The ideas of the Life-Taking Sword and the Life-Giving Sword come from Heiho Kadensho by Yagyu Munenori, the foremost swordsman of the Yagyu Shinkage-ryu. The text is divided into three parts: Satsujin-ken—“the Life-Taking Sword”, Katsujin-ken—“the Life-Giving Sword”, and Muto—“the No-Sword”. These ideas are metaphorical and allow for multiple layers of interpretation: technical, psychological, political, or moral.
1. Moral Interpretation of Heiho Kadensho
The concept is illustrated by Daisetz T. Suzuki in his book Zen and Japanese Culture.
In his interpretation, the Life-Taking Sword is symbolised by Acala, or Fudo-Myoo in Japanese.
As Suzuki writes, Acala “carries a sword, and he will destroy all the enemies who oppose the practice of the Buddhist virtues. […] Acala’s anger burns like a fire and will not be put down until it burns up the last camp of the enemy”.
The Life-Giving Sword, on the other hand, is symbolised by Mañjuśrī.
As Suzuki writes “the sacred sword of Mañjuśrī is not to kill any sentient beings, but our own greed, anger, and folly. It is directed toward ourselves, for when this is done the outside world, which is the reflection of what is within us, becomes also free from greed, anger, and folly”.
Despite its appeal, this moral interpretation may be misleading. The Life-Taking Sword of Acala is associated with destruction, while the Life-Giving Sword of Mañjuśrī is associated with compassion. It may therefore seem that the first represents evil, while the second represents good. Suzuki himself writes that “Mañjuśrī is positive, Acala is negative”.
It is true that Munenori writes that the art of war does not end in peacetime. The reason is that the true art of war is not directed against an opponent, but against evil. However, Munenori’s treatise primarily concerns action, not morality. Therefore, the concept must first be placed in the context of real combat before seeking a broader meaning.
2. How the Interpretation of Heiho Kadensho May Be Misleading
The first part of Heiho Kadensho consists of Munenori’s remarks on the strategy of winning an actual, physical duel—one that often ends in killing.
However, as Munenori writes, if one man becomes a source of evil for many, killing him may save many lives. In this way, the Life-Taking Sword becomes the Life-Giving Sword.
This reveals an important aspect of the distinction: the Life-Giving Sword is not possible without the Life-Taking Sword.
This is how the moral interpretation can be misleading. The two swords are not opposed to each other like good and evil. Their relationship is not oppositional, but hierarchical. The possibility of the Life-Giving Sword encompasses the possibility of the Life-Taking Sword.
The second part of Heiho Kadensho is more metaphorical—perhaps even mysterious. It consists of remarks on controlling oneself, the situation, and the opponent. Such control makes it possible to win a battle without killing.
Nevertheless, the idea of controlling destruction may also be misleading. It does not mean that we should always choose control and avoid destruction.
There are situations in which Satsujin-ken becomes necessary. However, if the conditions for control are met, Katsujin-ken becomes possible. Munenori even describes these conditions in metaphorical terms, but they are not essential here.
3. Choice Between the Life-Taking Sword and the Life-Giving Sword
The choice between Satsujin-ken and Katsujin-ken is a choice between two modes of action.
The Life-Taking Sword is highly efficient, but it comes at a high cost, as it involves seriously injuring or even killing an opponent.
The Life-Giving Sword, on the other hand, is less efficient and requires a high level of control over oneself, the environment, and the opponent. However, its cost is lower, as it allows one to dominate an opponent without the need to kill.
Nevertheless, the Life-Giving Sword is not possible without the real threat of the Life-Taking Sword. Control over an opponent works only if that threat is credible. Without it, there is no real control—only an intention that cannot be fulfilled.
Katsujin-ken, although higher in the hierarchy, is built on the foundation of Satsujin-ken.
In other words, Katsujin-ken is not an alternative to Satsujin-ken, but its controlled expression.
The choice between these two depends on the circumstances. In situations of low control, the Life-Taking Sword may be the only viable option. However, if control is sufficient, the Life-Giving Sword becomes a real alternative. Only then may it be morally justified to choose compassion over destruction.
Finally, there is also the third part of Heiho Kadensho. The idea of the No-Sword—Muto—is not about the mere absence of a weapon. It is about avoiding conflict altogether and resolving it before it becomes physical.
As Munenori writes, preventing one’s own death is also a form of victory.
Muto has a deep psychological dimension. Avoiding conflict is, of course, a matter of psychology—but it goes beyond that. The aim is to become a person of great spiritual strength.
As Munenori writes, such people make it impossible for you to raise your hand against them. When you look them in the eyes, you forget the rest of the world. “If you encounter a strong personality”, he writes, “you will be like a mouse in a cat’s paws”.
4. The Order of the Hierarchy
The three concepts of Heiho Kadensho can be arranged in a specific order.
Before a conflict turns into a physical confrontation, it may still be avoided. This is Muto. If this fails, the duel begins.
There may be an opportunity to control the opponent. This is Katsujin-ken. If this fails, there is no other option but to kill—or at least seriously injure—the opponent to stop the aggression. This is Satsujin-ken.
This shows that the three concepts are not distinct forms of fighting, but three stages within a single process.
A reversal of this order may also be possible, as illustrated in Rurouni Kenshin. Kenshin’s opponents begin with Satsujin-ken, attempting to kill him. However, his reversed-blade sword allows him to control rather than kill. In this way, Katsujin-ken takes physical form. Ultimately, through his character, the conflict may be resolved on a psychological level—making Muto possible.
This concept may reframe what we mean by mastery.
A master is not only someone who can execute a flawless technique, but someone who can freely choose among the three options. Such a person knows when and how to avoid a conflict, control a situation, or destroy an opponent.
This is far more difficult to master, but it may serve as an ideal to strive for.
5. Reframing the Understanding of Martial Arts in Terms of Heiho Kadensho
My idea is to use these three concepts to reframe how we understand martial arts in general.
There are techniques of destroying an opponent and techniques of control, as well as psychological techniques.
Most martial arts tend to specialise in one of these three areas.
Striking arts, by their nature, focus on destroying an opponent. Karate, kickboxing, and Muay Thai develop powerful punches and kicks. This is the Life-Taking Sword.
Grappling arts, by their nature, focus on controlling an opponent. In judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and wrestling, a fight often ends when one opponent controls the other on the ground. This is the Life-Giving Sword.
There are also arts, such as kyudo, iaido, and aikido, that develop perception, decision-making, and the mindset of a martial artist.
In my view, these arts are often misunderstood. Since there is no real opponent to force us to act under pressure, the entire process becomes psychological. Therefore, they require a proper attitude—otherwise, they become mere choreography.
In this sense, they are arts of the No-Sword.
Since different systems specialise in different parts of the hierarchy, each remains incomplete.
Some systems incorporate all three elements, but even they tend to develop one aspect more than the others. Even in MMA, fighters specialise in striking or grappling. They do not develop the psychological aspect of Muto, as their goal is not to avoid conflict, but to engage in it under controlled conditions.
6. Applying Heiho Kadensho to Real Training
In my view, the three concepts from Heiho Kadensho are not oppositional fighting philosophies, but a hierarchical system. As such, this idea applies directly to our training.
First, it supports cross-training. This is not a modern idea—samurai typically trained in multiple disciplines. Even individual schools often incorporated various aspects of combat, covering all three dimensions of martial arts.
Second, it shows how to approach cross-training in a structured way. If our discipline specialises in one aspect, it is reasonable to choose another that develops a different one.
In this way, we can aspire to the ideal described by Yagyu Munenori in Heiho Kadensho.
