Kuroki Toshihiro (黒木俊弘), “Shugendō no mine-iri goma-ku to budō rinen” (修験道の峰入り護摩供と武道理念) in Budōgaku Kenkyū* (武道学研 究) 14(2): 59–60. DOI: 10.11214/budo1968.14.2_59
Author affiliation: Saga University (佐賀大学). Kuroki served on the board of the Nishi-Nihon Sangaku Shugen Gakkai (西日本山岳修験学会), founded 1980 at the Kubote museum — i.e. this is a participant-observer report by an involved organizer, not a detached ethnography. Weight the descriptive material accordingly and treat the Section V interpretive claims as the author’s argument, not established consensus.
1. Premise and evidentiary base
The mine-iri goma-ku (峰入り護摩供; the goma fire-offering executed before entering the mountains for a training retreat) is the pre-departure rite of the yamabushi (山伏). Kuroki’s justification for studying it is a methodological one: the multi-day peak retreat itself has become rare and is essentially closed to outside observation, so this pre-departure offering is now effectively the only Shugendō ceremony that can still be witnessed directly. He also notes that mine-iri historically fixed a yamabushi’s rank (身分階級) by conferring gen (験; ascetic efficacy), giving it institutional weight beyond the devotional.
Two field events supply the data:
- a mine-iri goma at the Buzenbō (豊前坊) precinct of Hikosan, March 1979 (Shōwa 54);
- a larger saitō ō-goma-ku (柴灯大護摩供; open-air great goma) at the Kubote Shugen Museum (求菩提修験資料館), Buzen City, November 1980 (Shōwa 55).
He relies primarily on the second, which he found the more striking.
2. Ritual space (Section II)
The open-air dōjō (道場) is a square of roughly 10–15 m per side, its perimeter defined as a kekkai (結界; consecrated enclosure) by a shimenawa (〆縄; boundary rope) strung between green bamboo.
- Directional colors. The four bounds carry: East 青 (blue/green), West 白 (white), South 赤 (red), North 黒 (black), with 黄 (yellow) added at the center. This is the standard wǔxíng (五行; wǔxíng; five-phase) directional scheme, the center-yellow marking the earth phase / axis. The cloths are described as symbolizing the shinjū (神獣; divine beasts) — i.e. the shishin (四神): Seiryū (青龍), Byakko (白虎), Suzaku (朱雀), Genbu (玄武).
- Kimon. The northeast is treated as the kimon (鬼門; demon gate); the altar is set on the opposite side, oriented toward the peak to be entered.
- The central goma pyre is a sign of shogō metsuzai (諸業滅罪; expiation of all karmic acts).
3. Entry sequence (Section III)
- Arrow purification — before entry, yamabushi loose arrows high over the four quarters, beginning at the kimon (NE) and proceeding S → W → N, using hama-ya (破魔矢; demon-quelling arrows) to scatter malign spirits.
- Cutting the boundary — the procession is led by a kai-yamabushi (貝山伏; conch-bearer) and a tachi-yamabushi (太刀山伏; sword-bearer). The sword-bearer severs the shimenawa at the kimon while shouting a kiai-charged proclamation with each stroke:
- Buzenbō: Hito o korosazu, onore kizutsukazu (人を殺さず己れ傷つかず; “kill no one, injure not oneself”);
- Kubote: Hito o korosazu, ware mo korosazu (人を殺さず我れも殺さず; “kill no one, and I too kill not”).
- Invoking the deity — inside the kekkai, the sendatsu (先達; guide) takes fire before the altar to summon the mountain spirit, followed by a massed recitation of the Hannya Shingyō (般若心経; Heart Sutra), delivered (Kuroki says) close to a roar.
- Path-opening — two masakari-yamabushi (鉞山伏) each wield a large axe, swinging it around the four sides of the pyre to “open the road” (道拓き; michi-hiraki), displaying even greater force than the sword-bearer.
The pyre is then lit from the smoldering lamp-fire; the Heart Sutra is chanted again over blown hora-gai (法螺貝; conch); departing practitioners are seen off by those remaining and by families telling their beads, with wishes for minaka anzen · shogan jōju (峰中安全・諸願成就; safety in the peaks and fulfillment of all vows).
4. Section V — close reading (「まとめ得る武道理念とのかかわり」)
This is the analytical core: Kuroki’s argument interprets the rite as preserving an archaic set of budō ideals. Below, each sub-point is given in the original, an English rendering, and a note on its evidentiary status.
Framing sentence
以上のスライドを用いての一連の護摩供のなかに武道的場面そのものがあり、修法〔抜?〕行為と武道理念と共通する—しかも古い形の武道の一端を再現していると思われる—一場面の顕著なものをまとめてみると次の如くである。
“Within this series of goma offerings [shown via the slides] there are martial scenes as such; the notable scenes that appear to share [common ground] with budō ideals through the ritual acts — and moreover to re-enact one facet of an old form of budō — may be summarized as follows.”
Note the hedge to omowareru (と思われる; “appears to / is thought to”): the whole section is framed as interpretation, not documented transmission.
i — Spatial ornamentation
護摩供が執行される結界のうちを道場というが、その四至を神獣を象徴する色布で飾り、中央の護摩檀を黄色とする荘厳様式であることは、武芸諸流の傳書にも見られ東京大相撲の柱（今は垂れ房）に残されている。
“The interior of the kekkai where the goma is performed is called the dōjō. Its four bounds (shishi 四至) are decorated with colored cloths symbolizing the divine beasts, and the central goma altar is [marked] yellow — this ornamentation style (shōgon yōshiki 荘厳様式) is also seen in the densho (傳書) of the various martial lineages (bugei shoryū 武芸諸流), and survives in the pillars of Tokyo grand sumo (now the hanging tassels).”
- Status. The sumo claim is independently well-attested: the four colored corner pillars of the dohyō, replaced by suspended tassels (fusa) in 1952, correspond to the shishin / four-phase colors.
The claim that this same schema appears “in the densho of the martial lineages” is asserted without a named text or lineage, an unsupported single-assertion at this stage. If this parallel is to be used, it needs a specific densho citation; otherwise flag as the author’s generalization.
ii — Implements as purification
〆縄そのものが清浄域を示すものであるが、法螺貝の音も弓も矢も太刀も鉞も読経もすべてが清浄鎮魂のためのものであり、呪文や九字切りなども邪鬼退散のためのものである。
“The shimenawa itself marks the pure zone; the sound of the conch, and the bow, arrow, sword, axe, and sutra-recitation are all for seijō chinkon (清浄鎮魂; purification and spirit-pacification), while jumon (呪文; incantations), kuji-giri (九字切り; the nine-syllable cutting), and the like are for jaki taisan (邪鬼退散; driving off malign demons).”
- Status. Descriptive; internally consistent with the rite as reported. The functional framing (weapon = purificatory instrument, not martial tool) is what sets up point iv.
iii — Archery survivals
弓山伏の弓射の時の矢雨にも色があって悪霊退散儀式としていることは、弓道傳書の「鳴弦式」ばかりでなく「四方払い」と残ったり、相撲の「弓取り」として遺習している。
“That the ‘arrow-rain’ (ya-ame 矢雨) of the bow-yamabushi’s shooting also has color and serves as an evil-spirit-dispelling rite survives not only as the meigen-shiki (鳴弦式; bowstring-twanging rite) in kyūdō densho, but also as the shihō-barai (四方払い; four-direction clearing), and as a residual custom in sumo’s yumitori (弓取り; bow-twirling ceremony).”
- Status. Meigen-shiki and yumitori are genuine, independently documented practices; the etymological/functional linkage to the yamabushi arrow-rite is Kuroki’s inference (again nokoru / ishū framing — “survives / residual custom” — asserts descent without demonstrating it).
iv — The sword’s meaning (the key claim for kenjutsu)
太刀山伏が結界に入るに際して〆縄を切断する時、大音声で唱える。「この太刀は自他ともに人を殺傷するものではない」すなわち「太刀は人間に刃をむけるものではなく邪鬼悪霊と邪念を断ち切るものである」と声明するところは重要である。ここに修験道の武道が傳えられていることと、その在り態〔arikata?〕を知らされるところである。居合の「四方切り」や横綱土俵入りの太刀持ちの太刀もこの意味の故実としてよい。
“When the tachi-yamabushi cuts the shimenawa on entering the kekkai, he proclaims in a great voice — ‘this sword is not a thing that kills or wounds people, whether others or oneself,’ that is, ‘the sword does not turn its blade toward human beings, but severs malign demons, evil spirits, and evil thoughts (janen 邪念)’ — and this proclamation is the important point. Here is where the budō of Shugendō is transmitted, and where its true mode of being is made known. The iai ‘four-direction cut’ (shihō-giri 四方切り) and the sword carried by the sword-bearer (tachi-mochi 太刀持ち) at the yokozuna’s ring-entering (dohyō-iri 土俵入り) may well be regarded as kojitsu (故実; inherited precedent) of this same meaning.”
Status / commentary.
The proclaimed ideology — the blade that severs delusion rather than flesh — is a recognizable theme in early-modern Japanese sword thought, closest in spirit to the katsujinken / satsujinken (活人剣・殺人剣; life-giving vs. death-dealing sword) discourse of the Yagyū Shinkage-ryū Heihō Kadensho and its Zen framing (Takuan).
Kuroki reads the Shugendō ritual proclamation as cognate with that ideology, but he offers it as resemblance, not as a documented channel of transmission; no martial text is cited here either. For a lineage-critical treatment this is a phenomenological parallel, but not attested descent.
The ritual and the katsujinken topos may share a Buddhist substrate independently without one deriving from the other. The shihō-giri / tachi-mochi comparisons are likewise proposed as kojitsu (“may well be regarded as” — toshite yoi, permissive, not evidential).
v — Body mechanics and the axe
鉞山伏の打ち払いを霊山開闢とも称しているが、これも悪霊退散の先駆けである。弓山伏も太刀山伏も鉞山伏も、手の握り・足づかいにと腰の定まりなど、すべてが武術の理合からみて申分なかったことを付加しておく。
“The axe-yamabushi’s uchi-harai (打ち払い; striking-clearing) is also called reizan kaibyaku (霊山開闢; the opening of the sacred mountain), and this too is a precursor of evil-spirit dispersal. Let me add that the bow-, sword-, and axe-yamabushi alike — in their hand-grip, footwork, and the settledness of the hips (koshi no sadamari) — were, viewed from the standpoint of bujutsu no riai (武術の理合; the internal logic of martial technique), entirely beyond reproach.”
Individuals who are in a yamabushi role could separately practice budō in their sectarian life, even as simply as part of the modern Japanese educational system, especially if they are interested in traditional culture. So, the author’s observation of their body mechanics may not tie to a direct martial import. Or, previous generations who were trained also in kobudō, and contributed to these ritual practices, could have organically imported certain body mechanics to the actions.
Contrast with village bo no te traditions of folk combat-performance, surviving independently of the ryūha.
5. Overall assessment
Kuroki’s Sections II–III are solid descriptive ethnography of two specific 1979/1980 Buzen events and can be cited as such. Section V is a comparative-interpretive argument: it proposes that the ritual’s spatial cosmology, purificatory weapon-use, archery rites, and above all the “sword that severs evil, not people” proclamation are survivals of, or cognate with, an archaic budō ideal, with parallels drawn to kyūdō rites, iai shihō-giri, sumo yumitori / tachi-mochi, and the martial densho tradition.
Every Section V linkage is framed with permissive/inferential language (to omowareru, nokoru, ishū, toshite yoi) and none is anchored to a named martial text. For a source-critical purpose the section is best used as: (a) a primary record of the proclamation wording and the ritual’s self-understanding, and (b) an early example of the “Shugendō → budō” comparative thesis — while flagging that its martial-lineage parallels are asserted, not demonstrated.
