How it works

The set is called the Ganzan Daishi hundred lots (元三大師百籤). Tradition credits Ryogen (Ganzan Daishi, 912 to 985). That credit is tradition only, and we found no early document for it.

The text was read directly from two scanned woodblock printings.

The base is 元三大師百籖和解, Kyoto University Library. Its colophon is dated 寛永五年 (1628), with a recut of 文化十年七月 (1813). These pages call it the 1813 printing.

It was compared with 元三大師百籤, Tohoku University Main Library. Its colophon is dated 貞享元年八月 (1684). These pages call it the 1684 printing.

Both printings say they were checked against a copy held at 大慈山小松寺 in Mino province. They are related, so two copies do not make two independent lines of descent.

Each book was read in a separate pass, from the images alone, with neither pass able to see the other. A script compared the two.

Of 1,960 character positions in the 98 lots present in both books, 1,829 matched exactly and 58 differed only in the form of a character. Each of the other 73 was read again blind in both books. 30 positions in 24 lots were left as real differences between the printings and are shown on those lot pages. One position, lot 81 line 3 character 5, could not be read in either book.

The Tohoku copy lacks a leaf, so lots 58 and 59 come from the 1813 printing only and were read twice from that single book.

Lot 54 is 凶 in the 1813 printing and 吉 in the 1684 printing. Lot 19 is 末吉 in 1813 and 末小吉 in 1684. The grade of lot 6 in the 1684 printing is too faint to read.

The margins of the 1813 printing cite two other texts, 大本 and 百籖和解, for further grade and character variants. Those notes are on the lot pages.

In the 1813 printing, 31 of the 100 lots are 凶. In the 1684 copy, 28 of the 98 lots are 凶. We found no early source fixing a percentage of bad lots.

In both printings the first character of 末吉 and 末小吉 has a short top stroke, so it looks like 未. Modern usage has 末吉 and the books' margin notes use the same word, so we write 末.

Under each verse the books print kana commentary, which we did not read. The translations and readings are our own and modern, and they are not what the book says.

We found no source from before 1931 for these popular claims, and these pages do not repeat them as facts:

• that omikuji began in the Heian period
• that paper slips began at a named shrine
• the Joshi Dosha story
• that slips should be tied to trees
• that a set percentage must be bad

This site is not a temple or shrine. No blessing is involved, and no lot is issued by any religious body.