Talk:The Book of Five Rings

ALLegedly written?

Why is it only "allegedly" written by Musashi? Is there any evidence that it was not? I believe I will remove "allegedly" for now, as I believe it throws uncertainty into the start of the article. Also, the article does not discuss this allegation. Skywalkert65b 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has multiple (conflicting) translations of "ni-ten ichi-ryu". "Two Heavens, One Style" seems accurate to me, but what is "Two Swords, one heaven" based on? Japanese wikipedia gives the kanji as 二天一流 (ni ten ichi ryū), which interpreted literally are "two", "heaven/sky", "one", (here) "school/style of" (also "current/flow"). Vuori 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The "misconeption" statement about the name of the book seems to stem from the translation note in the 2005-08-26 edit, but it was incorrect. "五輪" literally means "five rings" and, according to the ja edition, refers to the concept of "five elements" of Vajrayāna Buddhism, which are used as the name of the chapters. The mistaken belief about meaning of "piety" probably came from looking up "Gorin" in a dictionary and coming up with "五倫" (five ethics), which is not what the title is. Similarly, "Sho" (書) does mean "book" and not "reward" or something else. Juxtap 01:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thirty-Six Strategies Link

In the related articles it gives the Thirty-Six Strategies as a related article (which is fine), and calls it "another" Chinese work. Since the Book of Five Rings is Japanese, I'm removing "another" from that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

There is mention of business leaders using the tome.

Our company was founded 15 years ago based on this books principle (we are called fifth ring) and it is embedded in our company ethos. Is a link to our website blatant advertising or does it support the claim that it is used by business leaders?

thoughts please

So long as you put an in-line citation in the 'used by business leaders' bit, it will probably raise few enough hackles to squeak by. Someone might still get torqued off, though. One never knows. I personally like the idea. -Toptomcat 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this book in Wikibooks?

It's on Public Domain, is it not?--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese text would be, yes, minus the odd editorial versions, but is there a PD English translation? --Gwern (contribs) 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Swords

The article states that perhaps Musashi did not wield dual swords, but rather was ambidextrious. I have not heard that before, but I can say that I visited Kumamoto, Japan and I visited the Budokan while I was there. I was able to watch students practice Ni Ten Ichi Ryu and they were using two swords at one time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonofgib (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

There's very little actual historical evidence either way. Musashi's legend tends to get in the way of verifiable historical reaserch. -Toptomcat 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Musashi states many times in the Book of Five Rings that both hands should hold a sword, as well as defending his reasoning for doing so. One such example: "Students of the Ichi school Way of strategy should train from the start with the sword and long sword in either hand. This is the truth: when you sacrifice your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn." Given the several examples from this primary source that we have, and the lack of any citation for Musashi only using a single sword, I find it unlikely that he intended Ni Ten Ichi Ryu to be a single sword style. SanguineKnot (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The first external link is to an online version of Victor Harris' translation of the book. Not sure exactly how these things work, but surely that's not public domain? Admittedly the original isn't in English, but... is this allowed? Leushenko (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend of the Five Rings.

I've added a link to this game under "see also" as it's a card(&RPG) game whose name and elemental structure(that is, the five elelments it uses) are based on this Book. Kairos (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this article

I haven't had the chance to read all the article, but I'm sure I will. I was genuinely surprised to see it existed and pleased none-the-less. I would like to remind the reading students that his views are based on the time when modern weapons were just emerging and (if his views were alive today) his strategey would undoubtly incorporate the weapons at his leisure. I notice, generally, that the authors of this article may need more info re the Master, which, for myself is not a problem. If you feel that more info is a good idea, just let me know - Wiki User 68 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The book of no-thing

I understand the kanji for it is 空. Wouldn'y it be better to translate it as "the book of void"?222.153.233.249 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It often is. I guess whomever wrote that section was working with a translation that preferred no-thing. --Gwern (contribs) 14:51 14 February 2010 (GMT)

Similar to the incorrect translation of the first element, no-thing isn't the English translation of the element name. It is a literal translation. The correct translation is "Void". Chi is Earth, not ground. When you recite the 5 elements to yourself, you don't say Ground, Wind, Fire, Water, Nothing....it's Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, Void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.157.67 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is archive. is blacklisted?

The archive.org link is no longer available due to that site's current robots.txt version so I tried to replace it with archive. is/Gncpn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.147.118 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

word salad

"The idea of strategy would be encouraged to be very astute in their study and strategy" Lewis Goudy (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)