PDA

View Full Version : Terminology question



KengiF
14th March 2002, 22:43
Elsewhere Earl Hartman wrote:

The appellation of "ryu" to the older traditions is sort of an anachronism, and even celebrated lineages such as the Ogasawara Ryu refer mainly to family traditions, or "kaden", which later developed the characteristics we associate with the term "ryu" today.

I've heard several terms now that seem to translate into the word "lineage", and may (by some) be called a "ryu". On the other hand, being a complete novice as far as the japanese language is concerned ...

What are the nuances, proper useage, and common usage of the terms "ryu", "ryu-ha", "kaden", and "kuden"? For instance, I have been told that "kuden" is a form of transmission and really can't be compared to lineage (apples & oranges) - why is "kaden" different? In common usage "ryu" and "ryu-ha" are often used interchangeably. How are they actually supposed to be used? Are there any more terms that historians might use?

Oh ... did I mention that I'm a novice ...? ;)

Jeff Hamacher
15th March 2002, 03:12
Originally posted by KengiF
What are the nuances, proper useage, and common usage of the terms "ryu", "ryu-ha", "kaden", and "kuden"?
ryu in common usage means "style; mode; way", but can also be synonymous to ryuha, which in common use means "school", as in the expression "school of thought". thus, ryu and ryuha might both be used to discuss or refer to a particular school or style of many japanese traditional arts, including martial training.

kaden refers to hereditary or proprietary knowledge of a family. for example, a master soba (buckwheat noodle) chef will often have his or her own "secret family recipe" which is handed down from generation to generation and never revealed to the outside. in a martial arts context, it refers to the secret or proprietary teachings of fighting skills kept within a clan, and possible only revealed as far outside the clan as trusted retainers. the distinction between this and ryuha may be found in that important condition: keeping a tradition's teachings "in the family" or disseminating that knowledge to people outside those bloodlines.

kuden means "oral teachings", often those which are treated as some of the deepest levels of knowledge pertinent to the particular school. in some cases, even written documentation about a particular tradition will contain no reference whatsoever to this information; only the headmaster or similar high-ranking member of the school will know it and have the authority to pass it on to a candidate whom they deem suitable to receive it.

i would highly recommend reading Prof. William Bodiford's "Here a Soke, There a Soke..." thread in the Koryu Bujutsu Archives forum of E-Budo. that will offer a number of insights on the whole business of ryuha in japanese martial arts and help to clarify some of what Mr. Hartman wrote. you should also surf on over to Koryu Books and read some of the articles posted there; it's all excellent background reading at least. comments and criticisms of what i posted above are more than welcome.

KengiF
15th March 2002, 14:54
Thanks for the reply.

I guess what I was getting at is this: Mr. Hartman mentioned that referring to certain lineages as "ryu" was improper because they were (originally) tranmitted only in the family ("kaden"). What does method of transmission and restrictions on who it gets taught to have to do with whether or not it is a "school of thought"? Why is it technically improper to refer to "Ogasawara Ryu" as a "Ryu"?

What do I have to know about this issue so that a historian doesn't consider me a total waste of time? [Though a partial waste of time is fine ... ;)]


i would highly recommend reading Prof. William Bodiford's "Here a Soke, There a Soke..." thread in the Koryu Bujutsu Archives forum of E-Budo.

Actually, I've been lurking here for quite some time, and I did in fact read that. Quite enlightening. I enjoy reading stuff from yourself, Earl Hartman, Drs. Bodiford and Friday, and several others who's names I can't remember.


you should also surf on over to Koryu Books and read some of the articles posted there; it's all excellent background reading at least.

I've been there, but to be honest their site doesn't help as much as I had initially hoped. While I am interested in Koryu, my definition differs substantially from that of the Skoss' (and several others here). I'm interested in all old ("pre-judo") arts regardless of method of transmission, who the art was developed for, modern/old cultural trappings, and so forth.

Now I may be reading their site wrong, but as I understood it they don't cover, for example, pre-meiji Karate, even though one can trace it back far enough to qualify as "old" (as opposed to "modern").

I also ventured over to the "International Hopology Society", but that didn't have enough "academic" content for me (though it is still bookmarked ...). Now if I could find one site that had stuff like Prof. Bodiford's article, and Dr. Friday's "musings" that would be perfect. :look:

My goal is to be able to discuss [I]all of the old arts without getting into the whole "what is/is not Koryu" quagmire ...

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my question a little.