Meaning of the romanji "ju" in jujutsu: unarmed

[jodirren]

The kanji used for ju in jujutsu is translated in the West as soft, gentle, yielding, or supple. However, I have heard from an instructor of mine who is fluent in Japanese and who lived in Japan for some time, that apparently ju can also be translated as unarmed. However, I cannot find any other source that uses this translation of ju, be it on the internet or in the library. I have looked in as many different English-Japanese dictionaries as I can get my hands on, and none of them use unarmed as one of the meanings of ju. As much as I repsect my instructor, I would like to see this from another source. He told me his source is the "Green Goddess", apparently a reference to the Japanese equivalent of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). I have no way of getting access to this reference, and even if I did, I would not be able to read it since I can't read Japanese. So, I'm hoping that someone on this forum can shed some light on this. If anybody can point me to a source that specifies "unarmed" as being one of the interpretations of the kanji for ju, I would be much obliged. And any other comments are, of course, welcome.

You might ask why I even care. Well, I have been researching the history of jujutsu and have found the current translation of ju in jujutsu to make little sense. Jujutsu (in pre-Edo times) was the form of bujutsu practiced by the samurai when they could not use their major weapon. Training in their major weapon was their emphasis, and other forms of bujutsu were secondary. We now refer to these secondary arts as being weaponless, but as has been mentioned in many other threads on this forum and just about every respected reference on jujutsu out there, these arts clearly involved minor weapons. Regardless, these minor weapons were used in such a way to complement the basic unarmed techniques, not to exist solely by themselves (with exceptions). They seem to have mostly been used in place of or to amplify atemi, and since atemi is usually the means to an end (a distraction to loosen the opponent up for a finishing lock or throw) in jujutsu, their presence didn't really alter the essence of jujutsu being an unarmed martial art. Hence, it makes sense to refer to jujutsu as "unarmed", although in actuality it did include minor weapons. But in comparison with the primary forms of bujutsu (kenjutsu, etc.) which were built around the major wepon, it makes sense to refer to jujutsu as an unarmed martial art, since at its essence that is indeed what it is.

Of course, back then, they didn't call it "jujutsu" but called it by various names like taijutsu, komiuchi, wajutsu, etc. Then, apparently in the 17th century, the name "jujutsu" appeared for organizational purposes, to refer to *all* these various styles of secondary martial arts practiced by the samurai of various ryu when they were without their major weapon. That makes sense-- I too would get sick of having to deal with all these different names when they were all essentially variations on the same theme. It would be naturally, especially during the relatively peaceful Edo period when people had time to do things like organize and categorize, to come up with some name that encompasses all these forms of bujutsu which are very similar.

Well, if it was me back in the 17th century (or whenever) trying to come up with a name to refer to all these varoius styles of bujutsu used by the samurai when they were without their major weapon, I would have called it just that: unarmed. I would have referred to the primary bujutsu of the samurai as swordsmanship (kenjutsu), spearmanship (yarijutsu), etc., and then I would have referred to the secondary form of bujutsu as "unarmed techniques", which would be, in Japanese, the kanji for unarmed and the kanji for technique (jutsu).

This interpretation makes the most sense to me. The interpretation of ju in jujutsu as "soft" seems wrong to me because that seems to imply that the other forms of bujutsu weren't soft, only jujutsu was. But that seems silly. In kenjutsu, yarijutsu, etc. the idea of redirecting and absorbing momentum is just as prevalent. I mean, it's common sense! Why would these samurai have seen the advantage of using techniques that redirect momentum in *only* in their unarmed techniques!! It seems to me they would have just as many soft techniques in their primary bujutsu with major weapons as in their secondary bujutsu. So for them to call their art the "soft technique" seems silly because it wouldn't have differentiated between their primary and secondary forms of bujutsu. They would have called it exactly what it is: secondary or unarmed techniques.

I'm start to think that the idea of ju being interpreted as "soft" is a modern (Meiji period and afterwards) concept that was used as a nod to the past, to slightly glorify the art and make it sound more esoteric, like it somehow tapped into some deeper understanding of combat and the human body. I think this is particularly propagated today in the West, where people seem to think you can easily divide martial arts up into soft and hard, which often is impossible.

Or that's my line of thinking anyway. Comment are greatly appreciated.

jd

[ghp]

translated as unarmed No Way! The kanji is Ju/yawara and means "pliant, flexible," and a few other similar words -- I don't have my Nelson's Dictionary with me now.

In no way, shape, or form would "ju/yawara" ever mean literally "unarmed".

Regards,
Guy

[jodirren]

Guy: Yes, I undersand that Nelson's and just about every other English-Japanese dictionary translates the kanji ju/yawara as soft, gentle, etc. and doesn't use unarmed. That's not what I'm trying to understand. I'm digging deeper here. Books like Nelsons were written by Westerners, and further, probably Westerners not much concerned with the more obscure meanings of words associated with feudal-era bujutsu. I want to know if deep in the history and eymology of the kanji ju there is some truth to it having been associated with "unarmed".

If you think Nelson's is the Bible, that would be equivalent to saying that even the *best* French-English dictionary, for example, would let every French person understand the nuances of the English language. It's just not going to happen. The only way to get to the more obscure meanings of words is through a reference used by the native speakers of that language. In English, that would be almost single-handedly the OED. In Japanese, it would be .... [fill in the blank ... I don't know what it is myself]. So it's clear that there must be Japanese sources out there that are much more comprehensive than Nelsons or the equivalent. Again, to prove it to yourself, take any word in any other language you might know, find the best translating dictionary you can find, and see what English translation(s) it gives. Then look those English words up in Websters or Merriams dictionary. You will probably see a big difference here. Then, look up the English word given by the translating dictionary in the OED, and you will see an even greater difference, with the OED providing all sorts of different meanings, many obscure if not obsolete.

So, that's the kind of source I'm looking for. Not the information that your average Westerner has learned from some translating dictionary and all its inherent limitations. Again, to repeat, I understand that ju is translated as soft, gentle, etc. and I'm not trying to refute that. That is clearly what it means today. I am looking back to see if there is an older definition, even if obsolete, that was once in use that could be associated with "unarmed".

[PeteBoyes]

Without knowing the subleties of the language, could it be that people were describing what JuJitsu WAS, not what the words mean. It is unarmed combat, but the words could mean something totally different?

e.g. Mcdonalds is a burger, but Mcdonald means 'son of Donald', surely were not meant to believe that we are eating Donald's son.

[jodirren]

Originally posted by PeteBoyes
e.g. Mcdonalds is a burger, but Mcdonald means 'son of Donald', surely were not meant to believe that we are eating Donald's son.

Actually, this is exactly the point. Originally, McDonalds *did* indeed mean the son of Donald. Eventually it came to no longer be associated with Donald's son, and now everyone knows that McDonald's the restaurant has nothing to do with Donald the son. But, once upon a time, it did mean that. If one is interested in the history of something, understanding the etymology of the words used to describe it can often be very fruitful. So my goal with the word "jujutsu" is to understand what it originally meant.


It is unarmed combat, but the words could mean something totally different?

That might be possible, but it seems to me that most people choose the words that mean what they want, rather than choosing words that don't mean what they want. They could have called jujutsu something else that didn't have anything to do with the art (like "the art of trimming one's eyebrows"), but I doubt it. I just am having a hard time believing that people really thought of jujutsu as "the soft technique", implying that the other forms of bujutsu weren't soft. Just doesn't make any sense.

However, I could see how one could call forms of bujutsu which primarily used major weapons, which are made out of objects like steel and wood, "hard". And then I could see how forms of bujutsu which didn't use these hard objects but instead primarily used the body (made of flesh, which is much softer) could come to be called "soft". I might be going out on a limb, but it's just one possibility that comes to mind. But in this case, then "ju" is really being translated as unarmed. This is my guess as to how unarmed came to be called soft; it's simple a more eloquent and round-about way of saying the same thing.

[Don Cunningham]

I think you are reading far too much into this than is appropriate. You should know that Japanese kanji has been reorganized and systemized over they years precisely because it was far too open to subjective interpretation and thus miscommunication.

You should remember that Japanese kanji is a conceptual-based communication medium versus English as a literal-based communication medium. For example, the kanji for a plant root is basically an image of a tree with the root marked. It can literally mean "a plant's root," but it can also be interpreted as "the beginning" or "the introduction."

The yawara kanji means "flexibility" but it could easily be confused with "unarmed" if the person reading it interprets it as the first character in jujutsu and his or her conception of jujutsu is "unarmed martial art." A lot of kanji translation is based on the context in which it appears and context is often subjective.

Again, the yawara kanji is the same first character as in judo. The second character in judo means "path" and is intended to reflect an image of following a moral path. However, it can also be interpreted as a "road" in the more literal sense.

[Iron Clad Brute]

Hello,

A dictionary meaning is just that, the meaning of the word for general use. Kanji were often adopted to mean specificly different things to their general meanings. Different founders of schools (depending on their level of literacy) adopted different kanji to sometimes describe the same thing. An example: ju can also be written ˜a as opposed to ?_. The reading can be ju or wa depending on the intention of the writer. Jutsu ?p can be tagged on the ending of both and the meaning can be the same or different depending on the writers intention. We would never know the writers intention unless we were initiated into that particular school. Also, the terms used to describe a school don't tell us what the techniques of the school entail, or what the principles of the school are. See my following point.

The principle of "ju" or "ju no ri" has been in use by the classical bujutsu since their inception. But there were many interpretations of the actual principle and they differed between schools.
But there is no connection with the term "unarmed" and "ju." There just simply weren't any "unarmed" schools per se.

I believe there was a common misconception that appeared during the Meiji period; in which the principle of ju was applied solely as a defensive strategy. This meant that the "pliability" "flexibility" aspect of the principle of ju was overemphasised. The arts became self-defence arts, and so the strategy of kobo ichi was abandoned and the principle of ju was also changed to simply mean softness.

The original principle of ju was not the common misconception "softness controls hardness," but rather; "the most yielding things control the most unyielding." There is strength in true classical bujutsu schools. So the misconception doesn't stick. The act of yielding can be made with strength, just a flexible kind of strength.

The principle of ju is explained in the Tenjin Shinyo Ryu as: "the act of using the body not to collide with the strength of the opponent, but through maneouvering and correct technique, to combine our strength with the opponent and bring him down."

Many of the classical schools referred to their unarmed syllabus as simply "yawara" ?_ that is; no "jutsu"?@?_?p tagged on the end. I believe this gives a clearer meaning of the principle as it simply would mean "soft." When the word yawara was coupled with "jutsu" it took on the meaning of "soft arts" or "flexible techniques." This led to the common misconception of the "ways of softness."

During the Meiji period when all the schools were experiencing hardship there was a considerable amount of intermingling going on between schools that wouldn't have generaly mixed. This must have lead to principles and philosophies becoming muddled and some becoming generaly standed throughout. Besides, Kano Jigoro did a lot to bring jujutsu schools together - if only to prove that his judo was "better."

As a side point, the art of judo and the principle of ju as applied in judo was the same as in the classical schools when Kano invented it, but today it fits in well with the misconception of "the soft controls the hard." I guess everything changes.

[W.Bodiford]

I assume by "Green Goddess" your informant was referring to the *Nihon kokugo daijiten* published by Shogakkan. The first edition (1972; in 20 volumes) was, I believe, bound in green. The new edition (2001 in 13 volumes) is beige. Although the NKD does try to be comprehensive, containing all words commonly used in Japanese since the earliest texts down to the present, it is not modeled on the OED. Unlike the OED, the NKD does not try to include every single word. It does not include documented examples of each and every sense of every word.

When talking about definitions, it is useful to distinguish at least three kinds.

(1) Etymological definitions concern the origins and changing sense of words?B
(2) Lexicographical definitions concern common usage.
(3) Stipulative definitions concern specialized usage for specified and limited purposes.

Definitions of the 1st and 2d type can be either accurate or inaccurate depending on how well they reflect actual usage among a specified group of people within a particular time frame. Even if the definition is accurate, misunderstanding can still arise if it is applied to other groups of people or to other periods. Definitions of the 3d type can never be accurate nor inaccurate. They can only be more or less useful depending on how well they serve the purpose of the person(s) making the stipulation. In this case, confusion usually arises if the usual sense is not clearly distinguished from the specialized sense.

The OED generally includes documentary evidence for all three kinds of definitions. The NKD generally lists only the 2d kind of definitions.

Note well: Technically speaking, the NKD does *not* define kanji (i.e., Chinese glyphs). You have to look at a Chinese-language dictionary (such as the 12 volume *Hanyu da citian*) for that information. The NKD only defines words (lexicographical units of sound) as used in Japan.

I looked in the NKD (2d edition) and found the following definitions:

_________

*ju* (of judo/jujutsu): (1) yawarakai (soft); (2) odayaka de yasashii (calm & gentle); (3) yawarakaku suru (to soften)

*yawara*: (1) yawaraka na koto (softness); (2) odayaka na koto (gentleness); (3) jujutsu; (4) jinda (bumper on a boat); (5) meshi (food; especially food presented as a offering to buddhas & gods)

*jujutsu*: traditional Japanese martial art in which one attacks an enemy by striking, punching, kicking, throwing, choking, bending joints, etc., without using weapons; a.k.a. taijutsu, yawara, kogusoku, torite, etc.; it developed out of battlefield kumiuchi

_________

Of these the NKD's definitions for these three words, I would say that the one for jujutsu is not 100% accurate, since some styles of jujutsu employ weapons.

I hope this is helpful.

[jodirren]

Thanks for the repsonses everyone.

William:
Your post was exactly what I was looking for, as you have access to the reference my instructor quoted, and, going by your signature, you know more than a few things about the Japanese language. Thanks very much.

So I think it's safe to assume there really is no evidence that "ju" can be associated with unarmed. However, though it seems clear that "ju" means soft, gentle, or yielding in the word "jujutsu", I still do not completely understand why the idea of softness came to be associated only with unarmed (or lightly unarmed) forms of bujutsu (what we now call jujutsu). This is the main reason my questioning of the translation of ju even can to be in the first place. I suppose one can argue that look, it's just a name; it doesn't have to describe the art. However, it seems to me that most people give something a name for a reason. In the case of martial arts, they are almost always named after what it's used for, a region, a family/clan, an animal (or whatever) that it might imitate, etc. To call this form of bujutsu "the soft art" very much implies (to me, anyway) that, of all the forms of bujutsu, this is the one that uses the idea of softness the most. Is that true? Does kenjutsu, iaijutsu, jojutsu, or yarijutsu, for example, not employ the idea of softness and yielding to the attacker as much as jujutsu does (I only have experience with jujutsu)? If so, then calling it "the gentle technique" makes sense and my questions have been answered; if not, I think we're missing something .....

jd

[P Goldsbury]

To jd,

I second the thought of Mr Bodiford, to the effect that to deal with written Japanese you really need two sets of references: references dealing with the meaning and history of the word (e.g., jujutsu) as an item in the language, and references dealing with the meanings and histories of the characters which make up the word, considered in isolation and in combination.

I myself have the Green Goddess (2nd edition) but also Morohashi's 13-volume Daikanwa Jiten. These are in my office and, alas, unlike the OED, the publishers of both seem to lack the financial and intellectual resources to produce CD-Rom editions with good search functions etc.

I agree entirely with the assertion that JUU does not mean 'unarmed', but I think there is the further factor that Japanese native speakers, whose utterances tend to be reflected in dictionaries like the above, might not be the best judges of a word's meaning, especially in the 3rd sense distinguished by Mr Bodiford. Here in Hiroshima I have access to a vast resource of Japanese native speakers and I once asked a colleague about the meaning of JUU. He was startled for a moment and then he said, 'Ah you mean yawara. This really means judo and is a concept made popular by the fictional character Sugata Sanjiro and the song of the same name, made popular by a famous singer in the 1950s.' Of course, the existence of jujutsu was acknowledged, but it was not thought to represent the central meaning of JUU, as understood by Japanese like himself.

You would come up against the same problems, were you to use the same methods to find the meaning of ai-KI, as in Aiki-jujutsu. The term 'aiki' does not appear in either of the above large dictionaries and so the general linguistic output of Japanese, as recorded in such dictionaries, is of no help whatever in finding how aiki-jutsu and its cognates differ from Juujutsu. My colleagues had no clue about the meaning of 'aiki', other than the possible meanings yielded by the two characters in combination and, of course, dictionaries like Nelson are even less help.

Best regards,

[Dan Harden]

soft, pliant-art


Mr. Bodiford Writes
(1) Etymological definitions concern the origins and changing sense of words
(2) Lexicographical definitions concern common usage.
(3) Stipulative definitions concern specialized usage for specified and limited purposes.

How do we determine the definition then?
I could say that all usage of the terms Ju (and) Jutsu are Etymological due to origin, lexicographical due to the widely varying usage due to distance and time and stipulative since not all schools agree on the definition. It is arguable since schools do differentiate between their yawara, kogusoku, kumiuchi and Kenjutsu syllabus. So one could say that there is no usage for the term jujutsu with one schools weapons syllabus compared to another.
Could it be that our thread starter has no clear answer regardless of cultural origin and post-modern attempts at translations from Kanji into romanji in their own native tongue?
Or is it that "they" clearly understand what it is meant to convey and we just like to pick things apart.
I have had no trouble with various Japanese; from teachers, to office workers, to visiting doctors to Martial artists who clearly understood what I was refering to in the usage of the term-jujutsu.
Years ago I was corrected by a visiting chemist at a Bio med park (he was also a Japanese history buff) when I showed him the card of a very well known Aikijujutsu Shihan that read Aikijuj(i)tsu with accomponying Kanji for Aikijuj(u)tsu.
"This is wrong" he said. This is juj(u)tsu. He also knew the term Yawara. Imagine that.
Of coures this phrasing gets corrected both ways on the net everytime it is brought up.

Is it fair to say that their lexicon uses Jujutsu as a norm?

Maybe I have to move to Japan and work at university to witness this type of confusion and debate.:D
Cheers
Dan

[W.Bodiford]

QUOTE
========
To call this form of bujutsu "the soft art" very much implies (to me, anyway) that, of all the forms of bujutsu, this is the one that uses the idea of softness the most.
========
ENDQUOTE

You seem to assume that a committee of experts adjudicated what name would be most appropriate for each system. No evidence suggests that common designations originated in that fashion. The same name can be used for styles, methods, systems that are very different from one another. Some styles of kenjutsu can be very soft, others hard. Some styles of jujutsu can be very hard, others soft. Or, they are hard in one way and soft in another way.

I have not studied the history of jujutsu, but as far as I can gather no consensus exists among scholars regarding its early history or how it came to be so named. It seems clear, though, that many different forms of grappling, wrestling, boxing and close-quarter combative existed under many different names long before any of them ever were called "jujutsu." Their earlier names might very well have been more descriptive of their qualities or goals or methods.

One theory says that the first step in the emergence of a collective designation for what later came to be called "jujutsu" was the development of sumo as a professional sport during the early Tokugawa period (ca. 17th century). As sumo became professionalized, the format of the matches began to be standardized and certain rules emerged as part of the process. The rules helped to insure the safety of the wrestlers and spectators. Meanwhile, people who continued to teach older forms of "anything goes" fighting needed to use a new collective noun to clearly distinguish what they were doing from the standardized, safety-conscious forms of wrestling (sumo) then becoming popular. For some reason, among those new names "yawara" was the one that was most widely used. Even after "yawara" became a common designation, however, it continued to be written with a wide variety of different kanji. For example, kanji for *kenpo* (boxing), *torite* (grappling), *gusoku* (combatives), etc., would be given the pronunciation of "yawara."

Eventually, the kanji *jujutsu* become most commonly used for "yawara." There exist many initiation documents from the 1750s and later that, among other topics, address the significance of the kanji *ju* and why it is used to write "yawara." The existence of these essays suggests that people needed an explanation. In other words, people of that time were just as confused as we are today. Naturally, the explanations do not agree. There was no generally accepted rational for the designations "yawara" or *jujutsu.*

Many of the Tokugawa-period documents explain that *ju* (soft or weak) is the kanji used for *yin* in the *Changes* (Yijing or Zhouyi). The *Changes* was one of the most popular Confucian texts studied in Tokugawa-period Japan. Therefore, it is natural that people would make this connection. (NOTE: The Changes itself never uses the words "yin" and "yang." Instead, broken lines are called *ju*, soft, and solid lines are called *ko*, "hard or strong.") The interpretation of *ju*, however, still varies. ("Yin" also has many different interpretations.) In Sekiguchiryu documents, *ju* is glossed as being obedient to one's lord and defeating the disobedient rebels (i.e., the hard or stubborn people). Shibukawaryu documents explain that when the enemy is *ko* (hard) one should use *ju* to defeat them and when the enemy is *ju* one should use *ko* to defeat them. The ability to instantly respond with either *ju* or *ko* is the true meaning of *ju.* There are many other explanations as well. All of those explanations present stipulative definitions that attempt to justify word usage after the fact. They do not explain the origins of the term.

Personally, when I first saw how rough and tough judo is in Japan, I assumed that *ju* must refer to one's ability (a) to bend others while being (b) flexible enough to withstand their attempts to return the favor. Alas, I have never seen the word *ju* explained this way in Japanese documents.

I hope this is helpful.

[ghp]

Dr. Bodiford,

I hereby award a rating of "Five Stars" to your comments and explanations.

[off topic] Interestingly, I was going through some old, old papers of mine last month and came across an article entitled, "What Is A Good Martial Arts Sword" by some youngster named William Bodiford, ca. 1983. I believe it comes from an issue of the "Nanka Tokenkai" which I obtained from Mr. John Grimmet's shop in 1983 or so. That too, was very interesting.[/off topic]

Regards,
Guy