Eternal Master: Interpretations, Extrapolations, and Myths
Interpretation and comparison with other testimonies
This article was written as part of a series dedicated to the certificate and title of Eisei Meijin awarded to Horikawa Kodo in 1974. You may want to jump to the summary article first for context or have a look at the other articles in this series.
- Part 1: Document Analysis
- Part 2: Historical Context
- Part 3: Linguistic Breakdown
- Part 4: Interpretations, Extrapolations, and Myths
- Part 5: Epilogue
Please feel free to leave a comment on any of those articles!
Previously in this series
We’ve now established as best as we could some context (document analysis, historical, cultural, and linguistic) that helps us understand how the document might have been perceived both by its creators, signatories, and others to whom it would have been shown.
Now that we have all this information, three things are left to do: summarize our findings, provide an interpretation based on them, and see how it compares with other known references to the certificate or title across various media.
Summary
- The certificate doesn’t explicitly mention any organization (by name or otherwise);
- The certificate’s phrasing suggests it was for a title or rank;
- Most signatories had political backgrounds, and a small majority of signatories were specifically related to Hokkaido in some way;
- Most signatories would not have been considered authoritative in the world of Budo, or at least not to the point where them bestowing a rank for skills would have been taken seriously;
- However, Ishida sensei and Otsuka sensei had ample credentials to be authoritative;
- Ishida sensei favored the use of titles unrelated to his own Budo practice;
- One of those titles is Meiyo Kaicho, or honorary chairman (of the Kodokai);
- Only one signatory — Otsuka sensei — uses a Budo related title, Wado-ryu Karate Meijin;
- This likely refers to the title of First Generation Karatedo Meijin 10th dan rank he received from the Kokusai Budoin, an organization he co-founded. This title bears some similarities with the one awarded by this certificate;
- The Kokusai Budoin is the only confirmed organization to have used titles including the term Meijin. It is possible that the Kendo Renmei also used the term at some point, although this remains unconfirmed;
- No other Budo organization or tradition ever used the term Eisei Meijin as a rank, title, or award. The only other usage of the term would have been found in Shogi;
Interpretation
The information we’ve gathered so far seems to suggest it was an honorific title awarded to Horikawa sensei in recognition of his accomplishments in the world of Budo. The kanji for rank was possibly affixed to the title so as to draw a parallel to other existing titles, but probably indicates it was awarded through the Kodokai’s structure (in which case the title should be interpreted as part of this organization’s hierarchy). This said, given that a good number of the signatories had no Budo background whatsoever but still ended up putting their name on the document, we can also suppose the document might have been celebrating Horikawa sensei’s abilities as much as his overall social contributions to the promotion and expansion of Budo culture.
Ultimately, there are only a few things we can probably state with any level of certainty overall. However, the context laid out so far — the document analysis, and past usage of similar titles — should help us break down some of the statements made elsewhere online regarding Horikawa sensei’s title.
Title or award?
If Eisei Meijin is meant to be a title, was it ever used as such? In other words, was it ever used in other documents or contexts in a way indicating it was a title?
It appears that Horikawa sensei never used the title to describe himself. But some of his pupils did.
We can see here that the title Eisei Mejin’i prefixes Horikawa sensei’s name in the lineage portion of a transmission document. The use of a title seemingly external to the tradition on such documents is a bit unusual. Generally, one would only include titles or certifications of relevance to the tradition at hand in this kind of context.
We also need to remember that this title was never used in documents by Horikawa sensei himself. For instance, these two transmission documents were awarded to Mr. Okamoto in 1975 and 1978. In other words, they were both awarded by Horikawa sensei after he had received the title of Eisei Meijin. Yet, he uses more traditional terms in line with past customs.
However, as we’ve seen in the first article of this series, it is possible that the title of Eisei Meijin was awarded as a title within the Kodokai structure itself, and not independent of it. If that’s the case, it would explain a bit more easily why Mr. Okamoto chose to use it in transmission documents. It would make the title specific to this lineage (and its offshoot), and could very well be used in various internal documentations.
Regardless, it appears Eisei Mejin is used in lieu of other titles, presumably because it was considered of greater priority and/or importance by the time those documents were drafted.
If a direct student like Mr. Okamoto considered the term to be a title and used it as such, then I would argue it’s reasonable for others to make a similar assumption as well.
Is it a Daito-ryu or Kodokai title?
後に堀川師範には、石田和外（元最高裁判長官）の提唱により、町村金五（元自治大臣）ら8名の連名で大東流合気柔術永世名人位が贈られた。
Later, at the suggestion of Ishida Kazuto (former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), the title of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu Eisei Meijin was presented [to Horikawa sensei] by eight people, including Machimura Kingo (former Minister of Home Affairs).Source: Kitami Budo News (file hosted by the Kitami Budokan)
This is a pamphlet I stumbled upon during my research, issued by the Kitami City Kobudo Shinkokai. It makes mention of the title, but unlike in other places explicitly prefixes it with the tradition’s name.
This is rather intriguing.
Could it mean the title was officialized within the Kodokai in some way, and was not purely honorific in nature? While this text may not have been written by a member of the group, it seems reasonable to assume they would have read it at some point. It stands to reason that someone would have requested a correction if the statement would have been considered inaccurate.
More on this in the next article of this series.
Public statements
昭和４６年に、四十数年にわたる僻地における教育の献身により、教育界の功労者として勲五等瑞宝章の叙勲の栄誉に浴されている。
一方、昭和４９年には、元最高裁判所長官であった石田和外師の提唱によって、町村金五氏(自治大臣)、大塚博紀師(和道流空手名人)、 堂垣内尚弘氏(北海道知事)ら８氏の連盟によって永世名人位を贈られている。
In 1971, he was honored with the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Fifth Class, for his more than 40 years of dedication to education in remote areas.
Then, in 1974, at the suggestion of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Kazuto Ishida, the title of Eternal Master was presented by a federation of eight members, including Machimura Kingo (Minister of Home Affairs), Otsuka Hironori (Wado Ryu Karate Master), and Dogakiuchi Naohiro (Governor of Hokkaido).
This is the medal Horikawa sensei is seen wearing in this series header picture; it was awarded to him for his 40 years as an elementary school teacher and school principal. It’s worth noting that other recipients of this award include Otsuka Hironori (in 1966) for his promotion of Karate, so it seems plausible that Horikawa sensei’s contributions to Budo might have been taken into consideration as well.
In fact, the above article, published on the day the decoration was awarded, seems to indicate as much.
I think it’s quite commendable of the Kodokai to have aimed for succinct accuracy on their public website. Not only do they adequately commemorate Horikawa sensei by mentioning all his major honors and titles — including his Order of the Sacred Treasure — but they also seem to stick to what is known with certainty, and with what they are comfortable and willing to share.
The Kodokai is known to be fiercely private in nature, generally electing to share as little as possible of their own history and records.
And perhaps for good reasons.
1974年、武道家として最高の栄誉ある＂永世名人位の称号を次の方々から贈られている。「…」
In 1974, he [Horikawa sensei] was awarded the rank of “Eisei Meijin”, the highest honor for a Budoka, by the following people. […]
Iida Hiroo, founder, Aiki Goshinjutsu Daito-ryu Muden Juku
I feel this statement is misleading. Certainly, if the certificate and title had been awarded by the Kokusai Budoin, or if it was indeed awarded on behalf of the Kodokai, we could then say it is the highest honor for these organizations.
But to make it the highest honor for a Budoka — or to rephrase, to say it’s the highest honor across the entire Budo landscape — is not supported by historical facts or culture. It’s possible that the statement was referring to Meijin generally qualifying an individual that reached the pinnacle of their specific practice, but the statement as a whole remains misleading nonetheless.
He received in 1974 Eisei Meijin the highest sign of honor in budo from eight persons. One of them was Ishida Kazusoto [note: should be Kazuto], at that time president of the Japanese Supreme Court.
The same can be said of this quote.
Additionally, this excerpt states that Ishida sensei was Chief Justice at the time it was awarded. This is incorrect: he retired in May of 1973, over a year before the awarding of the document at the center of this series. This wouldn’t be all too relevant but for the fact that Zen Saiko Saibanshochokan (前最高裁判所長官, or previous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) is one of the two titles used along with Ishida sensei’s name on the certificate itself.
In 1974 Kodo Horikawa received the Eisei Meijin “Order of Eternal Mastership”, which is the highest title of the Budo society.
The somewhat strange formulation may lead some to interpret that Eisei Meijin is an organization that awarded the “Order of Eternal Mastership”, and that it is a Budo society or organization. This is categorically untrue.
The objection I have with the last three quotes is that they are written as unambiguous statements of facts that are unsupported by cultural and historical facts.
There are no highest honors or titles specific to Budo. Period. There are no such cultural titles, nor are there any organizations overseeing all of Budo as its highest authority. Meijin as a title was not all that frequently used (except perhaps in Kendo to some degree), and Eisei Meijin as a title or expression was never used in Budo. As a common term or expression, Meijin does convey the idea that one has reached a certain peak, but to then interpret this as a “highest honor” — in Budo or in any other practice — makes as little sense as saying the “highest honor” ever given to Mozart was to be called a virtuoso.
Truth, deference, and advertising
Accurate preservation of the memory of those who came before us is essential to the overall conservation of our tradition — of Daito-ryu as a whole, regardless of lineage.
I’m sure many of the statements above were made in good spirit and with some degree of deference towards those who preceded us is important. But the problem with not sticking to reality is that it creates cycles of one-upmanship over time, with future generations seemingly trying to shine an even brighter light on their lineage’s forefathers. Fiction starts to overshadow reality, and the true greatness of one man’s accomplishments is soon forgotten, replaced with an empty idol.
And if I may be perfectly honest, I can’t help but feel such inflation of greatness is too often done for the writer’s gain, and not out of a genuine spirit of respect. To infer one’s own greatness through the greatness of those who preceded them. To display one’s own qualities through words instead of deeds.
But is it really necessary? Aren’t Horikawa sensei’s accomplishments on their own enough? Perhaps such formulations are purely for promotional purposes. But is it worth mudding the waters of history?
As a practitioner of Daito-ryu, one of your primary role is to ensure the continuation of the art. Starting with its culture and history. This should also mean the collection, cataloging, and preservation of documents related to important events. If one does so in earnest, there should be little room for ambiguity or mistakes.
As we’ll see in the last article in this series.
Coming up next
In the next article in this series, we will compare our analysis with an article that I later discovered covering the events surrounding the awarding of this certificate and title.
Thoughts, comments, or corrections? Make sure to leave them below in the comments!
