyama. Performances of the same lineage, for
example, the Uramoto-Watazumi-Yokoyama lineage, also displayed more
similarities than performances of different lineages (pp.384-385).

In many cases, however, a high degree of variation could be observed between

members of the same lineage and between players in a teacher-student
relationship. This is especially evident with regard to the relationship between

246
Uramoto and Watazumi (pp.403-416). As explained above (p.403-404),
although according to the genealogy chart Uramoto taught “Reibo” to
Watazumi, Watazumi clearly repudiates the notion that Uramoto was his
teacher. This is reflected in performance by differences between the two.

A notable example of this can be seen in the details of the process of

performing the distinctive melodic formula known as reibo no te. An analysis
of these details (pp.391-392) brought to light a process of producing certain
notes in reibo no te which appear to be additions distinctive to Watazumi.
These and other variations may be expressions of Watazumi’s understanding
of the concept of honnin no kyoku (‘the piece being that of the performer’)
(pp.229, 255) or honnin no shirabe (‘searching for one’s original self’)
(pp.267-269). Watazumi is not the only player whose performance exhibits
such a feature. All of the players represented in the analysis show, in the
degree of variation of their performances, an appreciation of this concept.

The question, what precisely is transmitted, is one that can be addressed but
perhaps never fully answered. The analyses support the conclusion that none
of what is transmitted in the honkyoku tradition can be described precisely
with words alone. Rephrasing the question: What is transmitted in the
honkyoku tradition? The only short answer this thesis can provide is: Many
things and nothing.

One conclusion, demonstrated empirically in Chapter 6 by the analyses of the

ten transcriptions, is that there is an indefinable, even mysterious something
which is conceptualized as “Reibo” and manifested in all of the performances
represented by the ten transcriptions. The analyses independently support the
genealogy chart, which is based upon written and oral evidence, much of
which is anecdotal (pp.173-196) in that the lines of transmission of “Reibo”
fall within at least two main groups, “Futaiken reibo” and “Shôganken
reibo”.

Evidence of a commonality can be found in the large number of similarities

between the ten pieces, especially those made significant by their location
and/or repetition. These similarities include the labelling, placement and
content of formal divisions, cadential formulae, distinctive melodic formulae,
in particular reibo no te (the “Reibo” fingering), and the high degree of
correspondence of notes throughout the performances, especially those of
significant duration (pp.371-376). With the common identity of the ten
performances established, comparisons between the pieces were made,
revealing patterns of similarities and differences.

These comparisons reveal, notwithstanding numerous commonalities, a high

degree of diversity and variation between the ten performances. Not only is
the amount of variation large, but the number of patterns of variation is great.
Patterns of similarities and differences frequently correspond to either one of
the two groups, “Futaiken reibo” or “Shôganken reibo”, or to one of the
lineages of transmission. Many of the observed variations can be traced to
Watazumi’s performance (pp.403-416). Importantly, however, many
variations in the patterns of transmission which occur repeatedly cannot be

247
ascribed entirely either to differences in group of piece or lineage, or to
individual idiosyncrasies of performers.

A possible explanation for these idiosyncrasies may lie in the fact that just as
honkyoku were composed, performed, and transmitted for a number of
centuries in an atmosphere of largely unstructured interchange, interchange
and cross-fertilization continue today. For centuries, honkyoku were
transmitted by beggar “straw mat priests” (薦僧 komosô), who lived at the
lower fringes of their society (p.94). Some structure was imposed upon the
interchange between these beggar priests by the organization and official
recognition of the Fuke sect in the early seventeenth century. Even after the
establishment of the Fuke sect, many honkyoku players, whose name had been
“upgraded” to “priests of nothingness” (虚無僧 komusô), continued their
wanderings around the countryside. They also continued to teach to and be
taught by other equally mendicant komusô, an ever-changing repertoire of
honkyoku (pp.102-135).

After the end of the Fuke sect and the official status of the komusô’s way of
life in the last decade of the nineteenth century, the honkyoku tradition at first
glance appears largely to have been transmitted within secular organizations
such as the ryû. Because these organizations were primarily bureaucratic in
their approach and function, they were not conducive to the diversity and
variation resulting from the constant interchange between komusô (pp.149-
164). Examples of this kind of approach to shakuhachi honkyoku can still be
seen in the ideology of two contemporary members of the tradition, Inoue and
Aoki (pp.288-296).

A richness of diversity and variation in the honkyoku tradition continued to

persist after the abolishment of the Fuke sect and continues to be maintained
today in spite of the pervasive influence of bureaucratic shakuhachi
organizations (cf.pp.250-251) and ideologies. This diverse richness can be
seen in both exterior elements such as titles of pieces and names and
placement of formal divisions, and in interior elements such as
embellishments and fingering methods. In the case of “Reibo” pieces, an
example of this diversity can be found in the degree of complexity in which
material appears to cross over between the two groups represented in the
transcriptions. A great deal of cross-over seems to have occurred not only
before the differentiation of the two groups, but after they developed their
distinct titles and features. This is manifested in patterns of similarities and
differences between performances in the two different groups, including those
of the same performer (pp.371-416).

Although the institution of the wandering komusô has not existed since the late
1800s, the ideology of interchange and cross-fertilization of the Edo period
and earlier appears not to have died out, but has continued to exist up to the
present. There may no longer be shakuhachi-playing monks travelling on foot
from komusô temple to temple exchanging their honkyoku and in the process
varying and changing them. Instead, though travelling more by train or plane
than on foot, there nevertheless continue to be shakuhachi players who
transmit honkyoku between each other with a similar spirit of interchange and

248
an understanding of the variable nature of honkyoku, as was held by many of
the Edo period “priests of nothingness”.

In the last several decades, cross-fertilization of pieces within the honkyoku

tradition has also been encouraged by the advent of readily available
recordings. Recordings of pieces representing numerous versions of a single
honkyoku, and different performances of the same version both by different
players and by the same performer at different times are now available for
repeated listening. Variations and changes in the honkyoku repertoire and in
the pieces within that repertoire thus continue to occur as they have always
occurred.

A major observation of this thesis concerns the variation and change that can
be attributed to Watazumi, the person who most strongly denies any sources of
transmission of his honkyoku, and who exhibits the most divergency in his
performances. The correlation between how transmission is conceived and
how “Reibo” is transmitted can be seen in the performances of the other
performers as well. Watazumi is at one extreme regarding the conception of
transmission and its effects on the degree of variation. If analyzed,
performances of players who conceive transmission as do Inoue and Aoki,
would most likely occupy the other extreme.

Much of the uniqueness of Watazumi’s honkyoku performances and his

philosophy underlying those performances can be detected without analyzing
transcriptions. The analysis in this thesis has shown specific elements of
variation and their locations in his performance of the two “Reibo” pieces.
Also, although his performances exhibit by far the most diversity and variation
amongst those represented by the ten transcriptions, we can conclude from the
analysis that Watazumi nevertheless remains very much within the honkyoku
tradition in terms of the kinds of variations and changes he makes. Even in
Watazumi’s performances, there appears to be little “original” material
(pp.408-409). Many of the differences between his performances and those of
the other performers have to do with the variation and placement of material
which can be found elsewhere, rather than with the inclusion of original
material.

A second observation that can be made from the analysis is that variation
occurs more at certain parameters than at others. For example, prominent
notes such as those having durations of over two seconds are most likely to be
transmitted and transmitted unchanged, while details such as embellishment
are most likely to be transmitted with changes or not transmitted at all.
Paradoxically, these details are important elements in the tradition, as
evidenced by their prominence in tradition-based analyses. They are among
the most talked about elements within the formal lesson.

Another area of variation is the length of phrases and their number in a piece
and the breaths that occur between them. This might be considered anomalous
to honkyoku, since the phrase is considered a fundamental structural unit of
honkyoku, and since the breaths between the phrases are given as much
importance as the phrases themselves. It might therefore be expected that,

249
because so much emphasis is placed on the breath and on the phrase as a
structural unit, the placement of the breath and the number of phrases in a
particular honkyoku would show stability rather than variability over the
course of transmission.

From this observation one can make a theoretical conclusion about the
individual nature of performance. Variability with regards to breath and
phrasing is a prime indication of the importance placed upon the mindfulness
that is needed to make each honkyoku performance a reflection of the
absolutely unique situation that it is. The singularly different breathing
capacity and control of each performer with each performance necessitates
differences in phrasing. Thus, the musical product becomes subservient to the
process of performing, which includes breathing. This is in stark contrast to
what occurs in other genres of music, in which standardized phrasing is
common, the placement of the breaths is dictated by the music, and the ideal
manner of breathing is one that is unnoticed by the listener.

It must be remembered that this study, in which only ten performances by six
performers are transcribed, cannot take into account the infinite number of
possible performances at different times by each of the countless honkyoku
performers. The issue of how the passage of time affects the transmission of
honkyoku has, for the lack of data, only briefly been touched upon.

Scholarly approaches such as this thesis can never reflect the entire picture of
the honkyoku tradition and its transmission, but they can shed a particular light
on the subject that may not be apparent with other approaches. Nevertheless,
transmission of honkyoku in the shakuhachi tradition includes far more than
the transmission of just the notes and the technical details of performance. It is
the transmission of “ideals”. The form that each individual’s ideals take may
vary as much as the individuals themselves.

While each transcription is an analogue of only one performance by each

individual performer, even a limited analysis of a limited data base such as the
ten transcriptions used in this thesis provides a remarkable glimpse of the
incredibly complex diversity and variability of the shakuhachi classical
honkyoku. These two elements, diversity and variability, are two of the most
fundamental defining features of honkyoku. That these two features can still be
so readily observed confirms the enduring nature of this living tradition.

In addition to the above issues, the question of “insider/outsider”, first raised

in Chapter 1, must be addressed. The ways in which the analyses were set up
and executed necessitated an insider’s knowledge of “Reibo”. The lining up
of the orthographically simplified transcriptions (pp.359-369), which was a
crucial step in the analyses, was particularly dependent upon an understanding
of the piece achieved only through the insider’s experience of performing
“Reibo”.

One of the insights gained in the process of researching and writing this thesis
has to do with the insider/outsider theme and how it relates to Watazumi’s
honkyoku. The problems associated with any paradigm of insider/outsider with

250
regards to the shakuhachi tradition are solved instantly by Watazumi. In his
repudiation of the teacher-student relationship, of the notion of lineage and
transmission and of the labels honkyoku and shakuhachi (pp.415-416),
Watazumi transcends the insider/outsider dichotomy, and arrives at a unifying
state of being eloquently referred to in the shakuhachi tradition with the
expression, ichi on jôbutsu (一音成仏, ‘one sound attaining Buddhahood’). In
the “one sound” there is no inside and no outside.

A series of questions have haunted me throughout the writing of this thesis,

which may have contributed to the seven years required to complete it. Part of
the intuitive understanding of honkyoku and its transmission is the knowledge
that that intuitive understanding comes from direct experience. As a honkyoku
performer, I have from the beginning of this project wondered if studying
honkyoku in a scholarly manner was either valid or necessary. Would any sort
of understanding acquired through scholarly endeavours bear any relation to
the absolute understanding of the player during the act of performing
honkyoku? Even if some kind of non-intuitive understanding of honkyoku
could be achieved (the first part of my initial aim), would it be possible to
transmit that understanding to the reader (the second part of my initial aim)?

From the vantage point of having finished the research and all the writing of
this thesis, save the final paragraph of this conclusion, I can, in retrospect,
gratefully answer all of the above questions with an emphatic yes! With the
act of submitting this thesis, it becomes a part of the honkyoku tradition, one
of its many aspects. The “essence” of honkyoku, though beyond the ability of
words to describe, is in its very limitlessness, manifested in all aspects of the
tradition, including this thesis. The words in this thesis are offered in the spirit
described by Aitken:

...we must use words. How should we use them? By playing with
them, as [Chang-tsu and Bashô] both did, and as did Huang-po, Yun-
men, Ch’ang-sha, and countless other Zen teachers. The purpose is to
present something, not to mean something. Meaning something
destroys it.

(Aitken 1978:127)

The words in this thesis present something, but do not attempt to mean
anything. In the process of my researching, organizing, and finally presenting
these words as author, and with the act of you, the reader, receiving them,
transmission of honkyoku takes place.

251