PDA

View Full Version : The Nine Ryu-ha of the Bujinkan - are they legitimate?



Pages : [1] 2

Joachim
27th August 2000, 19:48
Please dont kill me (or send me to the Bujinkan thread),

BUT....

...does anybody here know anything about the authenticy of the ryu taught in the Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. I mean anything proving that they were existant before the turn of the century. I mean any Informatoion from outside the Bujinkan, Genbukan or Jinenkan.
I trained in the Bujinkan for six years before quitting and this always interested me.
The names of the ryu supposedly taught in the Bujinkan are
Togakure ryu, Gyokko ryu, Kukishin (or Kukishinden) ryu, Takagi Yoshin ryu, Gyokushin ryu, Shinden Fudo ryu, Gikan ryu, Kumogakure ryu and Koto ryu.

Thank you all in advance for your patience. (Exept, of course, those who flame me :-))

CKohalyk
28th August 2000, 01:13
I am by no means an authority, but Kukishin-ryu is real as far as I know. But in my VERY limited experience of it, it is much, much different than what Hatsumi does.

Keep looking, and keep us posted as to your findings.

CKohalyk

John Lindsey
28th August 2000, 02:15
Both Kukishin and Takagi Yoshin ryu are well known. It is possible that some of what we call Togakure-ryu comes from a Kukishin related scroll (Amatsu Tatara hibumi) called ryusen no maki.

Shinobi
28th August 2000, 02:45
Originally posted by Joachim

...does anybody here know anything about the authenticy of the ryu taught in the Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. I mean anything proving that they were existant before the turn of the century. I mean any Informatoion from outside the Bujinkan, Genbukan or Jinenkan.
I trained in the Bujinkan for six years before quitting and this always interested me.
The names of the ryu supposedly taught in the Bujinkan are
Togakure ryu, Gyokko ryu, Kukishin (or Kukishinden) ryu, Takagi Yoshin ryu, Gyokushin ryu, Shinden Fudo ryu, Gikan ryu, Kumogakure ryu and Koto ryu.


Kukishin-ryû and Takagi Yôshin-ryû are well recorded ryûha and both can be verified before 1900. Also there are many branchs of both these ryûha. About 10 for Kukishin-ryû and about 5 for Takagi-ryû.

Here are some of the variants and branches and who heads them!

Well start with Kukishin-ryû ;)

Kukishin-ryû (mainline) - Kuki Munetaka (the incumbent Sôke)
Kukishinden Happô Bikenjutsu - Hatsumi Masaaki
Kukishinden Tenshin Hyôhô - Shihanke Takatsuka Eichoku Michitaka
Minaki-den Kukishin-ryû Bôjutsu - Tanaka Fumon
Sôden Kukamishin-ryû - Tanaka Fumon
Nakatomi Shinden Tenshin Hyôhô - Tanaka Fumon
Tenshin Hyôhô Kukamishin-ryû - Tanemura Shôtô
Hontai Kukishin-ryû Bôjutsu - Tanemura Shôtô
Shinden Kitô-ryû Bôjutsu - Tanemura Shôtô
Hontai Kijin Chôsui-ryû Kukishinden Dakentaijutsu - Kobayashi Masao's son

There might be some more Kukishin-ryû branches, but I can't remember of the top of my head.
Amatsu Tatara is held by many of the above Headmasters in some form.

Here is 2 sites on Kukishin-ryû outside the Takamatsu-den:
http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/index_e.html
http://www4.justnet.ne.jp/~s.kenniti/Fkai/fkaiA.html

Onto Takagi-ryû

Takagi-ryû/Kakuno Takagi-ryû Jûjutsu - Kusuhara Takano
Takagi Yôshin-ryû/Hontai Takagi Yôshin-ryû Jûjutsu - Kaminaga Shigemi
Hontai Takagi Yôshin-ryû Jûtaijutsu - Hatsumi Masaaki
Hontai Yôshin Takagi-ryû Jûjutsu - Tanemura Shôtô
Hontai Yôshin-ryû Jûjutsu - Inouye Tsuyoshi Munetoshi

Inouye Sôke has done extensive research, even finding the founders grave.

Here is a website on Hontai Yôshin-ryû:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Colosseum/8136/

Shinden Fudô-ryû is well recorded too, but a lot of the info I have and have seen isn't fully translated, there are 3 branchs of this ryûha too!

Kotô-ryû has a lot of info too, but nowhere near the above ryûha.

Seems that Gyokko-ryû, Togakure-ryû, Kotô-ryû, Kumogakure-ryû and Gyokushin-ryû have to be verified before Takamatsu sensei's existence. So far all that is known, looks good, but we need more sources to confirm them.

Anyway, hope this helps!? :D

Enjoy the links!

Joachim
28th August 2000, 17:34
First and foremost: Thank you all for your replies.

But this still leaves me with some doubts, because your posts do not really answer my questions. :confused:
To say that one ryu taúght in the Bujinkan is real because its Soke's name is Hatsumi is not very helpful. :)
To list Tanemura as another Soke of one of these ryu, again, does not help very much (in light of his claims about Amatsu Tatara
and Hakuun ryu). All the other listed ryuha seem to have close ties to the Takamatsuden too.

But your posts helped me in clarifying the problem. What kind of proof can there be?

Shinobi
28th August 2000, 17:57
Originally posted by Joachim
First and foremost: Thank you all for your replies.

But this still leaves me with some doubts, because your posts do not really answer my questions. :confused:
To say that one ryu taúght in the Bujinkan is real because its Soke's name is Hatsumi is not very helpful. :)
To list Tanemura as another Soke of one of these ryu, again, does not help very much (in light of his claims about Amatsu Tatara
and Hakuun ryu). All the other listed ryuha seem to have close ties to the Takamatsuden too.

But your posts helped me in clarifying the problem. What kind of proof can there be?



Go read the 3 links I posted, some of the ryûha mentioned are not even connected to Takamatsu-den. Takagi-ryû for example, Hontai Yôshin-ryû. And some of the various Kuki arts, Minaki-den Kukishin-ryû Bôjutsu, Nakatomi Shinden Tenshin Hyôhô, Sôden Kukamishin-ryû.

There are some densho, makimono, menkyo and letters I believe in the possession of these Kakuno-den ryûha that are from Ishitani sensei directly. You can ask Tood S. or Daniel Lee about that as they know much more then me on the subject.

Just some guy
29th August 2000, 01:49
Hi there. Okay I know exactly how you feel about the Hatsumi claims. I was there myself and I want to share what little info I have on the subject. And don't worry, If this doesn't cause some flaming, nothing will. I can only give hard facts about the kukishin ryu but I will state a general fact that many people have over looked on this topic. First off, many people believe that Hatsumi is a Soke of 9 ninjutsu ryu. This is a mistake. Hatsumi has never claimed this in his life. Though he does claim to be a ninjutsu teacher only 3 of his schools are ninjutsu schools and of those 3 only one has been taught. I personaly feel that this is because none of the actual teachniques survived and the ryu exist only as consepts now, but this is purely my opinion. Before I go on let me add that I am NOT A Bujinkan student.
I can say that the Kukishin ryu is very much a true Koryu and no this is not because of Hatsumi being the Grand master. It actualy has a very close conection to Hontai Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu. This comes from the two traditions shareing the same Soke for about 8 generations. Though I can not get the scrolls of the two schools and show you where they share these soke, I can tell you that Hasumi has been recognized as the soke of Kukishin Ryu by a Hontai Yoshin Ryu teacher in Germany I believe. I know I have read the statement, I just can't remember on whose web site. I can also say that the Liniage that Hatsumi Gives and the Liniage of Hontai Yoshin Ryu do match up perfectly at this time as they should.
This relation can also be seen in the schools teachniques. Particularly the Bo Kata. Both of the ryu developed the Bojutsu from the Kukishin Line. The method and consepts are almost identical.
I would also like to add that the Kukishin Ryu is NOT a ninjutsu school.
As for Takagiyoshin Ryu. I am afraid that I know very little. I would asume that is comes from the sharing of kukishin Ryu and Hontai Yoshin Ryu Grand Masters. but I can not be Certain. I can say that the Techniques of Taka Giyoshin and Hontai Yoshin Ryu are almost identical and I belive they even share the same organization (though I would have to look that uip to be sure).
As for most of the other ryu, I am afraid I know very little of their history. I have been told by a very reliable source who I won't mention here because I do not wish to misrepresent him that though Togakure Ryu has Kuden that strech back to Daisuke Togakure, the actural Ryu was not written down until Takamatsu himself did which does in a way make it Genbai Budo.
Well, that's all my information here. before I leave let me ay that this is all from my knowledge and all of the information and mistakes are of my own doing. I am not reprersenting anyone except myself. I hope this helps you out a bit. If you don't mind me asking, are you training in something else now?
Chris Baker.

MarkF
29th August 2000, 10:19
May I give you some advice, Chris? First, don't announce that you are going to start a flame war. You won't last long. Second, when you do research and want to post "fact" as opinion, you may want to get your research in order. This way, you don't come off as someone who knows exactly nothing, and can only represent himself because he didn't think it important enough to back up opinion with, at the very least, the web pages where you got your information.

Joachim
29th August 2000, 14:01
Originally posted by Shinobi
>Go read the 3 links I posted, some of the ryûha mentioned >are not even connected to Takamatsu-den. Takagi-ryû for >example, Hontai Yôshin-ryû. And some of the various Kuki >arts, Minaki-den Kukishin-ryû Bôjutsu, Nakatomi Shinden >Tenshin Hyôhô, Sôden Kukamishin-ryû.

OK. I mistated this. What I meant is this: There may be other authentic branches of the ryu outside the Bujinkan, but this does not say anything about the branches INSIDE the Bujinkan. AND it does not say anything about the authenticy of the seven other ryu in the Bujinkan. I was in fact looking for some outside (of the Bujinkan that is) evidence for the autheticy of the Takamatsu-den ryu-ha.
This was meant by my reply:

Originally posted by myself
>To say that one ryu taúght in the Bujinkan is real because >its Soke's name is Hatsumi is not very helpful. :)

Joachim
29th August 2000, 14:08
Sorry, got the quotes all wrong on the first try:


Originally posted by Shinobi
Go read the 3 links I posted, some of the ryûha mentioned are not even connected to Takamatsu-den. Takagi-ryû for example, Hontai Yôshin-ryû. And some of the various Kuki arts, Minaki-den Kukishin-ryû Bôjutsu, Nakatomi Shinden Tenshin Hyôhô, Sôden Kukamishin-ryû.


OK. I mistated this. What I meant is this: There may be other authentic branches of the ryu outside the Bujinkan, but this does not say anything about the branches INSIDE the Bujinkan. AND it does not say anything about the authenticy of the seven other ryu in the Bujinkan. I was in fact looking for some outside (of the Bujinkan that is) evidence for the autheticy of the Takamatsu-den ryu-ha.
This was meant by my reply:


Originally posted by myself
To say that one ryu taúght in the Bujinkan is real because its Soke's name is Hatsumi is not very helpful. :)

Mark Brecht
29th August 2000, 14:14
Joachim,

Dr Hatsumi received beginning of the year the Shakai Bunka Korosho (something like the Japanese cultural distinguish award). It was given to him by the Emporer of Japan, for his contribution and work for the Martial Arts in Japanese Culture (Ninpo included, he was recognized as the only living grandmaster of Ninpo traditions). He was only the 92nd person in the last 50 years to receive this award.

:smokin: Brauchen Sie noch mehr Beweise???

Joachim
29th August 2000, 14:34
Originally posted by Mark Brecht
:smokin: Brauchen Sie noch mehr Beweise???

Ja. Because this isn't

Tetsutaka
29th August 2000, 14:38
Originally posted by Joachim
To list Tanemura as another Soke of one of these ryu, again, does not help very much (in light of his claims about Amatsu Tatara and Hakuun ryu).

The issue about Hakuun ryu has been explained by Michael Coleman in another thread in this forum.

http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=907

As with most anything of this ilk, you can believe what you want.

As far as Amatsu Tatara is concerned, I believe that was passed on to him either by Sato Kinbei or Fumio Akimoto. Here is a quote from the Kuki family site:

http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/impact_e.htm

The techniques of Takagiyoshin Ryu were passed on to Sato Kinbei in Tokyo from Takamatsu Chosui, and now Tanemura Shoto instructs them in Tajima, Matsubushi cho, Kita Katsu gun, Saitama prefecture.

It is my understanding that those who received grandmastership also received the Amatsu Tatara teachings. There is also an interesting connection made by the Kuki family to the Amatsu Tatara in their site:

http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/current_e.htm

We have been reproducing the original text of Amatsutatara Hibun Kaidokuhen by Takamatsu Chosui; it was unfortunate that the undertaking was interrupted by the Hanshin earthquake for a while.

So it would seem that the Amatsu Tatara is intertwined with the Kuki family arts inasmuch as the Takagi Yoshin lineage.

Anyone care to comment or correct me on this?

[Edited by Tetsutaka on 08-29-2000 at 08:45 AM]

Mark Brecht
29th August 2000, 14:46
Hm, there seems to be evidence enough, that the Emporer of Japan, believes in the authenticity of Dr. Hatsumi`s lineage...

If this is not good enough for YOU :cry: than i dunno what i can say...

In any case i am not aware of any other Japanese Martial Art, which attracts so many professional modern day warriors (Security, LE, Intelligence or Military), as the Bujinkan does. There was also a while ago an article in the Japan Times, which mentioned some of the organiztions who send their people here to train. CIA,FBI, SF, Scotland Yard, Mossad, etc...

Hey, how about coming into the chat room, i am there right now...

Tetsutaka
29th August 2000, 15:21
Originally posted by Mark Brecht
Hm, there seems to be evidence enough, that the Emporer of Japan, believes in the authenticity of Dr. Hatsumi`s lineage...

I think Eric Weil pointed out [in a different thread] that there are several lineages that "parallel" each other that were passed on to different people. I'm not concerned about that. Whether or not the Emperor recognized someone as the ONLY one of any martial genre is irrelevent, at least for the purposes of this conversation.

John Lindsey also stated that it is possible that the Togakure ryu teachings may actually stem form the Amatsu Tatara Hibumi. I personally have no problem with that.

Everybody else can "itch and scratch" with those details. I have more "fundamental" work to do. ;)

[Edited by Tetsutaka on 08-29-2000 at 09:28 AM]

Just some guy
30th August 2000, 01:19
Mark,
First off my name really is Chris. Full name, Christopher John Baker.
Second, I'm afraid I'm just a bit lazy and sice I didn't remember the web sites off hand as I was writing the post I didn't bother including them. All the information I used in relation to Kukishin Ryu can be found on the Hontai Yoshin Ryu links at www@koryu.com and you can look them up there.The ideas of Kumogakure and yokkoshin ryu were, as I stated in my post completely my opinion and had nothing to do with any web site anywhere. This is also true of what I said about Takegiyoshin ryu, which was also clearly stated in my post. The information about Hatsumi teaching only 3 ninjutsu schools and the rest being simple Koryu Bujutsu is simple fact and can be found anywhere.
As for my anouncing a flame war, that was the farhtest thing I wanted to do. I just had seen a similer thread on the Bujinkan forum which turned into a flame war very fast and and I jut felt it was a matter of time before this did as well.
I hope I've cleared up any misunder standing that I my have caused by not being clear. I would like to leave by saying that I never said that Hatsumi was not telling the truth and I don't believe that either. I think he is a wonderful martial artist, I just don't choose to study under him. If I can help any more, let me know.
Chris Baker.

Joachim
30th August 2000, 12:06
Originally posted by Mark Brecht
Hm, there seems to be evidence enough, that the Emporer of Japan, believes in the authenticity of Dr. Hatsumi`s lineage...
If this is not good enough for YOU :cry: than i dunno what i can say...


There can be all kinds of motivations for the Tenno to do that. I'm not a politician and not the Emperor of Japan. I don't know why he did it. That's my POINT.
Some historical proof would be nice. I'm interested in the HISTORICAL aspect of the Bujinkan, not if the things the Bujinkan TEACHES are real or not. BTW: In my opinnion, they are. So why are you people so worked up about this?



Originally posted by Mark Brecht
In any case i am not aware of any other Japanese Martial Art, which attracts so many professional modern day warriors (Security, LE, Intelligence or Military), as the Bujinkan does. There was also a while ago an article in the Japan Times, which mentioned some of the organiztions who send their people here to train. CIA,FBI, SF, Scotland Yard, Mossad, etc...


Does that say anything about the lineage and its authenticy?

Mark Brecht
30th August 2000, 15:21
:smokin:[b] I think it does,

nearly 900 years in the making...

so you should expect an realistic, practical and effective Warrior tradition...[b]

Richard A Tolson
31st August 2000, 07:40
Mark,
900 YEARS!!!!! None of the Koryu go back that far. Neither does the Ryu system, nor the Shogunate (who, BTW, popularized the use of spies). Be careful with the hyperbolic statements. Too many people take them seriously.

MarkF
31st August 2000, 10:44
Mr. Baker,
Please excuse me for assuming it would be OK to use your first name in addressing you. Also, I know the site well, and have read most of what is said concerning the legitimacy of Hatsumi's ninjutsu.

I wasn't disagreeing, just passing on some advice which was given to me at one time, and that was all that was meant. I apologize for posting it in a curt manner. This is certainly not my area of expertise (judo is), and to this day, I am caught making statements without listing my backup for giving an opinion, or proof citing research.

I know the folks by way of the net at Koryu.com, so if you had said "according to John and Jane Do, of koryu.com" and gave the webpage or book in which you were refering, as you did here, I certainly wouldn't have said a word. Even if I didn't believe it or didn't believe the source, this not being my area, I certainly would not go on record saying anything about it. Again, it was only meant in the context of not having some source to back up your facts.

Undmark, Ulf
31st August 2000, 11:30
Let me add a few of my thoughts without actually trying to answer the question itself...

The huntingskills have been fostered by individuals and groups since the dawn of human history. If this fits the definition of ninjutsu *and* the definition of *Hatsumi's* ninjutsu, we can expect it to be as old as Adam and Eve.
However it would definitly *not* be Japanese in origin, but rather African...

If the definition is: Japanese, but not related to the first actual use of the term, but rather to the use of stealthskills, it would be expected logically (but not tracable) to be as old as the first Japanese communities.

If it is defined as organized in ryuha, it can't be older than the ryuha system itself, as Richard mentioned, can it?

If we want to trace it to the first usage of the term "ninjutsu", I really do not know how old that would make the art. Perhaps 16'th or 17'th century?

If we want to PROVE a specific tradition to be as old as 400 years, it must have left *significant* traces from that period. Then it would be up to researchers to validate those traces, with whatever result / outcome.

It's all pretty much up to definitions and existing evidence, as viewed by researchers and historians. Not that many ryuha can prove to be as old as they claim. Some can, but I doubt that goes for Hatsumi's supposed 900 years old traditions. But if they can't be proven, they can't be disproven either? Important to some, unimportant to others.
Interesting in any case.

The founders secret, isn't it?

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

Joachim
31st August 2000, 12:19
Ok. Since this discussion has taken a slightly different route than I imagined, I'd like to post some questions about ninjutsu and its history, that bugged me during my training in the Bujinkan (six years).

1. Why is ninjutsu (the art of stealth, assasination and spying) organized into ryuha at all? Wouldn't such visible and official organizations be shut down by the authorities, at least in the time of the Tokugawa police-state?
BTW: I know, some in the Bujinkan might say that Hatsumi said that ninjutsu isn't the art of spying or assassination, but an art to preserve peace and freedom. The methods (stealth, poison, weapons, which double as entrance tools, etc.) are the same, aren't they?

2. Why are there sword techniques in the Togakure ryu? Did the Togakure ryu only train Ninja from Samurai descent? Wouldn't it be preferable for peasants (ninja) to train in weapons which are either not as visible or weapons for the possession of which you wouldn't get executed on the spot?


And a question on a almost completely unrelated point:

3. Is Hatsumi soke of a) KukishinDEN ryu Happo Hikenjutsu (stated in almost all of his books), b) Kukishin ryu (Stickfighting Book by Hatsumi), c)Kukishin ryu Taijutsu (stated on the Bujinkan dan certificates) or d) all of them?

Undmark, Ulf
31st August 2000, 12:43
Most traditional Japanese arts were organized in ryuha and as these (ninjutsu)were quite common principles in warfare they were organized for the same reason and in the same way as other similar arts. The only reason to shut such a ryuha (that would contain ninjutsu) down, would be that there were not much use for that knowledge during the peace. During war, most warriors would use these principles at some instances, orginating from systemized traditions or from experience or plain common sense.

During the first 500 years of samurai history, any peasant could become a samurai if he wished. Also, a ryuha could decide if, or if not, to teach non-warriors. Katori shinto ryu has always been open to everybody, including peasants and they taught ninjutsu.

Another point is that, most likely, the majority of the warriors were not taught martial arts in organized traditions, but from experience and from friends. Ryuha training, I guess, was a possibility for the lucky few.
Probably, not many farmers had such an opportunity at all. And probably, ninjutsu would not have been a first choise.

My guess is that most of those skilled in stealth, earned their skill from experience...not organized training.

As far as weapons training in Bujinkan or other aspects of their organization...I'm not qualified at all to answer.

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

Nathan Scott
31st August 2000, 18:18
Hello,

I just wanted to make a brief observation on this thread, since nobody moderates the koryu forum currently:

Someone asked for help with basically historical research in regards to the authenticity of the ryu-ha taught in the Bujinkan.

So far, no one has come forth with any documentation or reasonable resources or references. Just "Hatsumi said so", "it is in all of Hatsumi's books", "the Emperor gave him an award" and a few web sites that also have unsubstantiated information. (I still don't know what qualifies the Emperor to judge koryu exponents, but it is a cool credential to receive anyway I guess)

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I'm not implying anything for or against the arts taught in the Bujinkan or Hatsumi Sensei.

I'm simply pointing out that this whole thread has turned into an unorganized series of opinions and heresay, that will probably turn into a flame war soon if left on it's present course.

Unless someone on the Koryu forum is willing to assist with any tangible research, I'd personally suggest taking discussions of this nature back to the Ninpo forum.

For example, maybe someone could start with the Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten? I'm sure some, if not most of the ryu-ha are listed in there. I know Togakure ryu is. I also have heard that the author was friendly with Takamatsu Sensei, and put an interesting bit in the jiten about the origin of modern day Ninjutsu! I don't have access to my copy right now, nor the time to translate it or I'd volunteer to help myself.

Any takers?

I hope no one minds me offering an outside point of view, but this thread in it's current state really does not belong here.

Regards,

jmharris
31st August 2000, 18:45
I have my raincoat on and ready for all the rotten fruits and vegetables that are about to be thrown. Let me add, as expected on this board!!!

The question of the Bujinkan authenticity was ask by the late Donn Dager, from what I have been told (albeit 3rd party) he was not pleased with the research he found. I will leave it as that.

J. Harris

Shinobi
31st August 2000, 19:56
Originally posted by jmharris
from what I have been told (albeit 3rd party)


More grapevine crap :smash:

If you don't have the facts straight, don't reply. Arigatô! :smilejapa

Joachim
31st August 2000, 20:25
Originally posted by Shinobi

Originally posted by jmharris
from what I have been told (albeit 3rd party)

More grapevine crap :smash:
If you don't have the facts straight, don't reply. Arigatô! :smilejapa

I think, he was reffering to this article at koryubooks:
http://koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html


A friend told me about the above article a few days ago. I found it to be very enlightening. Whether you believe the statements or not is (of course) your choice.

Just some guy
31st August 2000, 23:43
Mark,
Please don't "Mr Baker" me, Chris will be just fine. I just thought that you believed I wasn't using my real name because you put "Chris" in Quote marks. I may not be the greatest person in the world but I will stand and be counted when I have something to say.

EVERYONE ELSE
On a completely differant note, I have to agree with some of the other coments said. This tread has wondered way off course. The only thing being asked was the Historical background of the Ryu of Hatsumi's Bujinkan. And I might add that Joachem was wanting information from OUTSIDE of the whole ninjutsu craze. If you want to support Hatsumi, do so with hard evidnce, such as the Begei Ryuha Daijitan or with historical fact.
We could all learn a lot here. Let's try and grow.
Chris BAker.

George Kohler
1st September 2000, 03:00
Originally posted by Just some guy
If you want to support Hatsumi, do so with hard evidnce, such as the Begei Ryuha Daijitan or with historical fact.
We could all learn a lot here. Let's try and grow.
Chris BAker.

Hi Chris,

Actually, I would not use the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten to gain any hard evidence or use it as fact. It is a dictionary. And most historians wouldn't use it as a primary source. Maybe for a secondary source. It also has many mistakes. And just to let everyone know, at least in the 78 edition, every ryuha that Hatsumi Sensei has, lists him as soke of each of his schools.

I don't think it is Hatsumi Sensei fault that people don't believe him. It was Takamatsu Sensei who gave the ryuha to Hatsumi Sensei. So, basically he has faith in what his teacher (Takamatsu Sensei) told/gave him.

And really, the problem is finding Toda Shinryuken Sensei's records. But, I have heard that they might have found something on him.

The ryuha (with the exception of Gikan Ryu) that he received from Ishitani (Ishiya) Sensei can be verified. And he was asked by Kuki Takaharu to teach Kukishin Ryu at his organization (Shobukyoku) back in 1919. I don't think Kuki Takaharu would have let him taught if he didn't have his "paper work" in order.

As for Hatsumi Sensei's Kuki related ryuha, the school's official name is Kukishinden Happo Bikenjutsu.

Mark Brecht
1st September 2000, 04:08
Originally posted by Richard A Tolson
Mark,
900 YEARS!!!!! None of the Koryu go back that far. Neither does the Ryu system, nor the Shogunate (who, BTW, popularized the use of spies). Be careful with the hyperbolic statements. Too many people take them seriously.

Mr. Tolson,

The teachings and methods of various traditions started and developed far before they were considered a ryuha (formalized and named...)...

Hm, taking things serious is a good point. Looking at your claims regarding "Arashi ryu", people might confuse it with parts of the movie Bloodsport (where the kid learns the secret family traditions from his Japanese teacher...). What was the name of van Damme`s Sensei in there again? T.. T.. T... Gee, i forgot. Can you help me out here???

Shinobi
1st September 2000, 07:18
Originally posted by Mark Brecht
The teachings and methods of various traditions started and developed far before they were considered a ryuha (formalized and named...)...
[/B]

Very true, people rant and rave that Tenshin Shoden Katori Shintô-ryû is thee oldest proveable ryûha. But most forget about where and what ryûha influenced it. So this theory of ryûha only being from 1500ish onward is hogwash! Katori Shintô-ryû being founded in 1447 and its influnces earlier then that, one would think............ but I guess not. Kukishin-ryû is very well documented and its from the 1300's so................



Looking at your claims regarding "Arashi ryu"


Doah :smokin:

Undmark, Ulf
1st September 2000, 07:40
I believe it is said that Katori shinto ryu is the oldest *proven* ryuha, not the ryuha that *claims* to be the oldest.

There are also legends about Okuyama Nen Ami Jion, said to have founded the Nen ryu around 1368 (according to records from the Higuchi family) and the Chujo family is said to have taught martial arts in Kamakura since the 13'th century. According to legend, the Chujo ryu is supposed to have been formalized or revitalized shortly after Nen ryu.

I guess there just doesn't exist much to prove such legends.
Also the ryuha system were barely developed, wich ofcourse doesn't mean that organized training wasn't carried out.

Claims are not the same as proof. I believe that the Kashima shinto ryu is well in their 64'th or 65'th soke...counting from way back to guardians of the Kashima jingu (perhaps back to the 7'th century). But still, this ryuha is not really considered to be older than from the early 16'th century. I guess the Japanese Emperor was considered a God (or being decendant from the Gods) until quite recently...but I doubt he could prove those claims... and I don't think as many still believe he is today.

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

Richard A Tolson
1st September 2000, 07:51
Mark,
No logic to back up your statement, so once again you go on the attack. Pathetic!!!
BTW, I NEVER claimed to have learned a "secret" art, or to have studied with a "secret" instructor. Again, please get your facts straight.
Another thing, go back and read your last 20 posts (besides the ones where you are trying to sell something). Notice a pattern? Most are attacks on others.
Now go back and read my last 20 points. Golly gee whiz, most deal with ideas and are informational. And I am not even a moderator here!

Shinobi
1st September 2000, 08:04
Originally posted by Undmark, Ulf
I believe it is said that Katori shinto ryu is the oldest *proven* ryuha, not the ryuha that *claims* to be the oldest.


Thats what I meant, its "proven" to be the oldest! :toast:

George Kohler
1st September 2000, 08:12
Originally posted by Shinobi

Originally posted by Undmark, Ulf
I believe it is said that Katori shinto ryu is the oldest *proven* ryuha, not the ryuha that *claims* to be the oldest.


Thats what I meant, its "proven" to be the oldest!

Hi Eric,

I think you were close enough. "...Tenshin Shoden Katori Shintô-ryû is thee oldest proveable ryûha..."

Shinobi
1st September 2000, 08:23
Originally posted by George Kohler
I think you were close enough. "...Tenshin Shoden Katori Shintô-ryû is thee oldest proveable ryûha..." [/B]

Arigatô George-san :smilejapa

Undmark, Ulf
1st September 2000, 08:32
Eric and George,

Yes, that is true and I think there actually are some legends about Iizasa's teacher as well (including a name of an individual). But I do not know much about that, they are probably mostly legends, and I'm not sure if the extensive records within Shinto ryu mentions any other ryuha around that time. But that, ofcourse, is still being stuck with the idea that training is only organized if it fits the ryuha pattern, which is not true. I believe that one of the first martial arts institutions were formed around the 9'th century. Also, archery has, to some extent, been formalized earlier than the 14'th century.

So, basically, it's a matter of definitions when speaking of ryuha and organized martial training. And the oldest *proven* doesn't mean *the* oldest, but everything else would on the other hand be not much more than speculations I guess.

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

[Edited by Undmark, Ulf on 09-01-2000 at 02:39 AM]

Undmark, Ulf
1st September 2000, 08:45
Oh, I forgot...many speculate that the influences of those earliest ryuha come (or atleast where inspiration for them) from what has been called Kashima no tachi and Katori no ken...Not really ryuha I guess, and maybe not that martial in their nature, but the legend of Kashima no tachi goes back to the 7'th century at least. This may have inspired the idea of formalizing knowledge and experience that may have come from the efforts of individuals (or possibly earlier ryuha / organized training of some sort...).

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

Don Roley
1st September 2000, 09:36
In regards to the original question,
The versions of Takagi and Kukishin ryus as taught inside the Bujinkan today share a same lineage up to a person named ishitani who taught Takamatsu and another person by the name of Minaki. Today there are two lineages called the Takamatsu-den and the Minaki- den from the respective sources. Both show proof back to the same teacher, and from Ishitani the traditions are well known and documented well before this century.
In addition, Takamatsu was well known and respected by the Kuki family and is commonly credited with the preservation of many aspects of the art. He could have gained a lot more fame and prestige off of these facts alone, but seemed to avoid a lot of fame when he could.
As for the Togakure ryu, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence, but very little in the way of solid proof. For example, according to the tradtion in the Togakure ryu, the school was founded by Nishina Daisuke of Togakure village who had to flee to Iga after his lord (Kiso Yoshinaka) was defeated. Independant researcher Koyama Ryutaro found references to Nishina in a document called the Genpeiseisuiki.
Now, it may be that Takamatsu found this information out himself on his own research in a obscure book and then never made mention of it to anyone, letting it be found by someone much later, but it seems a little strange to sugest that. There are also a lot of other similar, circumstancial facts that basically fit the catagory of things that Takamatsu really should not have known, but did, unless he was telling the truth about his experiences. I would reccomend Koyama's books (in Japanese) "Kore Wa Ninjutsu Da" and "Shinsetsu, Nihon Ninja Restuden" for a more detailed explination, but the Ninshina quote is also mentioned in the prefaces to Hatsumi's Hanbojutsu book.
The problem is that Takamatsu does not seemed to have held on to many documents like this. Between the time he was said to have been taught, and the time he started teaching the current head, there was almost 50 years, two world wars, several changes of location and the repeated fire bombing of his native city of Kobe. The only photograph I am aware of him from before the war comes not from his records, but from the Iwai family collection. If you want definate proof, you have to rely on the pysical evidence from sources like the Kuki and Iwai families to back up what he says about being part of the Takagi and Kuki tradtions. And a lot of his claims are still being looked into by some people, but not very frantically since a lot of the Japanese just do not seem to care.
I once thought about writing a long article or maybe even a book about the subject of ninjutsu and the Togakure ryu in more detail, but decided it really wasn't all that important myself.
Hope I was of help

Don Roley

Joachim
1st September 2000, 11:25
Hi everybody!

I would like to thank all the people who have contributed to this thread so far, whether their replies were directly to my questions or not. All of it was very enlightening.
This thread has, since the original question, disintegrated into three sepperate discussions about Dr. Hatsumi's schools, ninjutsu's authenticy and the ryuha system in general. Some of my questions didn't belong in this forum either.

I'm not the forum moderator, but don't you think, we should close this thread down and open new ones in the respective areas?

Just a thought.

Undmark, Ulf
1st September 2000, 11:48
Don, regarding the name, I have a question that is better placed in the research forum. Please visit there.

Regards,
Ulf Undmark

Mark Brecht
1st September 2000, 18:35
Originally posted by Richard A Tolson
Mark,
No logic to back up your statement, so once again you go on the attack. Pathetic!!!

Hm, others saw the logic, you didn`t. Guess that`s YOUR problem than...

BTW, I NEVER claimed to have learned a "secret" art, or to have studied with a "secret" instructor. Again, please get your facts straight.

Secret, as in nobody has ever heard of it...

Another thing, go back and read your last 20 posts (besides the ones where you are trying to sell something). Notice a pattern? Most are attacks on others.

Yeah, why should i attack myself, that wouldn`t be logic, would it???

Hm, first you delete and slander me, and now you pick on the biz. I guess, you did not take it to well that i ignored you inquiry. You should have read the notice, in regards to authentic or legitimate arts...


Now go back and read my last 20 points. Golly gee whiz, most deal with ideas and are informational. And I am not even a moderator here!

The ones which where taken out for spamming? Or the ones attacking Don`s book?

Hm, i guess you come here, as it is too boring "somewhere" else...

BTW, i am still looking to see a post somewhere were you praised ebudo???

Shinobi
6th September 2000, 03:47
Originally posted by Jeff Mueller
Everyone keeps saying that Hatsumi Sensei recieved KukishinDEN Ryu HappoHikenjutsu from Takamatsu. Once more, I would like to point out that the Menkyo Hatsumi Sensei has on his wall, (available for all to see on the 1993 Daikomyosai video opening montage) reads as follows:

Hatsumi Masaaki
Kaiden Souke Dan Menkyo-su.
Shouwa Sanjuunana(shichi)nen Sangatsu Juuninichi
Kukishin-ryuu Bujutsu Souke
Koudou Senyoukai Shoubuyoku
Sousai Juusan-i Shishaku Kuki Takaharu
Shihan Takamatsu Toshitsugu

Now, why does Sensei call it Kukishinden Ryu HappoHikenjutsu? I am not sure, but please stop making statements about him only having some silly Hatsumi Ha, or KukishinDEN amalgamation Ryu... His Menkyo was signed by Kuki Takaharu and it is for Kukishin Ryu Bujutsu.


The Bugei Ryûha Daijiten ('78 edition) refers to it as Kukishinden Happô Bikenjutsu, Takatsuka's branch is called Kukishinden Tenshin Hyôhô, and Tanaka Fumon's Nakatomi Shinden Tenshin Hyôhô. When the "DEN" is added, it appears in Kuki related arts there is not "ryû" after the name. Den and Ryû in this sense mean almost the same thing, so Kukishinden Happô Bikenjutsu is the proper way to refer to this tradition of Kukishin-ryû. You can also call it Kukishin-ryû Happô Bikenjutsu, but Kukishinden-ryû is reduntant, reduntant, reduntant........ :D

But I have heard Hatsumi sensei, Tanemura-san even, refer to it as both. I prefer Kukishinden or Kukishin-ryû. :smokin:

everest
13th April 2004, 01:39
first the reason i'm posting this here is i would like a wider response then if i posted under a ninpo heading.that being said....

what's the general opinion of the bujinkan as taught by hatsumi among the koryu practitioners out there?

i feel like i'm going to be stirring the proverbial pot!

thanks,
scott altland
itten dojo,mechanicsburg,pa.

nicojo
13th April 2004, 02:09
I would be very surprised if there is a general opinion. I have nothing useful to say about this myself. Good luck getting any opinions at all.




(That's not to say it's a stupid question. It's one I've wondered too. But I am not sure what people would say apart from diplomacy. This may not be a bad thing.)

nicojo
13th April 2004, 02:46
Looks like there is ample stuff to read if we do a search in this forum on Hatsumi...I spoke too soon trying to help you out. I just never bothered to look it up myself. Figures that it has been talked about!

JakobR
14th April 2004, 10:36
Koryu.com sums it up fairly well;
http://koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html

pete lohstroh
14th April 2004, 17:23
Mr. Atland,
this may not be the best place to get a satisfying answer. The Koryu.com article is definitely worth reading, whatever your final opinion. E-budo members Ben Cole, Dale Seago, and Dan Weideman are reliable sources of information. Also, people active in the Koryu community in Japan like Jason Jennings (Buyu Books)would have have useful perspectives as well. There are actually very few people in the Bujinkan close enough to Hatsumi sensei to have an informed opinion and...I am not one of them. I am a curious guy myself (scientist) and I am quite happy with the Bujinkan and its background.

I really enjoy the KB Journal atthe Itten Dojo site. I look forward to the monthly re-caps. One in particular featured Kaze Arashi Ryu made me a little curious.

everest
14th April 2004, 17:34
i'm not looking for info. to train in bujinkan just general opinion from practioners in other arts. actually i trained in that system about 6 years ago.currently i'm smr jo and aikido.

scott altland
itten dojo,mechanicsburg,pa.

pete lohstroh
14th April 2004, 19:31
Mr. Atland,
I have talked with one koryu practioner who was formerly in the Bujinkan. His opinion of the organization was low with a key few exceptions. I enjoyed talking to him though the discussion never got aroung to historical veracity.

In my own experinence, there are not many people who claim to be Bujinkan members who have anything useful to say on the subject. I certainly don't! For your most reliable outsider opinions, ask the people who spend a lot of time training in Japan, read and write Japanese, and are not so busy.

What was your Bujinkan experience like?

El Guapo-san
15th April 2004, 00:38
Three pounds of flax! Not increasing, not decreasing; just as it is!

Old topic. Pppptthhhhhttttt.

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

pete lohstroh
15th April 2004, 01:31
Mr. Vlach,
your response was not all that helpful. It's a fair question that I have heard many really interesting and informed answers to. Give Mr. Atland a chance to read some.

JakobR
15th April 2004, 06:29
Is the question whether Bujinkan is koryu or not, or whehter Bujinkan is a good organization or not? The latter can only be a matter of subjective opinion.

Jonathon Sumner
15th April 2004, 06:43
I would have to ask first of all, why even ask the question? I mean if you are asking in terms of academics... I would say that in Japan there is a standard in terms of aceptence by the Koryu comunity at large. Things such as lenage and historical documents are important, so is the acceptance of the the Koryu community in Japan. One might be able to show some documents and what not, and there are groups in Japan that think of themselves as Koryu who do not belong to the two main organizations. The point I am making is that it might depend largely on who you ask.

Also, as for a Ryu being Koryu or not, this point has nothing to do with a systems effectiveness. Some Koryu systems have been compleetly reinvented by people with no combate experience to base the reinvention on.

That was longer than I had hoped, just wanted to say that the answer depends on the motivation of why you are asking. The strength of any system isn't based on if a group is concidered koryu or gendai... but rather on the whole of the individuals who are part of the group. Lousy people can make a good system bad, and good people can make an "ify" system in a decent system.

Just my two cents worth...

JakobR
15th April 2004, 06:57
Originally posted by Jonathon Sumner Some Koryu systems have been compleetly reinvented by people with no combate experience to base the reinvention on.
"Completely reinvented" and then accepted as koryu? What koryu system might that be?

Mekugi
15th April 2004, 07:10
Originally posted by pete lohstroh
Also, people active in the Koryu community in Japan like Jason Jennings (Buyu Books)would have have useful perspectives as well.

Who-da-what-da-huh?

pete lohstroh
15th April 2004, 07:50
Mr. Ebert,
may I ask you for clarification or are you poking fun at my wacky sentences?

If it's latter, I blame sticky keys and a loose macaque.

By the way, I would really be interested in your perspectives because of your Kukishinden Ryu affiliation.

Mekugi
15th April 2004, 08:08
Originally posted by pete lohstroh
Mr. Ebert,
May I ask you for clarification?

Sure!
First, call me Russ. Mister Ebert is my dad.

What koryu community are you talking about?

renfield_kuroda
15th April 2004, 09:12
Ask any legit Japanese koryu sensei about Hatsumi and he'll tell you what they've told me:

Japanese:
"Hatsumi-wa ninja-gokko o yatteiru."

English:
"Hatsumi is the guy who plays ninja."

Regards,

r e n

Alex Meehan
15th April 2004, 15:43
There was a good thread with some interesting and constructive arguments on both sides on budoseek a few months ago. Click here (http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4672) to go to it.

(This debate has been had again and again, however in the thread linked to above, there is very little sillyness, and it should help to explain the points of view of the varying vested interests in this debate.)

Alex Meehan

Mekugi
15th April 2004, 15:52
Originally posted by Alex Meehan
There was a good thread with some interesting and constructive arguments on both sides on budoseek a few months ago. Click here (http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4672) to go to it.

(This debate has been had again and again, however in the thread linked to above, there is very little sillyness, and it should help to explain the points of view of the varying vested interests in this debate.)

Alex Meehan

I would take that thread with a grain of salt.

Always,

-Russ

Hissho
15th April 2004, 15:58
Originally posted by JakobR
"Completely reinvented" and then accepted as koryu? What koryu system might that be?

You might be surprised.

Isn't it Tanaka Fumon that re-invented Hoki ryu jujutsu based on the old densho?

It hardly seems uncommon, at least in listening to the koryu practitioners I have known when critical of other teachers/groups. Behind closed doors, of course. That kinda thing is not aired in public.

There is also a lot of reviving of old portions of ryu that stopped being practiced or died out. Now, from what I came to understand that is considered perfectly okay in koryu terms if done by a qualified instructor - but it does leave us with the fact that it is generally a person without combat experience, and almost certainly a person without combat experience actually using the traditional weapon/form, doing the reviving.

Mekugi
15th April 2004, 16:36
Originally posted by Hissho
There is also a lot of reviving of old portions of ryu that stopped being practiced or died out. Now, from what I came to understand that is considered perfectly okay in koryu terms if done by a qualified instructor - but it does leave us with the fact that it is generally a person without combat experience, and almost certainly a person without combat experience actually using the traditional weapon/form, doing the reviving.

What, should they hire Marines and Airborne to help them revive the kata? I knew of a prominent koryu practitioner who had plenty of combat experience....beheading prisoners of war, that is. I suppose he is qualified...ewww. ;)

Maybe I am totally missing something in this?

pete lohstroh
15th April 2004, 16:44
Russ,
duely noted.

Mr. Kuroda,
I have certainly heard this but I do not think it represents a consensus opinion. Would you agree?

George Kohler
15th April 2004, 16:58
Originally posted by Hissho
Isn't it Tanaka Fumon that re-invented Hoki ryu jujutsu based on the old densho?

Actually, that would be Nakashima Atsumi.

El Guapo-san
15th April 2004, 17:56
Originally posted by pete lohstroh
Mr. Vlach,
your response was not all that helpful. It's a fair question that I have heard many really interesting and informed answers to.

Three pounds of flax!

Go read some Zen. My answer was helpful.

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

Hissho
15th April 2004, 18:36
Thanks, George, I was thinking about that and realized I mixed them up.




Originally posted by Mekugi
What, should they hire Marines and Airborne to help them revive the kata? I knew of a prominent koryu practitioner who had plenty of combat experience....beheading prisoners of war, that is. I suppose he is qualified...ewww. ;)

Maybe I am totally missing something in this?

Russ-

Yes, in a manner of speaking... if the idea is to continue the tradition with its originally intended purpose, and that is as a combat effective method.

Somewhere around here someone recently posted that many people seek to practice a "legitimate" koryu mainly because then, at least, they can rest assured that what they are doing is combat tested and combat proven.

There are a whole slew of reasons why this is simply not true, yet it does not discourage some from having as their primary goal in seeking out a traditional "battlefield" method the fact that it was used in combat and therefore is superior, at least in theory, to mere aesthetic budo or (EGAD!) combat sports. Just look at the views of many Daito-ryu people RE: aikido, and many classical JJ people RE: judo. They want to believe its older, nastier, more dangerous and ultimately far more effective because it was used in combat.


My contention is that as the vast majority of martial artists are no longer combatants in any measure, if they want to believe that what they are doing is combat effective, or if they strive for combative realism in any kata they endeavor to recreate or revive, they would do better to seek the assistance of someone who has actually "seen the elephant," in addition to poring over old scrolls and listening to stories about a fight that happened 450 years ago.

Simply put, there are many who may in fact be highly qualified instructors of whatever ryu that are handicapped in a sense because they have no practical experience. They might not even have the eyes to see where this or that movement or kata or whatever has strayed from the path of combative realism over however many generations, and is now a mere shadow of what it once was.

Someone with experience - along with a thorough grounding in the ryu, what its intrinsic characteristics are, and with access to original densho and kuden, may in fact have a very different interpretation of what the combative application of this or that kata or move might represent, and may in fact be more correct in their assessment because they have done more than simply sweat in the training hall - they have bled, and caused others to bleed in real battle, and know what its like.

For example, Col. George Bristol is Marine Recon AND a koryu practitioner. I would much rather listen to his point of view on the combative application of Shinkage-ryu than I would someone without that dual experience. I would also say that he probably would get far more out of certain teachings than someone with equal time in the ryu but without concomitant experience in harm's way.

It means nothing to the preservation of the tradition, *if* the combat application no longer really matters (and in almost all cases it does not) and if that is not what people think they are getting.

It also does not mean that the experienced man cannot learn from the elements of the tradition, even from a master teacher who has never been in a combat situation in their life.

It does mean that, strictly in terms of combat application, the guy with experience will ultimately bring a deeper understanding to that aspect of the tradition by virtue of experience than anyone, no matter how much time is spent in the system, without comparable experience.


BTW, cutting the heads off people who are already prisoners is not what I call combat. It can teach you a lot about what swords do to necks, I think, but as far as cutting them, it has as much relevance to combat as test cutting does.

But I think we are hijacking the thread...

everest
15th April 2004, 22:08
pete,
my experience was positive as i trained for about 6 years with jack hoban in new jersey.due to personal non training circumstances my once or twice a month trips to nj.became impossible.training partners drifted away ,finally ceasing training for 5 years until recently training in aikido at itten,and traveling to nj to train under meik and diane skoss in smr jo.we also have a jo study group at itten.

i enjoyed the bujinkan training ...weapons etc. weapon training was most times using the kata of the various ryu learning the flow,distancing and timing.

one thuing i noticec is a huge gap in bujinkan pracitioners.many people go to japan with previous MA training train maybe once a year there and mix previous knowledge into the bujinkan stuff.you end up with a hodge podge of !!!!. thats why so many bujinkan i feel are not respected.then on top of that they throw in some black masks ,and survival skills.

not once did we don black masks,ninja tabi ,camo or do outdoor psuedo survival training.so many of the clowns out there ruin it for real practitioners.to mix things up would b like me adding tae kwon do kicks to my aikido or smr jo!

i read the budoseek articles and their very good.with all the bad budo ninja crap out therei just wondered if the general non bujinkan practioners thought as little about the real system.thanks for input.

scott altland
itten dojo,mechanicsburg,pa.

kabutoki
15th April 2004, 23:10
Ask any legit Japanese koryu sensei about Hatsumi and he'll tell you what they've told me:

Japanese:
"Hatsumi-wa ninja-gokko o yatteiru."

English:
"Hatsumi is the guy who plays ninja."


Dear Ren,
I always respected your posts but this one doesn´t make sense to me. The use of "any" implies every koryu teacher in Japan thinks so, yet you go on saying that actually "he", one teacher told you that.
I don´t think that this generalization depicts Hatsumi´s image in Japan. There sure are a lot of those like the one you stated, but also otherones who do respect Hatsumi for what he is/does. I felt that his reputation in Japan wasn´t that good but I always found that he is much more famous outside of Japan and some people in Japan base their opinion on very few "facts" they believe to know.
This is of course only my personal opinion which is based on conversations with MA teachers and students in Japan (definetely not enough for a statistic analysis).

Karsten

renfield_kuroda
15th April 2004, 23:58
Let me qualify my statement: I do not know EVERY koryu sensei in Japan, so obviously I cannot speak for everyone. But the few I have spoken to, and who claim to/seem to represent the majority opinion, think in general the following:

* Hatsumi is most famous for his role in entertainment. Similar reputation to Sonny Chiba, who runs the most famous stuntman school in Japan (anyone who dies in a ganster/martial arts movie in Japan probably graduated from Chiba's school.) He's organized ninja shows and ninja camps, etc. that look likes lots of fun.

* The issue of whether ninjitsu is koryu or not is moot. Ninja were the special ops/CIA/black helicopters troops of the time. You don't walk around going "I'm a secret agent!" and you don't walk around going "I'm a ninja!"

* The few ninja in Japan I do know in Japan realize they are 'playing at ninja' and in fact don't mind one bit. It's difficult to understand in a Western mindset, but there's nothing wrong with seriously pursuing at playing ninja. For some reason, in the US in particular, everyone seems so concerned with establishing the 'legitimacy' of their ninja art.
Do you enjoy it? Does practicing it make you a better person? Fine then, leave it at that. But take the invented 'history' with a grain of salt. It serves a purpose; it's dramatic, it's compelling, it's romantic, and ninja popularity isn't going down (latest ninja anime Naruto is very popular, etc.)

BUT, I seriously doubt you will find any legitimate koryu sensei who would consider Hatsumi as they would consider their own Soke.
Hatsumi HAS done alot for martial arts; got alot of people off their butt and moving around and thinking and having fun and entertaining, and I think that's good -- net net it makes the world a better place. But that doesn't make it koryu. Same goes for kendo, tae-kwon-do, tate, sport-fishing.

And now I'll stop, because the biggest issue with the 'ninja debate' is it's not a debate, it's religious. No matter what arguments either side makes, no one will ever convince me ninjijtsu is koryu, and I'll never convince a ninja that what they do isn't. So say I'm democratic and your republican, I'm pro-tobacco tax and you're anti, I'm privatized health care and you're nationalized...we can still be friends, eh?

Regards,

r e n

Hissho
16th April 2004, 00:49
Ren-

Serious question, I am legitimately interested in the answer.

If people are considered to be "playing" at ninja, are then koryu practitioners considered to be "playing" at being bushi?

If not, why/how is it viewed differently?

Are the folks that participate in the mock battle re-enactments in full period armor viewed differently than those who demonstrate something like Yagyu Shingan-ryu in full armor?

renfield_kuroda
16th April 2004, 01:36
The problem I think is with the English word 'play'.

Professional athletes play baseball. That's certainly a more serious engagement than when a bunch of kids play baseball in the park on Sunday.

I guess we could use the word 'do', but it doesn't really sound right. In Japanese the term I've heard over and over again is 'ninja-gokko', and I translate that as 'playing at ninja' or 'playing ninja'.

For the record, I do not play at being a samurai: 'samurai-gokko', I study a koryu art: 'koryu-o keiko suru'. the Japanese term 'keiko' is translated as study/dedicated pursuit.

So again I think it's both an issue w/the English language and the 'Western mindset' (to make an overly broad and sweeping generalization) -- koryu folks in Japan have no problem with the ninja folks, and in general neither aspires to the other. Another fine example of conceptual harmonious juxtaposition that seems possible only in Japanese society.

Regards,

r e n

Earl Hartman
16th April 2004, 01:41
As I was eating my bento in my cubicle yesterday, a co-worker stopped and said "What's that?"

"My lunch", I said.

"What's in it?"

"Well, let's see...steamed rice, breaded and deep fried freeze-dried tofu, cucumber with miso, brolied salmon, burdock root with carrots, and deep-fried tofu pockets simmered with green onions."

"How cute!"

What has this got to do with budo? For me, this is what I eat pretty much every day. It's food. To her (she had, needless to say, never heard of gobo (burdock root), Koya-doufu (freeze dried tofu), or abura-age (deep fried tofu pockets), it was not really food, in a way, it was "cute".

For people who don't know or care about budo and see it as exotic, whatever we do (especially if we wear armor and stuff) will be "cute", like a re-enactment of the jousts and what-not put on at the Renaissance Pleasure Faires.

For people who actually do it, it is not "cute". It's what we eat for lunch every day.

I still think that the koryu.com definition of koryu is still the best we've got: a legitimate koryu is a living tradition of fighting techinques and associated practices that orignated in a certain period of history, has a documented and provable lineage, and has been continuously practiced since that time.

No one doubts that ninja existed and pacticed a body of techniques that we refer to today as ninjutsu. The main bone of contention is that the lineage is not proven and documented. The result is there is a strong possibility that the techniques are either created out of whole cloth (worst case) or reinvented based on whatever historical documents might be available (best case).

Of course, even the most distinguished koryu with the most impeccable pedigree will still be greeted with skepticism by people who don't know or care, and will be seen as being the same thing as "ninja-gokko" ("Yeah, I know it's an old and venerable Japanese tradition, but so what?"). This is an argument that will never be solved.

Hissho
16th April 2004, 01:49
There still seems to be a clear differentiation with what Hatsumi is doing compared to what people who are koryu practitioners are doing - evidenced in the comment by the teacher you noted.

Your own statement also clearly differentiates your own training (keiko) in a koryu from "playing at samurai." Would I be correct in surmising that other serious koryu practitioners in Japan would make the same distinction?

So....if the teachers are making the distinction, and practitioners are making the distinction, it seems clearly more than a problem in translation to the English language and the Western mind.

Note I don't know that you are saying that the Japanese view it condescendingly as compared to "legit" koryu, though your original post comes across as if they do, the way I read it.

Thanks

Hissho
16th April 2004, 01:53
Thanks, Earl, I think that made it a little more clear.

Earl Hartman
16th April 2004, 02:19
Well, Kit, it's just my opinion. These definitions all go back to Draeger and have been refined by his disciples in such places as koryu.com. Whatever one may think of them, they are still the best starting point that I have seen.

Nothing can ever be perfectly defined. But you gotta start somewhere.

I think the main thing is verifiability. Taking the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu as an example, while one may think whatever one wants of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, it is impossible to deny the authenticity of the ryu's documents and their historical provenance. In additon to that, due to the social position occupied by the school, the doings of the school and the activities of its members can be corroborated through third-party historical sources in addition to the writings of members of the ryu such as Yagyu Munenori and Yagyu Jubei. In other words, whatever one's opinions of the ryu itself, no one can really take issue with the FACT of the EXISTENCE of the ryu and the verifiablity of its history.

In the case of ninjutsu, none of this applies. Indeed, seeing as how ninjutsu was supposed to be secret, I would imagine that the "headmasters" of ninjutsu, if there even was such an institution among ninjas, did their best to hide everything they could about it. This makes it a perfect vehicle for scoundrels and charlatans, since their claims can never be disporoven. All they have to do is wink one eye, put a finger to their lips, and whisper "Shhhh! It's a secret".

To take another example, as you know, I studied Nagao Ryu Taijutsu when I lived in Kanazawa. My teacher was a student of the legitimate headmaster, Maeda Kogetsu, (whom I later discovered was something of a laughingstock in the koryu world in Japan) but broke with him when his own research (extremely extensive and thorough, BTW) revealed that Maeda was not transmitting the techniques correctly. So he started his own group.

So, was I studying a legitimate koryu, since I was the student of a renegade?

Good question.

Hissho
16th April 2004, 04:48
Hmmm, sorta throws a wrench in the whole idea of what "legitimate" actually means, doesn't it?

Peter Carlsson
16th April 2004, 09:04
Gentlemen,

To ninja or not to ninja, that's the question....

This thread started out with the question if Hatsumi sensei teach koryu or not, and drifted towards a discussion of ninja.

I have been training in Bujinkan for almost 20 years, and I've never encountered ninja-gokko.... :rolleyes:

Strange, isn't it?

Most of the training I have encountered have been Taijutsu, sword, staffs, yari, naginata etc.

If you are going to discuss if Hatsumi sensei teach koryu or not, then the discussion maybe should stem from what is actually trained in Bujinkan, and not what has been showed in television shows etc. It's not necessarily the same thing....

just my .2 cents

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

Robert Miller
16th April 2004, 16:16
Which Bujinkan ryu-ha are listed in the Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten , and who is listed as their legitimate inheritor?

Mekugi
16th April 2004, 17:54
Originally posted by Hissho
Hmmm, sorta throws a wrench in the whole idea of what "legitimate" actually means, doesn't it?

There is a difference between legitimate and orthodox though, isn't there?

-Russ

shinbushi
16th April 2004, 19:15
Ireally like Ellis Amdur's post on http://www.budoseek.net in the ninpo forum found here (http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=38726&postcount=23)

Just opened this thread, and I wanted to correct a few small misconceptions.

Dale, I recall your student - a really fine guy. He did not ask me about "koryu.com." I see a tendency in this thread, and I certainly seen it far more pronounced in others to write about Diane and Meik Skoss' website as if it is a collective organization. It's not an organization at all. It's their business website, and they post a few articles on it - some really good, some less so. I won't speak for Meik and Diane, but my own (mostly) disinterest in the Bujinkan is perhaps the same as theirs - that what you do is not what I do. (And as I will try to establish, I think the feeling from Hatsumi is mutual).

What your student asked me was what was the viewpoint of orthodox koryu practitioners re Bujinkan, and why was it held.

Let's preface what follows by saying I'm not going to write anything here about effectiveness, skill or strength. I don't think much is accomplished by fanticizing how strong you are or are not, or how good your sword waza are, compared to x-ryu, sitting at a keyboard.

What I said was that the Bujinkan (and Genbukan, for that matter) and it's subsidiary practices are not carried out in a manner congruent with that of any other koryu system in Japan. It's method of teaching, ranking, etc. is different. This is not merely a matter of innovation - I have an essay in the third of the Skoss' books regarding innovation, and describe my own role in some significant innovation in two ryu I'm involved in.

"It's not koryu" in Japanese has two interpretations - the first is rigid and the second is an adjective. For example, Jikishin Kage-ryu naginatajutsu was not admitted to the Kobudo Shinkokai for many years (the criteria have loosened over the last couple of decades) because it was not founded before the Meiji period cut-off. That's an example of the rigid criteria.

I have presented kata of old ryu that I have had a hand in reviving or recreating, according to the technical parameters of the school in question. No outsider has ever realized that these are not old school kata, because they look and move exactly the same. But were I to present a new kenpo section to my Araki-ryu, using parameters from the hsing-i I"m practicing a lot now, and the muay thai I used to do, even though, as a licensed instructor I'd have the authority to do so, every traditional Japanese looking at it would say, "That's not koryu." The adjective criteria.

Now, as for Hatsumi and the Bujinkan - the formal criteria. I will assert with some confidence that the Kobudo Shinkokai does not demand that one give one's own makimono to them. My teachers, members, had their own makimono in their own house. But if the lineage of their school were questioned, they would request to see the makimono. The outsider (non-Bujinkan) understanding is that there are no makimono in existence of any of the (9??) Bujinkan ryu which establish a lineage pre-Takamatsu. In other words, there are no scrolls with pre-date him. NOT that the ryu don't exist - but that the lines claimed as going to Takamatsu are not established. Hatsumi may have such scrolls - but they have not been viewed by outsiders who are the "arbitrers" regarding joining the "club."

As for the "adjectival criteria," I've visited Hatsumi, trained with Terry Dobson, observed Bujinkan and Genbukan training, including formal kata, done some sparring with weapons and empty-handed as well, and speaking personally here as a "traditionalist," it just doesn't look like or feel like koryu - timing, ma-ai, weapon usage, etc. is just different - sometimes subtly, sometimes grossly. To reiterate, I'm not talking about strength! Some of the most legitimate koryu are sterile societies of a few hobbiests who preserve a rote version of kata and couldn't fight their way out of a junior high school schoolyard fight.

The best way to explain the difference is this. There are classsical music societies that only use period instruments. You get to hear Mozart and Bach the way their own audiences probably did. Then there are classical musicians in modern orchestras, with far more instruments, a piano with a vastly different sound. Still "koryu," but somewhat innovated. Then there are ensembles which use electric violins, add some jazz figure, some coda's with modern dissonences. They would say that the old music is stultified and that they, the innovators have returned to the spirit of the founders (the Sengoku jidai of music, so to speak). The traditionalists would say, "That aint classical." To me, that's the position that Hatsumi is in (he reportedly blends the techniques of the different ryu, for one example), and he obviously can care less about the classisists, or he'd invite them over to his house, show them the makimono going back seven generations, etc., and join their club. But he doesn't - he either doesn't have such records, or he does, but he has nothing to prove to people he feels are stuck in rigid sterile training. This is a man who has stated, per other posters, that he does and knows Katori Shinto-ryu far better than practitioners of the actual ryu (I can't cite this thread's location, but I recall it). I would infer that, to him, an assertion that "We, the Bujinkan, are koryu" means a DROP in status, not a rise. (And this was certainly my impression of him in my meeting with him in 1977 and in a subsequent phone call in 1980 where he refused to let me see a makimono of Araki-ryu that he definitely had, saying, "I don't show my material.")

In sum, (sorry for the length), why would you guys want to join a club that he clearly feels is beneath him and you?

with respect

Ellis Amdur

pete lohstroh
16th April 2004, 21:10
I'd like to suggest that Quentin Chambers' relationship to Hatsumi sensei deserves consideration though it may not provide much clarity.

Hissho
16th April 2004, 21:58
Originally posted by Mekugi
There is a difference between legitimate and orthodox though, isn't there?

-Russ

That's probably a better way of casting it.

pete lohstroh
16th April 2004, 22:10
My previous post was in reference to "Stickfighting" which was co-authored by Hatsumi sensei and Mr. Chambers.

Apologies all around for any confusion.

ChrisMoon
17th April 2004, 01:11
Originally posted by pete lohstroh
I'd like to suggest that Quentin Chambers' relationship to Hatsumi sensei deserves consideration though it may not provide much clarity.

What consideration would that be? That what Hatsumi does is koryu because Mr. Chambers trained with him for 7 years and co-authored a book with him? Chambers studied with Ueshiba for several years as well.

Mekugi
17th April 2004, 04:14
Originally posted by ChrisMoon
What consideration would that be? That what Hatsumi does is koryu because Mr. Chambers trained with him for 7 years and co-authored a book with him?

On this note, I would like to point out that the Kata demonstrated in that book are NOT KORYU KATA. That being said, if anyone doubts their effectiveness they should ask to have it `plied to them and see...

ChrisMoon
17th April 2004, 04:38
Hey cool picture Russ! Thank you for posting that.

Mekugi
17th April 2004, 07:11
Originally posted by ChrisMoon
Hey cool picture Russ! Thank you for posting that.

You betcha! The real thanks goes to "Addo" for snapping that pic. Totally awesome.

pete lohstroh
17th April 2004, 21:06
Mr. Moon,
In response to your query:
No. I did not suggest that because of the co-authorship koryu status was implicit. I implied that Mr. Chambers would have an worthwhile and informed opinion. It was a discussion point to illustrate the complication of the issue. Reasonable, yes? I have already discussed this with another gentleman by e-mail and have nothing more I care to add except that I think the "Stickfighting" book is good.

ChrisMoon
18th April 2004, 02:54
I agree I think he would have a worthwhile opinion. I will ask him when I see him a week from tomorrow. I also agree the book is really good. =)

JakobR
18th April 2004, 16:53
Hmm... what hurts most? The hanbo-technique or the clinker floor?

Ron Beaubien
18th April 2004, 19:40
Hello,


Originally posted by Peter Carlsson:

I have been training in Bujinkan for almost 20 years, and I've never encountered ninja-gokko.... :rolleyes: Strange, isn't it? Most of the training I have encountered have been Taijutsu, sword, staffs, yari, naginata etc.

Are you sure?

Isn't one of Masaaki Hatsumi's most famous quotes: "Understand? Good. Play! (http://www.bushinbooks.com)"?

Regards,

Ron Beaubien

Peter Carlsson
18th April 2004, 20:36
Originally posted by Ron Beaubien
Are you sure?

Isn't one of Masaaki Hatsumi's most famous quotes: "Understand? Good. Play! (http://www.bushinbooks.com)"?

Regards,

Ron Beaubien

Of course "play" is important in the training in Bujinkan....but, I've still not encountered the concept of "playing ninja", i.e. nothing like running around in masks, sneaking around, disappearing in puffs of smoke etc.

The only type of training I've encountered have been taijutsu, sword, staffs, naginata, yari etc. and there, we have been "playing" with the katas and methods, breaking them down, making variations, adaptations etc.

That was what i meant. I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself in a way that could be understood.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

Mekugi
19th April 2004, 05:33
Word up that book totally rocks. My sensei in jo here stole my copy and he doesn't read any English....(note to self...have Mister Moon talk to Mister Chambers about reverse translation.)

Originally posted by ChrisMoon
I agree I think he would have a worthwhile opinion. I will ask him when I see him a week from tomorrow. I also agree the book is really good. =)

Roger Conant
19th April 2004, 20:57
This may seem more appropriate for the Ninjutsu thread, but since the question of Hatsumi’s Bujinkan's relationship to koryu was begun here, could we continue the discussion?

A question: We are told that at least some of the number of arts taught under the auspices of Hatsumi’s Bujinkan are koryu. They are defined that way because they have scrolls that go back several generations. Okay. Let’s say one of these is Y ryu. Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Robert Miller
19th April 2004, 22:09
Bujinkan dojos use the methodology of the organization's head, Masaaki Hatsumi. Hatsumi doesn't jive with koryu...
I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though. Besides, there aren't any menkyo kaiden who aren't Japanese in the Bujinkan, so I think you're out'ta luck. You might try Genbukan Ninpo, as I believe they train within the ryu-ha.

kabutoki
19th April 2004, 23:15
Hi,


I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though.

That would be Hontai Yoshin Ryu under Tsuyoshi Inoue.
Please keep in mind that these two are related to the schools in the Bujinkan but barely the same.

Karsten

DWeidman
19th April 2004, 23:46
Originally posted by Roger Conant
Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed?

No. At least not with Hatsumi's permission (as far as I know).



Originally posted by Roger Conant
If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu?

No.


Originally posted by Roger Conant
Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Not applicable - see above.


Originally posted by Roger Conant
Thank you in advance for your responses.

No problem.

-Daniel Weidman

Dale Seago
20th April 2004, 00:55
Originally posted by Roger Conant
Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Just to elaborate a bit on Dan's responses, for some years now Hatsumi sensei has been trying to disseminate certain concepts and principles Bujinkan-wide through his teaching each year, generally using specific ryuha as vehicles to get them across. In 2002 it was Takagi Yoshin ryu, before that Gyokko ryu, before that Koto ryu, etc., etc. (Last year and this have not really been ryu-specific.) He hasn't been trying to teach the ryuha as such, and you wouldn't be able to get him to do so now as it would be antithetical to the direction in which he's been trying to lead us as budoka. He'd regard it as a waste of his time, focusing on where he came from rather than where he's going.

Some of the Japanese shihan, however, did receive menkyo in various specific ryuha from him in earlier years, and it might be possible to learn a specific one from one of them if you paid them enough to justify their taking the time to indulge you. :p

poryu
20th April 2004, 09:26
Hi


Originally posted by Robert Miller
don't know about TYR, though.

Aside from hatsumi and Tanemura who both claim Soke of a branch of Takagi Yoshin ryu.

there are several other branches of Takagi Yoshin Ryu in Japan all with legitimate Soke, all claiming there own lineage.

One lineage still has in the sokes poccession documents and makimono written by ishitani (IshiYa) sensei over 100 years ago.

i think I know of at least 6 different branches of TYR

MarkF
20th April 2004, 13:38
Hi, Ron,

I don't know anything about the book, but that's a gem, I have to admit.

Of course, I probably would have said "Understand? Good, Now go play in the middle of the road."

But it is a nice one, at least to this old judo-"player."


Mark

Roger Conant
20th April 2004, 13:49
So given that the above responses are accurate and informed, aren’t the questions of Hatsumi’s status in the koryu world and the Bujinkan’s supposed teachings as being koryu kind of moot?
Hatsumi may or may not have licenses in one or more ryu which have historically verifiable roots. But what does that matter if he is not teaching them or if he is teaching some of their aspects in a way that is inconsistent with the way koryu are traditionally taught?
“Hatsumi doesn’t jive with koryu.” I think the guy might have meant “jibe,” but his point is taken. If this is true, I don’t see why so many practitioners of the Bujinkan and other types of ninja-related arts continue to be concerned with defending their stuff as koryu.
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Hatsumi has this or that license or ranking in some koryu. But all here have stated pretty clearly that he is not teaching any complete koryu. So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?
And can we say that consequently, the Bujinkan’s relationship to koryu bujutsu is about the same as modern American baseball’s relationship to 19th century cricket?

Peter Carlsson
20th April 2004, 14:59
Originally posted by Roger Conant
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Hatsumi has this or that license or ranking in some koryu. But all here have stated pretty clearly that he is not teaching any complete koryu. So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?
And can we say that consequently, the Bujinkan’s relationship to koryu bujutsu is about the same as modern American baseball’s relationship to 19th century cricket?

NO !!!!

You can NOT say that Bujinkan is this or that and not that...if you have not been training in the Bujinkan for so long that you actually have first hand knowledge about what is being taught and not. Internet is not a source to be used as validation in that kind of matters.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

Robert Miller
20th April 2004, 16:26
In koryu you have a set of waza. Let's take one. In the Bujinkan, you have that same technique, (shown like once..if you caught it) then an !!! load of variation or "henka". Maybe your opponent swings a gnarly roadhouse punch, or a fudoken straight punch, or a wushu hammer-fist...er whatever. The feel, or intricacies as I prefer, are explored in henka, (as opposed to regimented, standardized kata). You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect. He's probably already done it. And he could do it in a bujutsu 'sorta way.

poryu
20th April 2004, 16:55
HI


Originally posted by Robert Miller
You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect.

I am going to strongly disagree with this stement.

the average Bujinkan practitioner hasnt a clue what Koryu is. Many of them have never seen any Koryu practise or demonstrate.

As for doing it straight perfect - not a chance many cant do there kihon right let along formal kata.

Dale Seago
20th April 2004, 18:07
Originally posted by Roger Conant
So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?

Definitely not.

As I mentioned earlier, different ryuha are in fact focused on from time to time for particular reasons. All have their own characteristic kamae, footwork, methods of generating power, use of distance and space, overarching strategies and tactical applications: Gyokko ryu, for example, doesn't look or "feel" anything like Takagi Yoshin ryu.

But Hatsumi is trying to get more across than just the specifics of any given ryuha, and while his teaching could be considered an "amalgam", the "of his own creation" part definitely does not fit: You'd have to blame Takamatsu for that. :p I've heard him express the things I'm recounting here many times over the years, but perhaps it's best to let his own words speak for him. . .

In a 1998 Black Belt Magazine Interview (http://www.winjutsu.com/bbtaikaiarticle.htm) with Josh Sager, there was this:


BB: How has the art evolved since Takamatsu Sensei passed it on to you?

MH: It has not evolved. Its just alive. It has just survived. Its like two things being the same; they seem to be changing, but they are keeping the same form. Isomorphism. Many people talk about evolution, and there was a time when the theory of evolution was all the rage. But what is actually underneath human life has not evolved at all; it has not changed.

More recently, after largely avoiding it for years, Hatsumi has begun using "the N-word" again, and has just published (JAN 2004, Kodansha International) a new book, The Way Of The Ninja: Secret Techniques. On page 36, he says,


Some people see the techniques I perform and call them Kamiwaza, divine techniques. They call me a divine warrior. Yet if these techniques were something I had produced myself, there would be nothing special about them at all. I never perform "my" techniques. Even at my age, I am still merely carrying out techniques as I was taught them by Takamatsu sensei. Otherwise, techniques that have been polished and handed down over generations, for hundreds and thousands of years, would actually deteriorate. As techniques are transmitted, life itself is received.

Some other passages shed some additional light on what he's getting at, however. In the two paragraphs preceding the quote above, he says:


In the martial arts, the basics are of supreme importance. In general, students start by learning forms or techniques. Beginners have to train initially with "visible" movements: this is inescapable, as otherwise they simply will not understand any further complexities. Visible movements are studied first in Ninpo Taijutsu too -- but soon you have to progress to a world which is invisible to the naked eye. It is important that this training be natural. It may be a truism to say that all things in nature are natural, but most people live and are "educated" in the narrow world of human beings, and end up thinking of things in an excessively complicated way, thereby losing their ability to see things straight and naturally.

Ninpo Taijutsu did in fact vary greatly depending on the period, and from area to area. In each variant, however, there were both basic forms and progressive forms. There were also key points found in the forms of all the different schools, while each form would itself exhibit infinite variations. . .These variations should be treasured. I really want people to understand this feeling. A single form may end up appearing totally different as a result of these variations.

And why might this last be considered desirable? From page 178:


The techniques of Budo are all highly polished masterpieces. However, if you 'learn' or memorize them, everything stops: you end up feeling trapped, and it has the opposite effect from that intended. Once you have learned a technique, you need to forget it. If you remember it and recall it, it loses its authenticity. Learning a technique is not an end in itself, it merely indicates where you need to start. It is only by discrding memorized techniques, stripping them down, that you can discover a way forward to the next masterpiece.

In genuine Budo, any conventional 'common sense' about martial arts (fighting) that you might have learned in the past can actually get in the way. This is because common sense prevents you from changing. In real life, people who live beyond the bounds of common sense attack you suddenly, with scant regard for any rules of combat. You can hardly call yourself a martial artist if this throws you off balance.

Over the years, I've often heard Sensei remind people that they do have to have forms before those forms can be "broken" in a way that produces life rather than death. He does have a cautionary note concerning this on page 30:


The Ninja view of the universe contains not only three dimensions but four. The fourth dimension is that of the world of Mu -- nothingness -- a world haunted by death, a world of spirit only. It is a world with no physical existence, where everything simply disappears. That is why in that world you must not let an apponent see or sense your form -- you must wipe it out entirely.

The vast majority of Ninjutsu practitioners are, however, stuck at the third dimension, or even the second. Some people are in fact still in the first dimension -- maybe even some 'minus' level!. . .

I hope this helps to illuminate the issues a bit further. Bottom line: Hatsumi feels that he is teaching in the spirit of Takamatsu sensei and the way Takamatsu would want him to. Takamatsu's own approach appears to have been strongly influenced by his decade of traveling, killing, and surviving in China:


Having waded through carnage, he returned to Japan in 1919, and commented on this episode as follows: "My training in Japan, followed by my experience of ten years of actual combat in China, enabled me to understand the essence of the martial arts and the importance of Ninjutsu". (p. 27)

Roger Conant
20th April 2004, 18:14
So, Mr. Carlsson, is it your position that there can be no definition of the Bujinkan vis-à-vis its status as a koryu unless one actually has “firsthand knowledge” of it as a practitioner? That is unique. One does not have to be a member of Katori Shinto ryu, for example, to look at its lineage and records, to observe the training, and to see the structure of the ryu and its conventions, to conclude rationally that it is a classical koryu. Is the Bujinkan beyond rational objective analysis in a similar way? Again, I am not asking about its effectiveness or the scope of the curriculum.
That last comment would apply to Mr. Miller as well. I have no reason to doubt you, Mr. Miller, when you tell me the average Bujinkan practitioner could instantly reproduce the technique, intent, neurological responses, and psychological frame of mind that takes ordinary koryu practitioners years to develop. What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.
Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?
I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan? It does not seem fair to the Bujinkan for “spokesmen,” no matter how well intentioned, to be responding to questions like this.

Dale Seago
20th April 2004, 18:57
Originally posted by Roger Conant
What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.
Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?

Nope. No more than, for example, Ueshiba was perpetuating Daito ryu when he created Aikido. On the other hand, Hatsumi has also claimed to be the only instructor today who is teaching martial arts from the Sengoku Jidai era the way they were taught in that period.

Even looking at specific ryuha within "the Booj", I wouldn't say that Hatsumi's approach fits the "typical koryu" method of transmission. In a post of mine from another E-budo thread (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25825&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) I made some comments about his teaching a Takagi Yoshin ryu waza some years ago. If for no other reason, his extrapolation into contemporary situations and weaponry would make his approach "not koryu":


Originally posted by Dale Seago
I remember Hatsumi sensei covering a technique from Takagi Yoshin ryu once, years ago. . .It's what you might call a "transitional" samurai jujutsu system formalized in the 1600s: Still strongly influenced by the Sengoku Jidai but with more of an "indoor" and unarmored than a "battlefield" and armored orientation. Anyhow, Sensei was showing some waza or other involving an unarmed counter against someone attempting a iai- or batto-type sword draw and cut, and he first showed it as an armored technique: "Here's how it was done in the Sengoku Jidai. Then the style of armor changed in the Edo period and it was done like this. . .Without armor it's this way. . .And today, if someone were trying to draw a concealed pistol from a shoulder holster and shoot you, it would be this." But the fundamental concepts behind all the variations were the same.


Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan?

Well, that would be me.

Roger Conant
20th April 2004, 19:20
Mr. Seago,
I’m having difficulty understanding two of your points.
You have noted a couple of times that Hatsumi draws on one or another ryu, concentrating on them for a time to educate his students. 2002, you tell us, was the “Year of Takagi ryu.” Okay. But ryu are remarkably sophisticated structures, aren’t they? In Amdur’s “Old School” he takes care to explain this: “By now my readers surely understand how much more depth there is within each ryu than mere sequences of techniques.” He goes on to talk about a wide spectrum of behavioral manifestations. He notes too, of the ryu’s “’layered’ pedagogical methods,” that “specific skills must be learned at each stage and only when that stage is mastered is one qualified to comprehend the meanings inherent in the next level of forms.”
Amdur’s definitions here are pretty much in line with what other writers say about the nature of a koryu. That the ryu’s worth is far more than its catalog of techniques seems to be the generally accepted idea. And learning it doesn’t come quickly. Additionally, each ryu is a discrete entity, with its own patron deities, its own ethos, its own way of responding to combative situations and perceptions of strategy. As you observed, the “feel” of one ryu is not at all like another’s.
Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend “a year” teaching a ryu, then moving on to another? He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the “heart” of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore. Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?
If you wish to become a Biblical scholar and begin by studying Introductory Aramaic for a year, then Advanced Hebrew for a year, then a year of Modern Latin, would you be developing a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible’s history and meaning? Or would you just have a mish-mash of disparate information?

Yes, I understand your point about Uyeshiba and Daito ryu. Neither Uyeshiba, nor any of his followers,however, claim to be perpetuating a koryu. He gave every indication of wishing to break with a feudal past, not embrace it. None of his followers today claim to be practising a koryu, unlike some followers of Hatsumi—which is what this thread is all about. Uyeshiba did not claim to be teaching his art exactly as it was taught during the Sengoku jidai, as Hatsumi does. There is a pile of evidence that this is not so; very little, apparently, that he is correct.

Secondly, you note that Hatsumi is teaching as Takamatsu wished and Hatsumi you quote as saying he is “merely carrying out techniques as I was taught them by Takamatsu sensei.” So Takamatsu told Hatsumi to teach one ryu for a year, then go on to another? Or told him what aspects of this ryu to teach and what aspects from that one? Are we to assume Takamatsu left this kind of detail or has Hatsumi told us that this was done?
I think we all understand that Hatsumi appears devoted to transcending technique and being free of the alleged restrictions imposed by kata. We understand that he wishes to impart certain principles that are applicable in any era. This has been discussed at enormous length. I am asking, however, about the validity of claims made that the Bujinkan is a repository of classical koryu. If it is, I am wondering which one and how it is taught in accordance with every other known ryu.

Peter Carlsson
20th April 2004, 21:37
Originally posted by Roger Conant
So, Mr. Carlsson, is it your position that there can be no definition of the Bujinkan vis-à-vis its status as a koryu unless one actually has “firsthand knowledge” of it as a practitioner?

At least, my position is that it can not be defined out of an internet discussion...

There must be some more substance behind such a conclusion than just what can be found on a discussion board on internet.



One does not have to be a member of Katori Shinto ryu, for example, to look at its lineage and records, to observe the training, and to see the structure of the ryu and its conventions, to conclude rationally that it is a classical koryu.

I happen to have a friend who has taken Keppan at Katori Shinto ryu, so I know that it's not that easy as you get it to sound. They are not allowed to disclose anything about the actual training. It requires a lot more research than just a discussion on internet to come to the conclusion about what it is or not, too.




Is the Bujinkan beyond rational objective analysis in a similar way? Again, I am not asking about its effectiveness or the scope of the curriculum.

But the scope of the curriculum is of course one of the most important aspect of determining if it is a koryu or not???



That last comment would apply to Mr. Miller as well. I have no reason to doubt you, Mr. Miller, when you tell me the average Bujinkan practitioner could instantly reproduce the technique, intent, neurological responses, and psychological frame of mind that takes ordinary koryu practitioners years to develop.

But I seriosly doubt it..... :D


What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.

Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu can not be considered koryu by any "standard".
Bujinkan consists of nine traditional schools (koryu), but it's a moderns construction to gather them under the same roof, teach them as a package, to give out kyu and dan grades etc.

Is this a conclusion that you can buy?

BUT, if we start discussing each of the nine different schools, then it's not the same conclusion as above, and here our opinions will most probably vary.


Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?.

All members have not explained that "no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices". Here are one of those points I'm arguing about that you can't take an internet discussion as foundation for an overall conclusion about that.

There are Shihans in Bujinkan in Japan that has received Menkyo Kaiden in separate ryus. It might be that it's not for every general member, but you can't make a conclusion one way or another if you have not done some very serious research first.



I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan? It does not seem fair to the Bujinkan for “spokesmen,” no matter how well intentioned, to be responding to questions like this.

As far as I know, there are noone "licensed" to speak on behalf of Bujinkan as organisation except Hatsumi sensei himself. As far as my own experience, I'm licensed to teach in Bujinkan and has been training in it for almost 20 years...if that's not enough for my opinions, then maybe you should read what Dale Seago has written...

And, you seem to be knowledgeable about what is koryu and not, and also seem to have some knowledge about Bujinkan. It would be interesting to know a little bit more about on what experience you draw from when you make your conclusions?

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

pete lohstroh
21st April 2004, 01:42
You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect. He's probably already done it. And he could do it in a bujutsu 'sorta way.

Mr. Miller,
very idiotic! Why you haven't been spanked harder for this proclamation, I honestly do not know. Thank goodness you and I are not spokesmen, yes?

Mr. Conant,
you asked some interesting, probing questions and got some straight-forward answers from Mr. Seago and Mr. Carlsson. It's a little difficult for me see where your line of questioning is heading since you seem to be arguing from both sides of fence (as it were) on the "koryu" issue.

I agree that it might help if you describe your perspective,as Mr. Carlsson suggested.

Roger Conant
21st April 2004, 01:43
Katori Shinto ryu meets the definition of a koryu in that its pedagogical methods, independently verifiable history, and organizational structure are all consistent with those of other martial koryu. There is no reasonable doubt it qualifies as a koryu and one not need be a member in order for that to be ascertained. The same can be said for Maniwa Nen ryu, Yagyu Shingan ryu, and many others. I am trying to find out if the same can be reliably said of the Bujinkan.
Contrary to your assertion,the scope of curriculum does not seem to figure prominently in the definitions of koryu about which we read from those considered authorities. Instead, it is the age (predating the end of the feudal era in most cases), the legitimacy of the iemoto-type successorship (an independently verifiable past) and the aim of the curriculum (devoted to martial combat during the feudal period) rather than its scope that all seem to be mentioned as the most reliable indices of authenticity.
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions. I do not know how the Bujinkan operates or teaches; that’s why I’m asking.
You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each.
What happens to these ryu when he dies? Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke? All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students. Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these? It is as if Hatsumi is the only one with a card from which to draw books from this koryu library, which he does at his discretion. But the library will collapse upon his death since no one else has access to all of it. Because he has not passed it on.
And please read my earlier posting to Mr. Seago regarding the distinct “personalities” of ryu. You would agree that ryu are more than just techniques, right? They embody, as Amdur has pointed out, a wide range of psychological and behavioral components that have to be incorporated over time. Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?
Thank you.

Peter Carlsson
21st April 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions. I do not know how the Bujinkan operates or teaches; that’s why I’m asking.

Then, is it strange that we react when you start out with "So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?"

In my eyes, you ask the questions with your cup filled up, and have already made up your own answers.


You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each

Yes and no. He draws from the different ryus to teach certain aspects of combat...but, that's one part of the training. If you stay around in Bujinkan for some time, specially if you live and train in Japan, then you will get a more indepth knowledge about the ryus too.


What happens to these ryu when he dies? Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke?

Good question! Next....


All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students. Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these?

I'm quite sure Hatsumi sensei feels the responsibility for maintaining the traditions he inherited from Takamatsu...



And please read my earlier posting to Mr. Seago regarding the distinct “personalities” of ryu. You would agree that ryu are more than just techniques, right? They embody, as Amdur has pointed out, a wide range of psychological and behavioral components that have to be incorporated over time. Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?

The way he has taught the different "themes of the year", Hatsumi has put more focus on the "personalities" of the ryu, than on the physical techniques.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo

DWeidman
21st April 2004, 08:21
Well - I am up and will take a stab at this:


Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions.

First - this is incorrect. You do draw conclusions (look for the phrases, "Presumably" and "...are we to assume"). You then ask questions based on those premises...

Now - on to the questions!


Originally posted by Roger Conant
You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each.
What happens to these ryu when he dies?

I don't understand your question - do you think we have a crystal ball to predict the future? This is something that can't be answered fully. To get a straight answer - you will need to ask him directly (and even then, you probably won't get a straight answer).

I understand that the question is considered rude, however, so you may want to hold off on making the trip to Japan...


Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke?

***If*** he doesn't appoint another Soke(s), it would appear that way... I am not sure about those who hold Menkyo Kaiden in specific Ryu-Ha...


Originally posted by Roger Conant
All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students.

That is quite an assumption. I will explain more at the end of this post...


Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these?

That is an odd question... and probably drives to the heart of this issue with you Roger.


Originally posted by Roger Conant
It is as if Hatsumi is the only one with a card from which to draw books from this koryu library, which he does at his discretion. But the library will collapse upon his death since no one else has access to all of it. Because he has not passed it on.

Says who? Do you KNOW he hasn't passed it on?


Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?
Thank you.

The very start of this conversation you asked some direct questions - and then made assumptions based on the answers. You didn't ask the RIGHT questions to where you are currently headed, in my opinion.

For example - you asked:


Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs?

The answer to this is rather arrogant question is, "No". If ***YOU*** walked into Hatsumi's dojo, and asked him to teach you "Y" ryu - he wouldn't. He has 150,000 people in his organization, and about 1000 instructors under him. He isn't accepting personal students that demand a specific Ryu-Ha (again, this is an assumption on my part - but I am willing to go out on a limb on this one). He is heading into the later years of his career, and I doubt he would suddenly change direction, just for you. The rest of his organization, save a VERY select few dojos - are not licensed to instruct specifically in XXX ryu. So the answer to your question was, and still is, "No".

The question that hold bearing on your assumptions (and subsequently derived statements) is closer to this: You didn't ask if he COULD teach that way or if he HAS taught that way (or IS teaching that way to select few right now). As was mentioned earlier - there are Japanese Shihan who have Menkyo Kaiden in SPECIFIC Ryu-Ha... You would have to ask them for the specifics about what they did to get it, as I don't know...

Dale Seago did bring up an interesting point. There are a few Japanese instructors who hold Menkyo Kaiden in specific ryu-ha (they are the select few dojos mentioned two paragraphs ago) I suspect that if you threw, say, several billion dollars at one of the Shihan who have Menkyo Kaiden, you may get what you are looking for... :)

The Bujinkan in general trains in Budo Taijutsu now. As such - your average practitioner in California (for example) - is not striving to reach Menkyo Kaiden in "Y" ryu. And we don't pretend to.

None of this, however, has any bearing YOUR questions.

Ask Hatsumi Sensei directly if you want better information. I am afraid there are maybe a handful who will have direct answers to your questions - and even fewer who would waste their time with it. (and none of which frequent E-budo...) :)

Dale / Peter / Paul - is this pretty much correct???

-Daniel Weidman

PS. Instead of being PC (like Paul was (Paul - you are a better man than I am)) let me just say:

Robert Miller is an idiot (or, more accurately, his statement was).

Please do NOT assume that your average Bujinkan member could perform Koryu Kata "straight perfect". You are right as to the amount of time it takes to get things like that correct. His ignorant statement is a poor reflection of the organization - most of us are smarter and more sophisticated than that.

poryu
21st April 2004, 10:53
Hi everyone

I think everyone needs to really look at what Peter and Dan have been saying here.

I have met and trained with Peter many times and his knowledge is quite extensive, I havent met Dan yet but he is being very straight with everyone here. Take note of what they have said.

The main reason the Bujinkan has not joined the koryu organisations is because as an organisation the Bujinan it is not a koryu. as it was formed in recent years it is classed as gendai Budo just int he same way as Aikido and Judo are also classed as Gendai Budo. Both stem form koryu arts but they are not Koryu in there own right

The ryu independently may or may not be koryu that is not for us to decide, that is between the soke of any ryu and the Koryu organisations to decided between themselevs, we are not at anytime taken into consideratin when this is discussed.

Yes I will agree with many scholars that the history of some bujinkan ryu is a bit sceptical and not 100% provable, however to take just two Bujinkan ryu - Kukishinden Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, they can within the Bujinkan and outside of the Bujinkan prove that these two are 100% koryu. The history for both is readily available via other none hatsumi/bujinkan sources, and if need be cross referenced with these sources.

Now just because Hatsumi does not choose to teach in the koryu style today, this is his personal choice and we are not even as instructors in a position to quesiton his decision. His postion in the Bujinkan is absolute.

We do know from contact/discusion with many shihan that the original 6 Bujinkan shihan recieved menkyo kaiden in some of the ryu and that a few others after these 6 have recieved menkyo kaiden in some of the arts. Hatsumi has maybe chosen to only grade Japanese to this level, but as no gaijin has come forward and stated they have got MK does not mean that some one has not recieved it (I am not refering here to the amatsu tatara medicine stuff just the 9 ryu). In some Koryu, members just dont talk about what they have recieved, it is a very private matter between the student and the soke.

The way the bujinkan teaches/trains its art is not in the koryu style - that is an absolute statement. I have travelled extrensively in europe and USA training with some of the most senior ranks in the Bujinkan and also with many Japanese teachers some of whom have MK in the different ryu. I have also had the oppotunity to sample some Koryu training. We just dont do it the koryu way. The reason is because we havent been taught the koryu way and have no experience in it (with the exception of a few know who currently also belong to a valid koryu)

However, many instructors that I deal with have looked towards Koryu training and have adopted this into there own training to try and improve there own standards. Personally i like this approach and feel it helps towards understanding each form.

I think a lot of people here are making comments regarding bujinan training when they themselevs have no knowledge of Koryu and maybe even have limited time in the Bujinkan. I know Peter has been around as long as I have not sure about Dan.

So I suppose to summeries what we have tried to say we are

A gendai Budo consisting of koryu

Dale Seago
21st April 2004, 19:33
Originally posted by DWeidman
Dale / Peter / Paul - is this pretty much correct???

Pretty much.

Mr. Conant said earlier,


I am asking, however, about the validity of claims made that the Bujinkan is a repository of classical koryu. If it is, I am wondering which one and how it is taught in accordance with every other known ryu.

I'd take particular issue with the idea that "every other known ryu". I'd accept "most", perhaps; but not every koryu is a member of the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai/Kobudo Shikokai organizations -- and some of those who aren't, if they weren't already accepted as koryu, could have doubts raised about their validity due to their structure and training methods.

Mr. Conant appears to be suggesting that:

a) arts which do not conform to a particular approach to training and transmission of material are not koryu, regardless of their antiquity; and

b) that if the Soke of a koryu art makes changes in the approach to training and transmission, then his art or arts cease at that point to be koryu. Perhaps, perhaps not. Such issues are not at all relevant to me personally.

I know that Hatsumi sensei is passing on everything that he, as Soke of several arts, feels it is important for us to understand, the things that he considers the "vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan"; and I trust his judgment in this regard. I also know that he has passed on the material of various ryuha to some of the Japanese shihan in what Mr. Conant would consider classical koryu fashion. And I'm aware that this material can be learned as such from them. . .provided the one learning it develops the right sort of relationship with the one(s) he wants to learn it from. (Someone just walking in off the street wouldn't have a prayer, nor would a Bujinkan instructor who's never even been to Japan.)

El Guapo-san
21st April 2004, 22:40
Originally posted by Dale Seago
I also know that he has passed on the material of various ryuha to some of the Japanese shihan .... And I'm aware that this material can be learned as such from them. . .provided the one learning it develops the right sort of relationship with the one(s) he wants to learn it from. (Someone just walking in off the street wouldn't have a prayer, nor would a Bujinkan instructor who's never even been to Japan.)

I think that's a highly important thing for people to keep in mind about the Bujinkan. It is very open and modern, but it is also very Japanese. These two currents may seem to oppose each other, but they don't (in what some people might call a Zen kind of way). In my experience, if you know your basic basics enough, then you begin to see the individual flavours of the individual ryu.

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

David Maynard
21st April 2004, 23:12
Hello,

This is an interesting discussion. It is frustrating to read because it appears to be based on false or misguided assumptions from the outset. First of all, trying to define koryu is a real problem. Using the end of the Edo Period is the most common defining characteristic I suppose but I personally find this definition problematic. If you ask around I think you'll find that most academics familiar with this subject will agree that this topic is not so easy to define as some here would like to believe. If Don Draeger had any idea how much gnashing of teeth his definition would ultimately cause he probably would have edited this whole topic from his books out of embarrassment. Why? Many of the schools founded at the end of the samurai era were indeed “old school” in their thinking and philosophy while others clearly were not. This phenomonon exists into today. There are gendai schools formed near the very end of the Edo Period that are like throwbacks to a previous era while there are others founded a bit earlier that are almost totally gendai in how they operate today. So, this black & white definition of koryu or not koryu based on a date is kind of irrelevent. What is relevent is teaching methods, philosophy, organizational elements and the overall "feel" of the ryu. I might also add that change does not necessarily make a ryu “new school” This depends on exactly what changed? Does the change effect the soul of the school? Does it effect that hard to define "feel" that a koryu has? The above is just a simplified example of the criterior one should use when attempting to make such a distinction.

As a longtime student and instructor of classical bujutsu I am well aquainted with this controversy. It is actually a delimma of various shades of gray as opposed to one of black and white. I personally define a school as “old” if it’s teaching methods, psychological approach, philosophy and attitudes reflect those consistent with a different era. By this definition the Bujinkan is most decidedly not “old school”. The extensive issuing of dan ranks, the broad acceptance of students without intense scrutiny and the hodge podge quasi mixied / quasi separateness of the curriculum make the Bujinkan a distinctly modern and eclectic animal when compared to an art most experienced practitioners would define as “old school” This is not a criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a “new school” Some of the gendai arts I am familiar with are impressively effective and valuable in their own right. The freedom afforded these systems has allowed them to adapt to the modern age and foreign cultures in a way impossible for a tradition bound “old school” to do.

So, old school, new school, what’s the big deal. Pick what you think meets your needs. Getting too caught up in such semantics as the word "koryu" doesn’t help one necessarily find what he desires. Only experience and an open mind will be of benefit in such a quest.

Jim_Jude
22nd April 2004, 09:13
Excellent discussion. At this point, I would listen to Dale, he seems the least "charged" over this matter. I also personally value his opinion over anyone else presently involved.
Mr. Maynard, you have an extremely Mature & Realistic attitude concerning this subject. I applaud your... flexibility of mind.
Dale is right on point. A few of the Bujinkan Ryuha are Koryu, or at least branches of Koryu arts. Others are not, or may not, be koryu according to the admission requirements of the Koryu Organizations in Japan, & in my opinion, it is irrelevent. Because they are, or may be, KUDEN.
Sean Askew, who is a Bujinkan Shihan that lived in Japan for years, & has as good a standing & personal relationship with Hatsumi-sensei as I believe possible, presented that fact/opinion a few years ago & it certainly make alot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I can not find his "WE ARE NOT KORYU!" article. So, we will have to settle for the words of Hatsumi-sensei.

http://www.nybujinkan.com/articles/nmn.php

I see the passing on of Kuden as a transmission of Truth, not tradition. We all know that even if you have the densho of a Koryu art, you cannot guarantee you will glean all the secrets from them. They may be, for lack of a better word, coded in a certain way. & Heaven forbid something happen to the densho, such as a fire :)

When oral tradition/Kuden are passed on, sometimes, I'll grant the peanut gallery, some things may be skewed, confused, or just incorrect. But in a martial tradition, often, if someone was that far off, they didn't last long, especially in the Sengoku Jidai. A master of Kuden passes on HIS Truth. "This works". & with Kuden, since it is word-of-mouth from the start... well, lets just say a measure of trust in involved. We may never know. & I don't believe that we will know until the next generation, the children of today's Bujinkan, are still alive & kicking will we know the Truth. Takamatsu-sensei may have documented, for the first time, some of the oldest kuden traditions still in existence. Merely because he saw that some of his wisdom maybe could do some good. & even considering all of this, maybe he had the foresight to see that most budoka would not believe unless they experienced it for themselves, & even then, some would still walk away. As Don Roley put it, some people need an "800-year old security blanket".

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17634&perpage=15&highlight=sean%20askew&pagenumber=2

An aquaintance of mine, Ryuichiro, found out that I trained in "Budo", & wanted to "trade techniques", as he put it. So, we emptied out the kitchen & played. The Kihon Happon & other techniques that I showed him prompted him to purchase Sensei's "What is Budo?" vid. & in Ryuichiro's words to me after watching it,"Hatsumi-soke's technique is absolutely magical! I love it!" Incidently, he's a sandan in Daito-ryu :cool: As one of my translators, Ryuichiro was one of the most exacting & deliberately perfectionistic individuals that I've ever met, & this was one of the first times I'd ever seen him get really excited about anything.

Another of my friends, Mizuho, who had dan ranks in Judo & Kendo, was, in her own words,"frightened" by watching me train at Ayase. She said,"My brother has done kyokushinkai karate for years, I've watched him spar & in tournaments, & I've never been scared watching budo like I was tonight. Hatsumi-sensei's budo is really dangerous! Be careful." Funny, I thought, how many times I've heard that from Sensei himself.

Yes, the Bujinkan could be seen as an amalgam of ryu-ha, Koryu AND Kuden. But the question is, why does Sensei teach the way he does? Why did Takamatsu-sensei teach the way he did? How can they be so different & yet have respected each other so? It's all there.... in the training.

Dave Lowry
22nd April 2004, 19:26
I haven’t a dog in this fight. I take exception, however, to the suggestion that because the definition of a koryu is flexible it is therefore so malleable as to be meaningless—a false premise that often leads to the conclusion that because we cannot say precisely what a koryu is, we are similarly impuissant in determining what one is not. A variation of this threadbare explanation gets hauled up the flagpole almost every time the subject of koryu arises.

A ryu, martial or not, is a distinct kinship cohort sustaining a monopoly in a skill or art and in a particular manner. The ryu is a direct outgrowth of the social arrangement of the ie, the “extended household” of pre-modern Japan. Does not matter whether the ryu is devoted to tea ceremony, ikebana, or No theatre or martial art. The ryu imparts skills through:
a) hereditary leadership exemplified by a central authority
b) a veneration for common ancestors
c) a conformist discipline demanding sublimation of individual goals or interpretations for the overall benefit of the cohort
d) a corpus of lore and rituals transmitted personally to a limited number of members, primarily for the continuation of the group, and secondarily for vitiating it.

All of which results in a unique and distinguishable approach to a skill or art that is successfully transmitted from one generation to the next. It is invariably characteristic of the ryu that its technical aspects are superceded by a complex and sophisticated ethos that affects the member fundamentally on a spectrum of levels: emotional, physio-neurological, philosophical, and intellectual among them.
If you can cite a ryu in any art that does not meet all these qualifications and produce these results, please tell me. And not the vague, tired schtick about how some “old schools have lost their efficacy and some new schools have a ‘definite old feel’ about them.” Yes, I know there are cases of innervated ryu traditions. And cases of abuses of the iemoto/ryu system. I know there are modern systems that attempt, in good faith and with varying degrees of success, to replicate a classical ryu structure. I also know the typical traditional ryu is an extraordinary institution of continuity for preserving and conserving arts, more deserving of respect than the potshots of the equivocating sniper.

The ryu has its own “personality.” That, far more than the catalogue of techniques, is what animates it. The process of inculcating that personality successfully into the individual is an obviously time-consuming and painstaking task and it is a major factor limiting the growth and numbers of a ryu. It is true that some ryu have compromised their pedagogy, i.e., ikebana ryu that have thousands of “members.” In one way or another, however, actual membership and indoctrination into the ryu is signaled by the awarding of licences or other symbols that are directly intended to distinguish those admitted to the ryu from those who may be learning some cursory details of representative technique.
The thought that any one man could embody all these “personalities” by actually having mastered the psychophysical complexities galvanizing multiple ryu is far-fetched, in my opinion. Those who wish to believe it are free, of course, to do so. I do not care, other than to say I would be insulted if my ryu were considered so superficial as to have been completely and competently absorbed, along with half a dozen or more other ryu, by one person. It would be like my saying I can absorb the essence, know all the mysteries and unique aspects of your family—along with those of every other family on your block. And further, that I can transmit significant aspects of all of these to strangers in “seminars” or even if one is willing to make a commitment to coming and learning from me for a few years.

There is also a reasonable objection to the implication that those for whom historical authenticity and an established provenance in an art are somehow misguided or are preoccupied with such matters and need the buttressing of their egos supplied by a grand long lineage. Bulls**t. This is another tattered anti-intellectual quodlibet.
I don’t know what motivates you to do what you do and would not presume to guess. I do know that people are drawn to the classical koryu because they wish to test themselves against some standards of another age, because they come to feel an obligation to preserve an object from the past, and because such preservation can reveal and reflect timeless qualities. If such is their aim, they have every reason to investigate the historical lineage of an art and to satisfy themselves it is being honestly represented.

Dale Seago
22nd April 2004, 20:04
Originally posted by Jim_Jude
A few of the Bujinkan Ryuha are Koryu, or at least branches of Koryu arts. Others are not, or may not, be koryu according to the admission requirements of the Koryu Organizations in Japan, & in my opinion, it is irrelevent. Because they are, or may be, KUDEN.

Again, I personally don't care whether someone wants to think of Hatsumi sensei's budo as koryu, or as gendai budo based on koryu. I do think your comments regarding kuden are germane to this discussion, however.

Some people have made remarks to the effect that there are no scrolls of our various ryuha in existence which predate Takamatsu sensei. That just isn't true. On the other hand, as examples, Gyokko and Koto ryu appear to have been "kuden-only" transmissions until a Soke actually wrote down scrolls for those in the mid-Edo period. I'm not going to go into great detail about this, as I've been asked not to; however, a friend of mine has personally seen those mid-Edo scrolls. The style and usage of language, particular forms of kanji which are no longer in use today, etc., are all consistent with that period. As far as I know no analysis has been done of the paper or the ink used, but I think there's a strong probability that they're genuine.

However, this whole kuden thing also gets back to something Mr. Conant asked earlier:


Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend “a year” teaching a ryu, then moving on to another? He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the “heart” of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore. Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?

I'll take those in reverse order.

"Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?"

I don't have a direct answer, but I can recall an indirect one which Sensei gave my friend/sempai/first Bujinkan teacher Jack Hoban once on a time. Jack had asked how Takamatsu had managed to teach all the wisdom of these nine ryuha to Hatsumi sensei in 15 years. Sensei's response was along the line of, "I can teach you in ten years -- but you have to trust me, do as I say and train the way I tell you to train."

"He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the 'heart' of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore."

It's already been established to death that Sensei, for at least some years now, has not been teaching the entire curriculum of any of the ryuha to the general membership of the Bujinkan. As regards the "heart" of a ryu, it appears we may have a fundamental difference in our understanding of what that means. Clearly, Mr. Conant is using the term to mean "all its traditions and lore". I think it is equally clear that Hatsumi, as Soke of our nine ryuha, regards the "heart" of it all as something other than these things; and as Soke, that is his determination to make.

"Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend 'a year' teaching a ryu, then moving on to another?"

First of all, he doesn't do that, and I never said he did. I said he has been using the ryuha as vehicles for the things he wants to get across to us. And actually, there has been a "larger" sort of progression in his teaching than a mere sequence of annual themes; more reflective, in fact, of the Shoden/Chuden/Okuden (or other comparable terminology depending on the system being discussed) progression of many commonly accepted koryu arts.

Since I began training a bit over twenty years ago, Sensei has "cycled through" various ryuha several times. I thought the Gyokko ryu I learned 17-18 years ago was incredible stuff. Some years later we were going through it again, and I thought, "WOW!! I never knew all this was in there!!" (Not just in terms of previously-unseen densho material, but in terms of the concepts involved.) Then in 2001, here we go again -- now with all sorts of esoteric stuff added (geomantic energies and "tactical Fu Sui", etc.); "new" kamae and how they can be used; "new" waza. . .and the movement and the approach to even "old, familiar" waza were such that a person who had only learned Gyokko ryu on the level I was at 17 or 18 years ago would probably not even have been able to recognize it as the same art.

The same sort of thing applies to the other ryuha as well.

Now, regarding "effectiveness" of transmission. . .Again, I suspect we may have some differing views of what that means. It's been "effective" enough that I and my (currently nanadan) wife have found it invaluable in our professional lives with the company we work for, The Steele Foundation (see article (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SECURITYFIRMS-03-29-04)). Last summer at the final Tai Kai, the last training event at which Sensei will teach outside Japan, I was in charge of security, including his personal detail. My team members, all "Booj" people, included a NYPD detective, a US Marshal, an FBI agent, a Secret Service agent, military veterans of Afghanistan combat, and my wife. . .all people with concerns about effectiveness from a professional standpoint. And I could tell stories of a number of current and former students of mine who feel the training has literally saved their lives.

So from that standpoint, I'd say Hatsumi sensei's transmission is "effective".

It's eerily effective in another sense as well. I make a point of spending time training with Sensei (and some of the shihan) at least twice a year (actually managed three times in the last 8 months), and I also train periodically "between times" with other instructors who go to Japan (or in some cases, non-Japanese who live there and occasionally travel abroad); and a number of my students go over at various times between my own trips and share what they bring back. What I've found over the last several years is that, even with the "themes" or emphases changing each year, I've been able at the beginning of each year to make at least some accurate projections of "where Sensei will be going" in the coming year and begin preparing my students accordingly so they will "have the eyes to see" more of what they're being exposed to. I've literally lost count of the times people returning from Japan have told me things like:

"Remember when you showed us X a couple of weeks before I left? We worked on that while I was there!"

"Hatsumi showed what you just demonstrated the last night I was at Hombu and emphasized the same key points."

"Where'd you get that? Nagato (or in other cases Noguchi) was showing this to us last week!"

Happens all the time: There's just something about "being in the flow" of the training.

And by the way, I have no copies of any densho. I don't even have written notes from any of my own training.

Robert Miller
22nd April 2004, 22:18
I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

El Guapo-san
22nd April 2004, 23:24
Originally posted by Dale Seago

It's eerily effective in another sense as well. I make a point of spending time training with Sensei (and some of the shihan) at least twice a year (actually managed three times in the last 8 months.... What I've found over the last several years is that, even with the "themes" or emphases changing each year, I've been able at the beginning of each year to make at least some accurate projections of "where Sensei will be going" in the coming year and begin preparing my students accordingly so they will "have the eyes to see" more of what they're being exposed to. I've literally lost count of the times people returning from Japan have told me things like:

"Remember when you showed us X a couple of weeks before I left? We worked on that while I was there!"

Happens all the time: There's just something about "being in the flow" of the training.


Yup, that's what I found a couple of years ago learning from one of the European shihans and then going to Japan. There was a similar "thread" running through things. Haven't been anle to make it to too many seminars or regular classes out in Appeldoorn so far this year, so I'll be flying a little bit blind when I'm in Japan next month. (Going first to visit the family and then do a little bit of training on the side.)

As for the koryu question, I'll hazard an answer with a question. -> Unmon said "Look! This world is vast and wide. Why do you put on your priest's robe at the sound of a bell?"

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

poryu
23rd April 2004, 07:24
Hi


Originally posted by Robert Miller
I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

a damned sight quicker than you could that I can make a humourous guess at

DWeidman
23rd April 2004, 07:58
Originally posted by Robert Miller
I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

It seems they knew EXACTLY what you were trying to get at.

Robert - Shut your pie hole. You are still an idiot, and you are embarrassing us.

Just take your whipping for opening your mouth out of order and go to your room (take it like a man).

-Daniel Weidman

PS - Nice post Dale.

Peter Carlsson
23rd April 2004, 08:44
Originally posted by Dave Lowry
I haven’t a dog in this fight.

I have no axe to grind with you, neither a dog, about what you wrote, since your experience are way way ahead of mine in this matter...but I have a few questions....


The thought that any one man could embody all these “personalities” by actually having mastered the psychophysical complexities galvanizing multiple ryu is far-fetched, in my opinion. Those who wish to believe it are free, of course, to do so. I do not care, other than to say I would be insulted if my ryu were considered so superficial as to have been completely and competently absorbed, along with half a dozen or more other ryu, by one person. It would be like my saying I can absorb the essence, know all the mysteries and unique aspects of your family—along with those of every other family on your block. And further, that I can transmit significant aspects of all of these to strangers in “seminars” or even if one is willing to make a commitment to coming and learning from me for a few years.

The text above triggers my curiosity on your point of view on some matters. I know that there are more "ryu-collectors" in Japan than Hatsumi sensei of Bujinkan, but since I have my experience from Bujinkan I'll take my examples from there.

In short, according to what we know today in Bujinkan, Hatsumi inherited nine ryu from Takamatsu. He had previosly experience in other koryu, Asayama Ichiden ryu, Bokuden ryu and others, but he does not claim any title or anything like that from those teachers he had before Takamatsu. Takamatsu, in his turn, inherited six of the ryus from one teacher (Toda), three from another teacher (Ishitani), and one ryu from (whom I always forget the name of).

When it comes from the six ryu from Toda, there seem to be a lot of historical connections, developed out of eachother, passed along together etc. Same with two of the ryu from Ishitani (kukishin ryu and Takagi ryu).

That was the bakground I wanted to set up for my little question....

Now, what I wonder is, as you described it, a ryu has its own personality, and I certainly agree on that, but, how much do you think the personality of the ryu depends on the soke?

How much will the ryu change each generation because of the flavour put on it by the inheritor? For example, are actually Kukishin ryu and Takagi ryu inherited from the same teacher, two different ryu, or are they maybe two sides of Ishitani-flavoured methods? And then in next generation, when Takamatsu passes them on to Hatsumi sensei, are they more like Takamatsu-flavoured methods, then with the additions of another bunch of ryus?

Because, then the, no I would not say degeneration, but the change of the flow and personalities of the traditions have started way before today. In that case, how many ryus in Japan are there that have been passed along during history, without being affected by interactions with other ryus, and in some way or another have had a "personality-change"?

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

El Guapo-san
23rd April 2004, 13:32
I may not have a dog in this fight either, but I have a kitty!


http://doragon2002.hp.infoseek.co.jp/nyanmage.jpg

(Nyanmage)

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

Dale Seago
23rd April 2004, 14:31
Originally posted by Dale Seago
And by the way, I have no copies of any densho. I don't even have written notes from any of my own training.

That was perhaps misleading. It's not that I don't have any reference materials whatever, just that they're in electronic audio/visual form. I do have videos out the wazoo, both commercially available stuff and otherwise. . .

Dave Lowry
23rd April 2004, 15:57
Mr. Carlsson,
Not only do I not have a dog entered in this contest, I have little to gain and a lot to lose by incurring the enmity of those in the Bujinkan and other related groups. Given the current dismal record of my beloved Georgetown Cricket Club, I have sufficient grief in my life right now. Further, the answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson, is not simple.
As succinctly as possible and as politic as I am able:

Mr. Hatsumi is a man of enormous charisma. His personality is an essential adhesive for the Bujinkan. This is quite characteristic of a modern budo. Tohei K. has done it for his faction of aikido; Nakayama M. did it for the JKA, which collapsed immediately after his death. Gogen Yamaguchi and Oyama M. are other good examples. Less recently, figures like Yamaoka Tesshu inspired deep loyalty at a time when martial activity was moving into a post-feudal era. An argument could be made, in fact, that this transition, from fealty to the group to a more individualised sense of loyalty to a person, was a significant hallmark in the evolution of modern budo.

From a classical perspective, however, the loyalty and commitment was (is) always to the group. As I noted, the ryu is a direct fruition of the concept of the ie (household) that was the basic kinship group in pre-modern Japan. The iemoto (literally the “source” of the “ie”) is an embodiment of the group’s common ancestry. But loyalty to him and recognition of his authority is almost entirely an expression of loyalty and submission to the authority of the lineage of the group. Big difference. If you are a judoka and think about your “ancestors,” you think of Kano. After that, it is fuzzy. In part, that’s because judo is a modern budo. Similarly, while Bujinkan websites display multi-generational keizu or lineages of the different koryu of which they are putatively derived, I don’t think any members have a connexion back directly to those people. Their loyalty is to Mr. Hatsumi. This is not a criticism; only an observation that in this fundamental distinction and as readily acknowledged by some contributors here, the Bujinkan reflects a modern sensibility.
Oh, but, but, but!! We’re derived, you see, from these koryu. No, you’re not. You may have some techniques, a lot of them. You may have some strategies. And those may be precisely exactly what you want and need and they may make the Bujinkan the greatest budo organisation ever developed. But you lack the sense of common ancestry that is essential to the classical ryu that allows that specific ryu to continue. It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.” The Bujinkan, through the extraordinarily talented Mr. Hatsumi, has dipped buckets in different ryu, perhaps, allowing members to drink from these streams. They are not, however, swimming in any of those streams. Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth. I am just explaining that from an ethnological perspective, the ryu has characteristics beyond the scope of modern budo training as conducted by groups like the Bujinkan and many other worthwhile groups.

In a more specific answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson,
Aside from Gewurztraminer and spaetzle, the principal Germanic contribution to civilisation has been the word “umvelt.” If you don’t know it, umvelt refers to the particular “world-view” or cognition of an individual or a species. Our perception shapes, in large degree, our world and certainly our reaction to the world around us. A fundamental goal of the ryu—and this is completely missed by those on the outside of the ryu—is to formulate a more or less specific umvelt in the member. It isn’t brainwashing. It is rather a method to organise perception and reaction on a neurological and psychological level sufficient to accomplish the acquisition and perfection of skills monopolized by the ryu. In some ways, a Takeuchi ryu exponent, well-trained, “sees” not only combat but life itself, in subtly or dramatically different ways than a member of the Tatsumi ryu. The Ikenobo ryu flower arranger (kadoka) sees a distinctly different potential in a container and flowers than an Ohara ryu kadoka does. They come at it from different perspectives.
It isn’t just a matter of, well the Takeuchi guy would go for a joint lock here while the Tatsumi ryu fellow would employ a strike. No. The Takeuchi guy venerates different ancestors, has a different—or at least in some ways distinctive—umvelt about conflict and life in general.

It is true that a ryu’s unique perspective, the corporate umvelt of it, can be leached away when it is subsumed in some way. Certainly this has happened with the Shijo ryu of etiquette, which has been almost entirely assimilated by the Ogasawara ryu. All that remains identifiable of Shijo ryu are the kata for cutting food in the kitchen and a method of hakama sabaki and a few other extraneous waza. There are still ceremonies conducted, rituals of Shijo ryu. But it really cannot be considered an extant ryu. It has been virtually absorbed by the Ogasawara ryu.
There are martial ryu like this. So it is possible the koryu named by the Bujinkan as among their formulative inspiration were all similarly denatured in one way or another, leaving the husk of technique but no underlying vitiation. In that case, I suppose the “headmaster” who inherited them could impose his own personality on them. But that would undermine seriously the contention by some of the more strident members of Bujinkan who insist that each of these ryu are separate and distinctive, wouldn’t it?

It is also true that an inheritor can seem to work some alterations that would modify the collective umvelt of the ryu, based upon, as you suggest, his own personality. This, however, is almost always a case where it is just that, a modification and not a fundamental change in perception.
Lots of people made a big deal out of how the fifth headmaster of Urasenke ryu tea, Joso Fukyusai (1673-1704) had worked radical changes into the aesthetics of that ryu. He used vermillion lacquerware and added a different kind of candle holder, and it was supposedly because of his dramatic personality during the flashy disco days of the Genroku period. But there is a famous dialogue recorded with Itto Yugensai (1719-71), the eighth headmaster, in which he explained and demonstrated how Joso’s “changes” were exactly in line with the aesthetics of the founder, Sen no Rikyu. I don’t think it has been translated, but it is a forceful and convincing argument that the original umvelt of Rikyu’s was transmitted to Joso and it was that perception Joso was faithfully and authentically maintaining.

A basic, though difficult to describe reason why the personality of the individual headmaster does not significantly alter the umvelt of the ryu is because of the restrictive and conformist process of the ryu’s training.
There are a lot of arrogant jackasses out there who think that a ryu is just a collection of techniques. That’s why they make ridiculous arguments for ryu “sharing” their stuff to the uninitiated. Hey, you show me the okuden (inner teachngs) from your ryu and we’ll see how it compares to mine. They don’t get it. The techniques of the ryu are only a manifestation of its underlying collective perceptions. The ryu is remarkably constructed. Viewed from the inside, one begins to see the complexity of organisation. Rituals and traditions, the arrangement of the kata, the steps in teaching them, the etiquette; these are all aimed at producing a comprehensive umvelt. Note that one of the definitions I used for a ryu was the veneration of common ancestors. This is enormously, enormously critical in any classical ryu. And it plays an intimate role in shaping the umwelt. By the time a person has reached the level necessary for receiving the headmastery, he has been shaped, literally and figuratively, by the ryu. It is extremely intense and very much isshin-denshin—direct transmission from teacher to student. I am not, Mr. Carlsson, trying to adopt a “I been there and you haven’t” tone. I am trying to explain how unusual and defining is the nature of training in a classical ryu. To be sure, the personality of the headmaster will have some influence on the ryu while he is in charge. Vastly more influential will have been the collective umvelt of the ryu on him, which is probably a major reason for the continued existence of the ryu itself.

Probably the windiest answer ever given to a question posed on e-budo and even more probably it will be met by an emeute of outrage from those who wish to believe their Bujinkan teacher is a direct descendant of Amaterasu, and further denunciations of me as the ne plus ultra of “koryu snobbery.” But it is the truth.

Cordially & With Malice Towards None,

Arman
23rd April 2004, 18:10
Dear Mr. Lowry,

My question has a lot to do with your posts on this thread, but nothing at all to do with ninjitsu/bujinkan/genbukan/ninpo, etc., etc. If my question picks up a commentary, I can move it. If not, it can just wither on the vine.

Perhaps you are acquainted with Ellis Amdur's article in Keiko Shokan, "Renovation and Innovation in Tradition" ? In that fine essay, Mr. Amdur makes an interesting comment regarding the primary, or fundamental, purpose of a traditional ryu. He writes,

"I believe that the sword [in martial ryu curriculum], to some degree, served a symbolic purpose. . .its larger value was in the creation and maintenance of the bushi themselves as a ruling class."

IOW, the ryu's principal purpose was not found in the transmission of combative techniques, but rather in the maintenance of a ruling class: i.e. politics.

Now, perhaps I'm putting more emphasis and analysis on this comment than it was intended to sustain. My question, however, is whether or not you would tend to agree that the fundamental teleology of a ryu was politics [in an inter-social scheme, i.e. politics focused outside the ryu] or combative efficacy? Both certainly were elements of the organic clan. But do you think that over time the political character of a martial ryu took precendence over the "professional," psychological/neurological training?

It's something I've been chewing over, and I've corresponded briefly with Mr. Amdur about it. Just wanted to get some other "koryu snobs" opinion on the matter, and since you may very well be the ne plus ultra of said snobbery [ :) ], was wondering what you thought.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

Dave Lowry
23rd April 2004, 21:47
Dear Mr. Partamian,
Yes. While that was not their purpose, a component of the ryu’s function was political. Japan, historically, was marked by a near-constant struggle for political power and for a legitimacy of authority. (Two motivations abundantly to be seen in present-day Japanese budo organisations.)
Martial ryu played a role in that struggle. In some cases, the ryu was directly involved; in most, it was indirect. That is, if my ryu prospers or gains a reputation, it is reflected in the prestige or power of my daimyo or my fief or han. And that comes back to me in financial or political rewards. For obvious reasons, martial ryu were big players in this game. But tea ceremony ryu and even the ryu for No theatre were often hip-deep in politics. It might be a bit extreme to say that their role as political devices was primary. It was, though, a factor.
That is why it is so ludicrous to hear of “secret ryu.” A secret ryu would have been politically powerless since nobody knew of it. Its members, provided it was technically strong enough, might have benefited from success in war. But nobody fought that much or that often. The ryu had to maintain its viability other than on the battlefield. That viability was, in part, usually achieved in one way or another, through the acquisition of social or political power—which in feudal Japan were pretty much synonymous.

Cordially,

Arman
24th April 2004, 03:23
Mr. Lowry,

Thanks for your response to my question. Very interesting. I suppose the difference between your position and Mr. Amdur's is one of degree. The political factor raises so many interesting questions regarding traditional ryu that so often get ignored in our common discourse on the matter.

Thanks again, and I do appreciate your time in replying.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

mheiler
25th April 2004, 15:14
Originally posted by Dave Lowry - Edited for content

From a classical perspective, however, the loyalty and commitment was (is) always to the group. As I noted, the ryu is a direct fruition of the concept of the ie (household) that was the basic kinship group in pre-modern Japan. The iemoto (literally the “source” of the “ie”) is an embodiment of the group’s common ancestry. But loyalty to him and recognition of his authority is almost entirely an expression of loyalty and submission to the authority of the lineage of the group.

It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.”

If you don’t know it, umvelt refers to the particular “world-view” or cognition of an individual or a species. Our perception shapes, in large degree, our world and certainly our reaction to the world around us. A fundamental goal of the ryu—and this is completely missed by those on the outside of the ryu—is to formulate a more or less specific umvelt in the member. It isn’t brainwashing. It is rather a method to organise perception and reaction on a neurological and psychological level sufficient to accomplish the acquisition and perfection of skills monopolized by the ryu.

It is also true that an inheritor can seem to work some alterations that would modify the collective umvelt of the ryu, based upon, as you suggest, his own personality. This, however, is almost always a case where it is just that, a modification and not a fundamental change in perception.

A basic, though difficult to describe reason why the personality of the individual headmaster does not significantly alter the umvelt of the ryu is because of the restrictive and conformist process of the ryu’s training.

Rituals and traditions, the arrangement of the kata, the steps in teaching them, the etiquette; these are all aimed at producing a comprehensive umvelt. Note that one of the definitions I used for a ryu was the veneration of common ancestors. This is enormously, enormously critical in any classical ryu. And it plays an intimate role in shaping the umwelt. By the time a person has reached the level necessary for receiving the headmastery, he has been shaped, literally and figuratively, by the ryu. It is extremely intense and very much isshin-denshin—direct transmission from teacher to student.



Hmmm. It seems that you could just as easily be describing aikido with these statements.

chrismoses
25th April 2004, 17:41
Aikido loves to portray itself as a very "classical" style more akin to the older traditions than say Karate or Judo. This view is held only by those without experience in the kind of arts that Dave was talking about. One need only look at the extreme variation between techniques, syllabi and intent of the myriad of factions and styles of Aikido to see the analogy fall completely apart. If for no other reason, the sheer number of students, teachers and dojos preclude its consideration as even koryu like. It simply isn't so.

mheiler
25th April 2004, 18:49
Originally posted by chrismoses
Aikido loves to portray itself as a very "classical" style more akin to the older traditions than say Karate or Judo. This view is held only by those without experience in the kind of arts that Dave was talking about. One need only look at the extreme variation between techniques, syllabi and intent of the myriad of factions and styles of Aikido to see the analogy fall completely apart. If for no other reason, the sheer number of students, teachers and dojos preclude its consideration as even koryu like. It simply isn't so.

My point was not that aikido is koryu, or anything like koryu, but rather that Mr. Lowry's statements do not adequately differentiate koryu from modern budo.

David Maynard
25th April 2004, 20:07
Hello,

I have followed this thread with interest. The post's by Mr Lowry are a detailed explaination of the points I attempted to make in a much more simple fashon in my earlier post. I'm not sure if we totally agree or if we just disagree on some of the fine print but for the most part I completely agree with his presentation here. However, judging from an e-mail recieved from a 3rd party, it is obvious that at least one person has totally misunderstood my position and seems to believe that I do not make a real distinction between koryu and gendai traditions. I will attempt to clarify this.

At the end of the Edo Period the changes to Japanese society were both drastic and subtle. Likewise these changes affected budo traditions in uneven and hard to generalize ways. The tradition I have devoted more than half my lifetime to studying (Shindo Yoshin ryu, not to be confused with older Shin Yoshin ryu) was founded at this critical juncture in time between the feudal & modern era in Japan. As such it presents challenges when defined as koryu or gendai. It lives in that gray area between. Most people familiar with koryu find it recognizable as such. It embodies many but not all of the defining characteristics liad out by Mr Lowry in his excellent post. Does that make it koryu? Sort of, but it still lives in this gray area between. In Japan Shindo Yoshin ryu is definitely defined as a koryo purely based on its founding in 1864. But as both me and Mr Lowry pointed out, that kind of simplistic definition can be inadequate. Several arts I am familiar with founded long before the beginning of Japan's modern era have adopted aspects of modern budo that we in the Shindo Yoshi Kai have strictly escewed. The issuing of dan, rankings, the lack of issuing keppan's, etc.... Adopting aspects of modern budo like these make me ask, " Is an art still really koryu if it adopts modern aspects that seem to alter the deeper the spiritor character of the ryu?

I guess that's a question for the academics to ponder but I think such consideration is pertinent to the discussion here. In my opinon whether or not some of the arts practised in the Bujinkan are koryu, the Bujinkan itself is not. It just doesn't act, feel or behave like a koryu. Most of the characteristics I have come to assiciate with koryu are simply absent in the Bujinkan.

I must say this again. My opinion is not a criticism but just an observation. There is nothing wrong with gendai traditions and my conclusion is not based on effectiveness or value. It simply has to do with a difference in history, feel, structure and perspective.

Respectfully,

Okashira
25th April 2004, 21:53
Originally posted by Robert Miller
Bujinkan dojos use the methodology of the organization's head, Masaaki Hatsumi. Hatsumi doesn't jive with koryu...
I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though. Besides, there aren't any menkyo kaiden who aren't Japanese in the Bujinkan, so I think you're out'ta luck. You might try Genbukan Ninpo, as I believe they train within the ryu-ha.

Actually,
There are european Bujinkan instructors that have Menkyo Kaiden, Arnaud from France is one of them, and I think Fleitas from Spain as well.

Nikos Kalantzis

poryu
25th April 2004, 21:55
HI


Originally posted by Okashira
Actually,
There are european Bujinkan instructors that have Menkyo Kaiden, Arnaud from France is one of them, and I think Fleitas from Spain as well.

Nikos Kalantzis

those are bujinkan ranks not menkyo kaiden in the individual ryu they are different ranks

chrismoses
25th April 2004, 22:01
Originally posted by mheiler
My point was not that aikido is koryu, or anything like koryu, but rather that Mr. Lowry's statements do not adequately differentiate koryu from modern budo.

Appologies for misunderstanding the true point to your post. I would only say that while I can imagine an Aikido practitioner seeing their art in what Dave wrote, I cannot imagine a koryu practitioner also seeing how Aikido can fit into the description that you quoted.

Peter Carlsson
25th April 2004, 22:57
Originally posted by Dave Lowry
Mr. Carlsson,
Not only do I not have a dog entered in this contest, I have little to gain and a lot to lose by incurring the enmity of those in the Bujinkan and other related groups. Given the current dismal record of my beloved Georgetown Cricket Club, I have sufficient grief in my life right now. Further, the answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson, is not simple.
As succinctly as possible and as politic as I am able:

First, I'm sorry not to have replied to your eloquent post before, but I've been away to a seminar during the weekend. Also, please accept my deepest sympathy for your grief over your Cricket Clubs results.

I'm very grateful for your response, and do very much appreciate your straight response, even if the question in itself is not easy to deal with.

But I have to start to make a comment over the last paragraph in your post:



Probably the windiest answer ever given to a question posed on e-budo and even more probably it will be met by an emeute of outrage from those who wish to believe their Bujinkan teacher is a direct descendant of Amaterasu, and further denunciations of me as the ne plus ultra of “koryu snobbery.” But it is the truth.

I certainly hope that there will be no outrage from any Bujinkan-practitioner, because it may be that we have a disagreement in our beliefs, but lack of respect towards another practitioner of the martial ways, are not included in the curriculum of Bujinkan.

If we start with an overall comment about the content of your post, I do not disagree with anything that you wrote about the characteristic of what a koryu are and not. Firstly, I don't have the experience to argue about that, and secondly I believe in what you have written.


Similarly, while Bujinkan websites display multi-generational keizu or lineages of the different koryu of which they are putatively derived, I don’t think any members have a connexion back directly to those people. Their loyalty is to Mr. Hatsumi. This is not a criticism; only an observation that in this fundamental distinction and as readily acknowledged by some contributors here, the Bujinkan reflects a modern sensibility.

Most probably, for the major part of Bujinkan, you are right. No question about it. However, there are still a bunch of people, i.e. Hatsumi senseis first generation of students, who have met Takamatsu, and most probably also feel a connection back to that. Further back, no I don't think so.



Oh, but, but, but!! We’re derived, you see, from these koryu. No, you’re not. You may have some techniques, a lot of them. You may have some strategies. And those may be precisely exactly what you want and need and they may make the Bujinkan the greatest budo organisation ever developed. But you lack the sense of common ancestry that is essential to the classical ryu that allows that specific ryu to continue. It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.” The Bujinkan, through the extraordinarily talented Mr. Hatsumi, has dipped buckets in different ryu, perhaps, allowing members to drink from these streams. They are not, however, swimming in any of those streams. Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth. I am just explaining that from an ethnological perspective, the ryu has characteristics beyond the scope of modern budo training as conducted by groups like the Bujinkan and many other worthwhile groups.

I agree with you, and MAYBE I disagree with you...

First, I think the question parts into two here. One is what Bujinkan members get part of and not, and second, what are the stream(s) that Hatsumi sensei "guards".

If we take the first question first. For the major part of Bujinkan, yes, you are straight on. Hatsumi sensei has let us get the taste of the streams, sometimes a trinkle, sometimes a bathtub or two, but you are right. None of us ordinary Bujinkan members are swimming in it. We may in many instances believe we do, but from an outsiders perspective, specially from someone involved in koryu the traditional way, we are just dipping our big toe.

And now to some speculation from my side....

Sometimes I get the feeling that there are an Omote and Ura side to the Bujinkan. I certainly belong to the outside, therefore, this is only speculation out of some indications I sometimes believe I see....and as you can see of my wording, it's very vague...but, I get the feeling of that a small part of those training on a very high level in Bujinkan, could be said, belong to an Ura side of the Bujinkan. There are, what I belive to be some signs that they more and more take part in a transferation of something more than just techniques and strategies.

I just came from a seminar with the one instructor, who I've been training the most with in Bujinkan, and he belongs to those training on what I would call high level. I trained extensively with him during a couple of years, and then he moved to Holland, so now I see him more seldom. But maybe that's an advantage sometimes, because it's easier to see change. And sometimes, I discern more changes than can be understood just by new techniques or strategies, more like he was moulded in a "new" way. I've also seen examples of what Dale wrote about that they are on the same track as Hatsumi sensei, without having visited Japan etc.

It maybe that this is not in the lines of the shaping according to what is done in traditional koryu, but I don't dare to say it's not either. There are some moulding going on on higher levels in the Bujinkan, that's for certain....

Now we come to the other part of the question....What are the stream(s) or ryu of Bujinkan?

I follow everything you have written about the nature of ryu in your post, and I accept it as fact and will not argue about that. The question then is, what is Bujinkan, or rather what are Bujinkan built on...

That Bujinkan as an organisation is a modern construction, that I think we can agree on. But I also recall a discussion with one instructor who lives and train in Japan, during a seminar last year. He told us about how Hatsumi sensei had talked about that he (Hatsumi sensei) was only a connection for the flow of traditions. He sees himself as totally "re-made" during his training with Takamatsu, and that his task is to provide a "pipe-line" and passing on the flow of traditions he received from Takamatsu toward next generation.

If he is only passing on what he feels as the traditions as he received them, then the fault of "diminishing" the traditional ryus lies behind him and he cannot be blamed for that...maybe the inner circle of Bujinkan are then training in Takamatsu ryu? Not bad that either, but of course not as intriguing as nine ryu where some claim 800 year old ancestry...

As far as I know, Takamatsu has at least been acknowledged as the one who restored Kukishin ryu to the Kuki family, and as a master of Takagi ryu as well, so some flow from old times should have been transferred, but maybe not in the way koryu normally are transferred...or maybe it has?!?

And maybe Bujinkan as an organisation is the vehicle Hatsumi sensei uses to find those able to receive the flow for next generation...who knows?



But that would undermine seriously the contention by some of the more strident members of Bujinkan who insist that each of these ryu are separate and distinctive, wouldn’t it?

And this does not bother me the least. Not much about the ryus in Bujinkan have been verified as "truth". As long as this has not happened, I think the best thing is to acknowledge that we (the Bujinkan) live in one world, and that is not necessarily the same as your world.


There are a lot of arrogant jackasses out there who think that a ryu is just a collection of techniques.

Some japanese too, I think....I have seen other examples than Hatsumi sensei with a lot more ryus under their name than only one or two.



I am not, Mr. Carlsson, trying to adopt a “I been there and you haven’t” tone. I am trying to explain how unusual and defining is the nature of training in a classical ryu. To be sure, the personality of the headmaster will have some influence on the ryu while he is in charge. Vastly more influential will have been the collective umvelt of the ryu on him, which is probably a major reason for the continued existence of the ryu itself.

You have certainly been there more than I have, and I bow to your effort to share your wisdom. It has been a pleasure to read your post, because it's always good to get another (outside) point of view
on something you are involved in....helps to keep the feet on the ground. Once again, thank you for your input.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

ps. and it's a long time since I studied the german language, but I think the word umvelt is translated to omvärld in swedish....

pete lohstroh
26th April 2004, 01:54
I realize I am not adding anything to the discussion but I really wanted to thank Mr. Lowry and Mr. Carlsson for the interesting posts.

I am sure this will come up again and again.

mheiler
26th April 2004, 04:04
Originally posted by chrismoses
Appologies for misunderstanding the true point to your post. I would only say that while I can imagine an Aikido practitioner seeing their art in what Dave wrote, I cannot imagine a koryu practitioner also seeing how Aikido can fit into the description that you quoted.

Actually, I don't practice aikido, but do practice koryu (mugai-ryu).

Earl Hartman
26th April 2004, 21:22
Dave:

Just thought that I would say, concerning Gewurtztraminer and spaetzle, that while things Teutonic have come into some disprepute as a result of the, ah, European unpleasantness of the late 30s to mid-40s of the last century, that Gewurtztraminer, while fit for certain situations, perhaps, can't hold a candle to a good Reisling. If you would care to specify the circumstances in which you believe Gewurtztraminer deserves such particular consideraton, I will consider revising my opinion. An excellent aperitif or desert wine, perhaps, but I can't imagine trying to have it with dinner.

Also, a few other halfway decent examples of Germainc kultur, just off the top of my head:

Bavarian beer

Saurbraten

Shinkenflecken

Veal schnitzel

Elke Sommer

I'm sure there are others.

ghp
2nd May 2004, 07:49
EARL!!!! You surprise me more and more. You forgot to insist the Riesling be an Auslese or Eiswein!

Shame on you!

I shall drink no wine of lesser quality than Auslese! ....But, if only a Spaetlese is available ..... oh, decisions, decisions, decisions.

And the Bayerisch bier must be Weitzen (at least for me now that I'm an old man).

Oh ..... :D yes, Elke is some dish! :o

Spaeter, Gator
Guy

Earl Hartman
3rd May 2004, 20:51
Well, Guy, I am not a big fan of sweet wines in general, and sweet white wine, in particular. Unless its an aperitif or a desert wine, I like my whites light, dry and crisp and easy to drink, like a Sauvignon Blanc or a Pinot Grigio. I have never developed a taste for Chardonnay. Too fruity and perfumy.

This is probably bceause I have long felt that the first duty of a wine is to be red. Since Germany makes little if any red wine, I never paid that much attention. Over the years I have shed this prejudice little by little and have come to appreciate white wine to a certain degree.

I have heard the legends of the spatlese, auslese, beerenauslese, and, the pinnacle of pinnacles, the trockenbeerenauslese German whites. Perhaps someday I will try some.

BTW, what wine would you recommend to go with a plump, mature, Elke Sommer?
:D

Dave Lowry
3rd May 2004, 22:52
Dear Mr. Hartman, et alia,

Please meet me in the Food thread, lest this one become even more fizziparous than it is already.

Mark Barlow
6th May 2004, 16:02
I remember when the ninja craze began in the late 70s/early 80s and everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) not involved with it thought it was hilarious. Stephan Hayes and the black outfits, throwing stars and techniques to climb castle walls...it looked like the Trekkies had finally found an activity to get them out of their mom's basement. 25 years later and the assasin/spy connection is pushed into the dark corner of the dojo and the Ninjas (who often resent being called Ninja) are a major force in the martial arts world. Who'd a thunk it?

The few ninja/ninpo/taijutsu instructors I'm acquainted with are sincere and dedicated. I've had several attend Camps I've hosted and they interact and train as well as any other style and better than some. Is Hatsumi all he claims to be? Don't know, don't care. I'll deal with each individual ninja on their own merits and let them worry about their internal history/mythology.

I have enjoyed Dave Lowry's posts and the fact that he has the tsurigane to use impuissant on this board. We're fortunate that we have someone with his scope of knowledge participating.

Mark Barlow

MikeWilliams
6th May 2004, 16:40
Originally posted by Mark Barlow
everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) not involved with it thought it was hilarious.

Some of us still do. :D

Dale Seago
6th May 2004, 17:30
Originally posted by MikeWilliams
Some of us still do. :D

Yup. Even some of us in the Bujinkan. :p

Mark Barlow
8th May 2004, 23:10
I met Stephen Hayes at his old dojo before the Ninja stuff really caught on. During a visit to Atlanta, I saw the sign for THE HOUSE OF T'ANG in Decatur and couldn't resist pulling in. Hayes was just back from Japan and promoting or pimping (depending on your viewpoint) Togakure Ryu and touting the developement of "sixth sense" and the ability to become invisible. If you don't believe me, I've still got the brochure he gave me.

To be honest, at that time, Ninjutsu looked amazingly like TKD with bad falls and ineffective grappling. When the craze hit, I kept waiting for the punchline as I knew it had to be a joke. I think the change in techniques and focus has come about because people with experience in other styles and systems liked the concept of Ninjutsu and joined. Bringing their ability and viewpoint, they changed Ninjutsu from the "inside". Now there are a great deal more folks looking for Ninjutsu than there are Japanese Jujutsu and I sure as hell never made the kind of money teaching that Hayes did. Maybe I laughed too soon.

Still, I can't help smiling when I see those outfits.

Mark Barlow

Juan Perez
9th May 2004, 00:58
Originally posted by Dave Lowry
I haven’t a dog in this fight. I take exception, however, to the suggestion that because the definition of a koryu is flexible it is therefore so malleable as to be meaningless—a false premise that often leads to the conclusion that because we cannot say precisely what a koryu is, we are similarly impuissant in determining what one is not...

... If such is their aim, they have every reason to investigate the historical lineage of an art and to satisfy themselves it is being honestly represented.

Best point I've seen made on this issue by someone who lives and breathes koryu.

Rei Ho
12th May 2004, 23:54
All I can say is, close to 4 thousand views? Man, I thought you ninja were suppose to have 3 wives, live in 2 states, have 4 occupations. How do you have time to post on E-Budo? LOL!!! Just kiddin Ningers.
:laugh: Tracy Crocker

brennan13
12th November 2004, 10:01
Let me preface this post by saying straight out I am a Bujinkan (aka Ninjutsu) practitioner.

I have long been annoyed by the way this great art has been maligned and ridiculed by both the koryu people and some modern stylists.

I would like to know something:

There are two schools with dodgy histories that are recognised as koryu by the associations in Japan and by koryu.com and yet Togakure Ryu (and other Bujinkan ryu-ha) are not. Why?

1) DAITO RYU AIKIJUJUTSU

As far as I am aware, Daito Ryu has no more solid claim to koryu-hood than Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu.

Both arts claim to be over 30 generations old, dating back to the 1100s, yet apparently neither has adequate documentation or external verification that goes back further than the late 1800s or early 1900s.

So if people accuse Hatsumi Sensei or Takamatsu Sensei of inventing Togakure Ryu, why do they also not say that Sokaku Takeda invented Daito Ryu in the Meiji era and refuse to recognise it as koryu? Why is it so hard to accept Hatsumi Sensei as 34th head, but it's ok to agree that Sokaku Takeda was the 35th head of his art?

Daito Ryu also has some holes in its lineage and I find the lack of virtually any weaponry techniques a tad suspicious for a koryu art. Hatsumi Sensei teaches many many weapons in the Bujinkan.

2) KASHIMA SHIN RYU

One of the more infamous critics of the Togakure Ryu and Bujinkan schools has been Professor Karl Friday of the Kashima Shin Ryu.

I was under the impression, therefore, that his own system would be above reproach with regards to koryu status.

However, I was surprised to learn that there is some pretty fishy stuff with that history. Firstly, I believe that the previous headmaster, Kunii Zenya, was known to have "restored" the school even though it is reuted to be hundreds of years old. This "restored" can probably be read as reconstructed or even invented - precisely the things that Takamatsu Sensei and Hatsumi Sensei are accused of.
Logs and eyes anyone?

Secondly, the current headmaster, Seki Humitake, it seems only studied under Kunii Zenya for a few years in the 1960s before becoming the Shihanke. This is a lot less time than Hatsumi studied under Takamatsu.

So why the double standards? Is it a case of one rule for the Bujinkan and another for other people.

I know that this whole issue probably shouldn't really bother me so much, but it does. I get so tired of having to constantly hear the same prejudiced nonsense about my art.

Ant Brennan

Eric Baluja
12th November 2004, 13:36
Maybe it has something to do with the profound grasp of reigi exhibited by many Bujinkan members...?

tsurashi shondo
12th November 2004, 17:02
Originally posted by Eric Baluja
Maybe it has something to do with the profound grasp of reigi exhibited by many Bujinkan members...?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Howard Thiery
12th November 2004, 23:35
I'm just going to pull up an easy chair and and a nice glass of wine...maybe put a log on the fire (it's snowing)and wait for the heavy hitters to appear and respond....
the stage is yours Dr. Friday, Meik Skoss et al. and isn't it a shame that Toby Threadgill isn't around to toss two cents in though I'm sure we will hear from the Aiki community.

Cheers and I look forward to the informed response.

HJT

Bruce Mitchell
13th November 2004, 04:32
While I am interested in what answers this thread may generate, but I also think that the approach Mr. Brennan is taking is dodgy. I would suggest that he use Carl Sagan's "Ten Tools for Baloney Detection", here are a few of them:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts".

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all point of view.

3. Arguements from authoity carry little weight--"authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future...

7. If there is a chain of arguemennt, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)--not just most of them.

Seeking to disprove the claims of other Ryu does nothing to strengthen the arguement that Ninjitsu is koryu. It is an Ad Hominem attack, the goal is to discredit the claim that Ninjittsu is not koryu by discrediting the claiments. It just doesn't work. So while I am interested in hearing more about lineages in the above mentioned koryu, it will do nothing to strengthen the ninjitsu claims.

hyaku
13th November 2004, 04:41
Originally posted by brennan13
Let me preface this post by saying straight out I am a Bujinkan (aka Ninjutsu) practitioner.

I have long been annoyed by the way this great art has been maligned and ridiculed by both the koryu people and some modern stylists.Ant Brennan

Well its quite coincidence you should out up this thread as I just looked at something else connected with your group.

I guess it would be healthy start to avoiding ridicule if you stopped hacking up pumpkins!

Walker
13th November 2004, 07:27
Some people just don't know why everyone else is laughing.

I, for one, always think of a zebra at the sound of hoofbeats. :cool:

Soulend
13th November 2004, 11:17
I hope Dr. Friday jumps in here. I didn't know that Zen'ya had "restored" the art, as he succeeded his father as Soke. He did restore the separate Shihanke and Soke lineages though, as it had been in the past.

Seki Humitake trained with Zen'ya for about four years, IIRC, and received menkyo kaiden after defeating a Shotokan godan in a match that Zen'ya had arranged. Guess Kunii Zen'ya considered him good enough to receive menkyo and succeed him in the Shihanke line - but of course that's neither here nor there WRT KSR being a koryu.

brennan13
13th November 2004, 12:18
"Seeking to disprove the claims of other Ryu does nothing to strengthen the arguement that Ninjitsu is koryu. It is an Ad Hominem attack, the goal is to discredit the claim that Ninjittsu is not koryu by discrediting the claiments. It just doesn't work. So while I am interested in hearing more about lineages in the above mentioned koryu, it will do nothing to strengthen the ninjitsu claims."

Hi mate. I'm not naive enough to think that my meagre efforts will ever prove the Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (of which Ninjutsu is a part) is koryu. I am aware that there are some "problems" with our own lineage. I wanted to point out that these same problems appear to exist in other koryu as well and to understand why these are still recognised. That's all.(and I should also point out that I have no doubt about the skill levels of Masters Takeda, Kunii, Seki etc. I am sure that they were/are all great artists. But this is not about skill levels. Only about the absence of unbroken, non-reconstructed and historically verifiable lineages.)

Dave Lowry
13th November 2004, 13:38
Dear Mr. Brennan 13,
A question very similar to yours was asked by a Mr. Carlsson, on the Ninjutsu thread here last spring. My response to him, which you may find relevant, is reproduced below, in all its tedious, gasbag length, in hopes it will also address your inquiry.
D.L.


Not only do I not have a dog entered in this contest, I have little to gain and a lot to lose by incurring the emnity of those involved in the Bujinkan and other related groups. Further, the answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson, is not simple.
As succinctly as possible and as politic as I am able:

Mr. Hatsumi is a man of enormous charisma. His personality is an essential adhesive for the Bujinkan. This is quite characteristic of a modern budo. Tohei K. has done it for his faction of aikido; Nakayama M. did it for the JKA, which collapsed immediately after his death. Gogen Yamaguchi and Oyama M. are other good examples. Less recently, figures like Yamaoka Tesshu inspired deep loyalty at a time when martial activity was moving into a post-feudal era. An argument could be made, in fact, that this transition, from fealty to the group to a more individualised sense of loyalty to a person, was a significant hallmark in the evolution of modern budo.

From a classical perspective, however, the loyalty and commitment was (is) always to the group. As I noted, the ryu is a direct fruition of the concept of the ie (household) that was the basic kinship group in pre-modern Japan. The iemoto (literally the “source” of the “ie”) is an embodiment of the group’s common ancestry. But loyalty to him and recognition of his authority is almost entirely an expression of loyalty and submission to the authority of the lineage of the group. Big difference. If you are a judoka and think about your “ancestors,” you think of Kano. After that, it is fuzzy. In part, that’s because judo is a modern budo. Similarly, while Bujinkan websites display multi-generational keizu or lineages of the different koryu of which they are putatively derived, I don’t think any members have a connexion back directly to those people. Their loyalty is to Mr. Hatsumi. This is not a criticism; only an observation that in this fundamental distinction and as readily acknowledged by some contributors here, the Bujinkan reflects a modern sensibility.
Oh, but, but, but!! We’re derived, you see, from these koryu. No, you’re not. You may have some techniques, a lot of them. You may have some strategies. And those may be precisely exactly what you want and need and they may make the Bujinkan the greatest budo organisation ever developed. But you lack the sense of common ancestry that is essential to the classical ryu that allows that specific ryu to continue. It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.” The Bujinkan, through the extraordinarily talented Mr. Hatsumi, has dipped buckets in different ryu, perhaps, allowing members to drink from these streams. They are not, however, swimming in any of those streams. Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth. I am just explaining that from an ethnological perspective, the ryu has characteristics beyond the scope of modern budo training as conducted by groups like the Bujinkan and many other worthwhile groups.

In a more specific answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson,
Aside from Gewertztraminer and spaetzle, the principal Germanic contribution to civilisation has been the word “umvelt.” If you don’t know it, umvelt refers to the particular “world-view” or cognition of an individual or a species. Our perception shapes, in large degree, our world and certainly our reaction to the world around us. A fundamental goal of the ryu—and this is completely missed by those on the outside of the ryu—is to formulate a more or less specific umvelt in the member. It isn’t brainwashing. It is rather a method to organise perception and reaction on a neurological and psychological level sufficient to accomplish the acquisition and perfection of skills monopolized by the ryu. In some ways, a Takeuchi ryu exponent, well-trained, “sees” not only combat but life itself, in subtly or dramatically different ways than a member of the Tatsumi ryu. The Ikenobo ryu flower arranger (kadoka) sees a distinctly different potential in a container and flowers than an Ohara ryu kadoka does. They come at it from different perspectives.
It isn’t just a matter of, well the Takeuchi guy would go for a joint lock here while the Tatsumi ryu fellow would employ a strike. No. The Takeuchi guy venerates different ancestors, has a different—or at least in some ways distinctive—umvelt about conflict and life in general.

It is true that a ryu’s unique perspective, the corporate umvelt of it, can be leached away when it is subsumed in some way. Certainly this has happened with the Shijo ryu of etiquette, which has been almost entirely assimilated by the Ogasawara ryu. All that remains identifiable of Shijo ryu are the kata for cutting food in the kitchen and a method of hakama sabaki and a few other extraneous waza. There are still ceremonies conducted, rituals of Shijo ryu. But it really cannot be considered an extant ryu. It has been virtually absorbed by the Ogasawara ryu.
There are martial ryu like this. So it is possible the koryu named by the Bujinkan as among their formulative inspiration were all similarly denatured in one way or another, leaving the husk of technique but no underlying vitality. In that case, I suppose the “headmaster” who inherited them could impose his own personality on them. But that would undermine seriously the contention by some of the more strident members of Bujinkan who insist that each of these ryu are separate and distinctive, wouldn’t it?

It is also true that an inheritor can seem to work some alterations that would modify the collective umvelt of the ryu, based upon, as you suggest, his own personality. This, however, is almost always a case where it is just that, a modification and not a fundamental change in perception.
Lots of people made a big deal out of how the fifth headmaster of Urasenke ryu tea, Joso Fukyusai (1673-1704) had worked radical changes into the aesthetics of that ryu. He used vermillion lacquerware and added a different kind of candle holder, and it was supposedly because of his dramatic personality during the flashy disco days of the Genroku period. But there is a famous dialogue recorded with Itto Yugensai (1719-71), the eighth headmaster, in which he explained and demonstrated how Joso’s “changes” were exactly in line with the aesthetics of the founder, Sen no Rikyu. I don’t think it has been translated, but it is a forceful and convincing argument that the original umvelt of Rikyu’s was transmitted to Joso and it was that perception Joso was maintaining.

A basic, though difficult to describe reason why the personality of the individual headmaster does not significantly alter the umvelt of the ryu is because of the restrictive and conformist process of the ryu’s training.
There are a lot of arrogant jackasses out there who think that a ryu is just a collection of techniques. That’s why they make ridiculous arguments for ryu “sharing” their stuff to the uninitiated. Hey, you show me the okuden (inner teachngs) from your ryu and we’ll see how it compares to mine. They don’t get it. The techniques of the ryu are only a manifestation of its underlying collective perceptions. The ryu is remarkably constructed. Viewed from the inside, one begins to see the complexity of organisation. Rituals and traditions, the arrangement of the kata, the steps in teaching them, the etiquette; these are all aimed at producing a comprehensive umvelt Note that one of the definitions I used for a ryu was the veneration of common ancestors. This is enormously, enormously important in any classical ryu. And it plays an intimate role in shaping the umwelt. By the time a person has reached the level necessary for receiving the headmastery, he has been shaped, literally and figuratively, by the ryu. It is extremely intense and very much isshin-denshin—direct transmission from teacher to student. I am not, Mr. Carlsson, trying to adopt a “I been there and you haven’t” tone. I am trying to explain how unusual and defining is the nature of training in a classical ryu. To be sure, the personality of the headmaster will have some influence on the ryu while he is in charge. Vastly more influential will have been the collective umvelt of the ryu on him, which is probably a major reason for the continued existence of the ryu itself.

Probably the windiest answer ever given to a question posed on e-budo and even more probably it will be met with howls of outrage from those who wish to believe their Bujinkan teacher is a direct descendant of Amaterasu, and further denunciations of me as the ne plus ultra of “koryu snobbery.” But it is the truth.

Cordially & With Malice Towards None,

brennan13
13th November 2004, 16:48
Dear Mr Dave Lowry
Thanks for the response to my post. While I do appreciate your sentiments, I do have to raise two issues. Please forgive any typos - it's late and I'm pretty tired.
Firstly, your response to Peter Carlsson seems to be addressing a slightly different topic - that of Hatsumi Sensei and the way he runs his Bujinkan organisation nowadays. Certainly I have to agree with you that the whole thing is not a koryu. I also have to agree with you that none of us, his students, are swimming in the stream as you put it of any ryu-ha. Likewise, I will agree that the way he has blended 9 schools together and also his grading structure and methods are definitely rather unorthodox.
But my whole gripe has been about the attitude shown towards the lineage PRECEDING Hatsumi Sensei. Let's take just one of his ryu-ha, the Togakure school. I have a problem with the accusation that Hatsumi Sensei (or at least Takamatsu Sensei) invented it in modern times. Now I ain't got a time machine so maybe it is true. But then isn't it also possible that Daito Ryu was created the same way? They claim it goes back 36 generations to the 1100s, but AFAIK no evidence has been found that dates it any further than Sokaku Takeda. And even if Takamatsu Sensei did reconstruct a lot of it, how is that different from Kunii Zenya reconstructing KSR?
The second thing I want to discuss is this quote of yours:
"Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth."
I agree, sir, that you have never attacked or belittled our art as far as I am aware. I also appreciate the pains you took in Bicycles and Budo to explain that you don't consider koryu to be better - just different. It's a positive message, but I'm afraid that a lot of your fellow koryu snobs (kidding) don't adhere to it.
One example was Meik Skoss' post here on e-Budo some time ago. I don't seem to be able to find it now but trust me it was here. It was a fairly long time ago maybe a year or two ago. I have a very good memory and recall his words being something to the effect that Hatsumi Sensei's taijutsu was decent, but the rest of his curriculum (sword, spear, glaive, chain and sickle ad ininitum) was "just plain stupid". He also said it was "patently false". If that is not attacking or suggesting a lack of combative worth, then I'm Emperor Hirohito. Surely it is understandable that commments like this will invite upset responses. Somebody, could you please try find this post. I'm still trying to figure out the search function here, but I am not making this up. It was a long time ago so maybe it has disappeared. Someone in an above post was hoping that Meik Skoss would post in this thread. I hope he does too as I would like to know what in particular makes him think what we do is plain stupid and patently false.
Equally cordially
Ant

P.S. you think you're so cool!

O'Neill
13th November 2004, 16:59
I really enjoyed the post by Mr. Lowry and it taught me many new things as well. Kudos sir.

ChrisMoon
14th November 2004, 01:41
Mr. Brennan,

I don't know if this is worth pointing out but the folks at Koryu.com have listed Daito Ryu as being founded in 1890 no the 1100s. Also I do not believe that Meik Skoss needs me defending him but I do not blame him for taking a harsh view of the Bujinkan after a lot of the hate mail and nasty messages he has recieved. You have your own to thank for his response. While he may have been a bit harsh I think some of his views are valid. He did say he thinks the taijutsu is good but the spear stinks, but take into account he is a high ranking student of Toda-ha Buko Ryu and it is safe to assume he has seen high level spear and naginata. If you were to say his jujutsu stinks I doubt he would get his panties in a knot and go ranting and raving on E-budo. I like the taijutsu I have seen in the Bujinkan but if I were wanting to learn sojutsu the Bujinkan would not be at or near the top of my list, this is not an attack! It does not help that for years and years Hatsumi Sensei's foreign students were calling it "yarijutsu" in English magazines and books.

renfield_kuroda
14th November 2004, 02:32
To expand a bit on what Mr.Lowry wrote, there is also a distinct difference here in Japan in the way martial arts organizations promote themselves.
Ask 100 martial artist in Japan what they think of when you say "Hatsumi-sensei" and 90 of them will snicker and say "The ninja master!"
It does not help that Hatsumi and the Bujinkan spare no expense to promote himself and themselves as Modern Ninja. Take a look at recent issues of Hiden Magazine. Granted it's not the greatest literary reference for martial arts (most of the articles are just PR for the videos on sale) but it is interesting to compare, in the same issue, the article about Suioryu and Shindomusoryu practitioners (old school/koryu) versus Hatsumi and some Eastern European special forces modern ninja.
So I posit that the attitude about Bujinkan and Hatsumi (versus koryu) is as much a creation of Hatsumi and the Bujinkan as it is of us koryu 'snobs'.

Regards,

r e n

ChrisMoon
14th November 2004, 03:06
Mr. Brennan,

One more thing. You are angry for the criticism Meik Skoss has had for spear work in the Bujinkan. I have been on E-Budo.com for a while as well as Kutaki.org. On both sites I have seen comments from Bujinkan members and some who were quoting Hatsumi Sensei ridiculing and making harsh statements about the viability of other schools. My question to you is do you condone this double standard?

Douglas Wylie
14th November 2004, 03:40
Originally posted by Howard Thiery
I'm just going to pull up an easy chair and and a nice glass of wine...maybe put a log on the fire (it's snowing)and wait for the heavy hitters to appear and respond....
the stage is yours Dr. Friday, Meik Skoss et al.
HJT

It's always entertainment to see someone get a new one ripped in their forehead for being a moron but I have to hand it to the "budo gods" for their restraint. They are clearly being goaded into an argument and seem to be choosing not to be baited.

Maybe one day I can be like that too.

Til then...

I recall hearing about a "ninja" hiding in a tree at night in a park. The cops came by, spotlighted him, and got on the loud speaker-
"Sir... get out of the tree sir... we can see you sir, come out of the tree..."

Talk about someone raining on your ninja parade.

but I'm not ridiculing... ;)We have a NINJA class at our dojo-

It is at midnight everyday-

You have to break in undetected- hide for an hour (there will be other ninjas hiding in there of course)then clean the dojo - and break out again undetected. If you do it properly you will not be seen AND if everyone else does it properly- you will see no one.

Just be sure to leave your dues on the desk.:D

Bruce Mitchell
14th November 2004, 04:31
"I know that this whole issue probably shouldn't really bother me so much, but it does. I get so tired of having to constantly hear the same prejudiced nonsense about my art."~Ant Brennan

Again Mr. Brennan, I think that your question about why some arts are "recognized" and others are not is an interesting topic, it does not mean that what is said about ninjitsu is all prejudiced and nonesense. I for one have read several treatments of ninjitsu including the one on koryu.com, Mr. Lowry's excellent post and an excellent article a number of years ago in Aikinews by Lazlo Able which all have an academic approach that merits consideration. The fact of the matter is that the top researchers in Japan and the United States do not validate Ninjitsu's claims of being koryu. The other Ryu that you dragged into the spotlight do not have this problem. The burden of proof has been made to the appropriate authorities and they have passed their judgement, certifying them as koryu. Hatsumi's proofs have not held up to satisfaction under scrutiny.

If you were just asking why are these two arts recognized, then no problem. But you asked why they are and yours is not, well...

Best of luck with your search for answers here.

Dave Lowry
14th November 2004, 15:57
You are changing subjects, Mr. Brennan. You opened this with an inquiry directed at why the Bujinkan is not recognised as promulgating a koryu. I told you at least one reason why, viz. because it has not maintained a unique and expressed identity which is a hallmark of any Japanese ryu and because it is almost completely a reflection not of a discrete and incorporated “personality” but is rather a direct animation of the personality and sensibilities of Mr. Hatsumi.

Now, by way of opinions you ascribe to Mr. Skoss, you are veering into a discussion of the practical means taught by Hatsumi. I have my own opinions about these as well but they are entirely irrelevant to your original question. Please do not repeat the common error, when these matters arise, of confusing the efficacy of teachings, demonstrable or otherwise, with that of their provenance.

Cordially,

Gary Arthur
14th November 2004, 17:15
I think whether Ninjutsu is or is not listed as a Koryu is irrelevant. From what I know of Koryu is that they are anachronisms to another age, practicing techniques that really have no relevance today.
the schools of Ninjutsu eg Gyokko ryu are far older than many of the Ryu listed as Koryu, and if truth be known many of these schools may have emerged from the original schools of Ninjutsu.
Dr Hatsumi teaches the art unlike many other Japanese teachers of other Ryu.
Todays Ko Ryu are practiced as if one is in a Dojo but originally these arts of Ninjutsu were practiced out of doors, possibly by a student training for a short time with a master or as part of a clan in a village. The people that learnt these arts were not historians or artists, they were trained killers and they wanted what worked.
Todays Ko Ryu seem to be simply preset movements and although they do have some relevance I think only scratch the surface of real martial arts training.
I spent 5 days training with Fumon Manaka sensei and when he teaches Kukishin Ryu it is dynamic, but his Eishin Ryu, well interesting but I cannot see how these movements would work in a real fight.

cxt
14th November 2004, 19:34
Brennon13

I first need to make clear that this is not some sort of "pile on" on you and your topic.

I am just trying to point out something that may have been overlooked.

You may, JUST MAY, have overlooked the logic problem here.

You have a odvious problem with the perception of your chosen art as not being "offical" koryu.

But you seem to feel that pointing fingers at the possible gaps in other claims somehow puts you in a better light.

And that is the root of the problem--rather than digging in deep and trying to show the roots of your art you spend your time attempting to show how others are "bad" as well.

Which even if you are proved correct (which you will not) will accomplish NOTHING for your own art.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that if you can manage to raise enough questions about someone elses art it will somehow make yours "look better."

The bottom line is that koryu scholors in Japan itself and elsewhere do not consider your art legit koryu.

It may sting but those are the facts of the matter.

It says NOTHING about the quality of your art, the skill of its members, or the value of its training.

Plenty of arts "ain't koryu" and they work just fine.

Argument is really one of an academic nature--has no real effect on the art you practice or those whom train with you.


Chris Thomas

Kotaro
14th November 2004, 19:54
HI


Originally posted by Gary Arthur
the schools of Ninjutsu eg Gyokko ryu are far older than many of the Ryu listed as Koryu, and if truth be known many of these schools may have emerged from the original schools of Ninjutsu.
Dr Hatsumi teaches the art unlike many other Japanese teachers of other Ryu.

Gyokko Ryu is not a ninjutsu school. Just because it lists Momochi Sandayu it does not mean it is a ninja school or ever was. Other ryu contain aspects of ninjutsu in there curriculum today in Japan, and they are not Ninja schools, this aspect of whether or not this ninjutsu has been discussed extensively on E-Budo.


Originally posted by Gary Arthur
I spent 5 days training with Fumon Manaka sensei and when he teaches Kukishin Ryu it is dynamic, but his Eishin Ryu, well interesting but I cannot see how these movements would work in a real fight.

I think you may mean Tanaka Fumon here, and the authentisity of his Kukshin Ryu has been questioned many times due to the fact it is openly discussed that he stole documents pertaining to Kukishin Ryu from his teacher and added his name to them (or something like that), thus explaining why He is teaching a completely different version of Kukishi ryu to all the other kukishi ryu.

As for the Bujinkan being Koryu, I dont think it is and I am a member. The bujinkan as an org was created in the 1960's/70's therefore falling very much into the Budo group known as Gendai Budo and not Koryu.

renfield_kuroda
14th November 2004, 22:28
Originally posted by Gary Arthur
Todays Ko Ryu are practiced as if one is in a Dojo but originally these arts of Ninjutsu were practiced out of doors, possibly by a student training for a short time with a master or as part of a clan in a village. The people that learnt these arts were not historians or artists, they were trained killers and they wanted what worked.
Todays Ko Ryu seem to be simply preset movements and although they do have some relevance I think only scratch the surface of real martial arts training.Obviously your understanding of the theory and techniques from your vast experience is far greater than those students who have dedicated years if not decades to learning koryu 'in a dojo'.

I spent 5 days training with Fumon Manaka sensei and when he teaches Kukishin Ryu it is dynamic, but his Eishin Ryu, well interesting but I cannot see how these movements would work in a real fight.
Wow, five whole days training and you are now an authority on the practical efficacy of koryu!

The above comments are facetious, so let me be serious for a second:
The arrogance implied by your judgement of that which you cannot possibly have any deep understanding is reprehensible and insulting. You see some techniques and are now qualified to judge koryu as 'not practical?'

Regards,
r e n

Soulend
14th November 2004, 22:47
Originally posted by Gary Arthur
From what I know of Koryu is that they are anachronisms to another age, practicing techniques that really have no relevance today.

If they didn't date from another age, they wouldn't be koryu, by definition. Yes, I think they are a throwback to another time, and like hand-crafted Amish furniture and homemade bread are horribly inefficient and impractical today, when one can earn a 'black belt' in a matter of months or weeks, concealed-carry permits are readily available in many states, and skill is measured in points scored. Of what use is Cha-no-Yu when we have teabags, or Shodo when we have printing presses and scanners? Yet, in today's era of made-up and bastardized "martial" garbage, lack of respect and warrior ethos, emphasis on kicking in heads without a set of principles that teach one to try to avoid same, and being a character instead of having character, I believe the koryu have more relevance than ever.

They are the very root from which the rest of the Japanese martial arts sprung and the key to understanding why things are done the way they are, even in gendai arts which in some dojo may pay lip service to the intangible benefits of martial arts study while emphasizing only ways to break wrists and crush windpipes.

Just my silly opinion, but if it is the same as what was or is shared by such professional warriors as Draeger and Bristol, let alone gents like Bokuden or Munenori, I think I'm in good company.

Gene Williams
14th November 2004, 22:49
ninjutsu as koryu...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

fifthchamber
15th November 2004, 04:59
Hello all..
As an ex-member of one of the Ninjutsu "Kans" I can say that from what I have seen the Bujinkan makes little effort to even try and BE a koryu....You ask why the double standards? From whom? The Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai? They (I would posit) don't need to care...If Hatsumi wanted to apply for membership then he would be asked to do so in the same fashion as has every other school in that group...But to my knowledge Hatsumi has decided to NOT try and join...This then would mean that the reason that the Bujinkan is NOT considered Koryu is because Hatsumi does not feel it is in any way necessary for it to be considered Koryu...And he is right...There is NO need for it to be...Some of the schools may be...Some may not be...But the choice of whether those schools are OFFICIALLY considered to be Koryu is entirely up to him...He has chosen NOT to...Thats the reason they aren't thought of as Koryu....I think...
My own Ryuha, the Bichu den line of Takeuchi Ryu is also not a member of the Shinkokai...But no one really cares...Certainly not Ohno Sensei....If he did, he would ask to join. That's his call..Not anyone elses...And thats where it ends.
The other schools that you mention have applied and been accepted...If you want the Bujinkan to be the same you must ask Hatsumi to apply and take it from there I think...I am not trying to be pedantic...But the truth is that Hatsumi seems not to care as much as some others about the "proof" of his arts...He is fine with the situation the way it is...And thats where THAT ends...
Ummm.....What the hell do I know anyways...
Sorry...
Yours.

hyaku
15th November 2004, 06:18
Originally posted by hyaku
Well its quite coincidence you should out up this thread as I just looked at something else connected with your group.

I guess it would be healthy start to avoiding ridicule if you stopped hacking up pumpkins!

As a member/director of the Todo Renmei I am dissapointed that no one responded to my post.

Bill Gallant
15th November 2004, 06:38
http://ejmas.com/tin/2004tin/tinart_taylor_1104.html

Gary Arthur
15th November 2004, 10:25
woops I seem to have upset a few people, and if I have that was not my intention. Let me however clarify a few points.

In reply to Kotaro. When I wrote this post I put Gyokko Ryu down as a Ninjutsu school because it did when I first started Ninjutsu fall under the umbrella of Ninjutsu. There are whole arguments going on on various ninjutsu forums whether Gyokko Ryu is or is not a ninjutsu school, and in making my point I was not going to go into this. This kind of argument goes around in circles and will continue to do so.

When I was at university I studied archaeology and in the field of Lithics (stone tools, implements etc) there are some professors that will tell you that there are for example 26 different cultures that can be seen from studying these tools. They often give them names such as Solutrean, Aurignacian, or Levelvois etc. We will call these cultures A, B, C, etc all the way to Z.Other professors however will say that there are only 10 cultures because Culture A is really part of culture B etc. In archaeology we call these people lumpers or splitters.

In Ninjutsu, exactly the same kind of argument is going on. Some practitioners/ historians say that Gyokko Ryu, Kukishin Ryu etc are ninjutsu schools (Lumpers) whilst others say oh no they are not Ninjutsu schools they are seperate Ryu Ha (Splitters).
In reality it just depends on where you draw the line. In my opinion Gyokko Ryu is a Ninjutsu school, but this is based on my research, what I have been told by senior practitioners, and what i have read. Other people may have been told other things and if those people can put their evidence on this site, that would be great.

In reply to Fumon Tanaka or Tanaka Fumon (In Japanese the names are often reversed (Miyamoto Musashi, Musashi Miyamoto etc) My certificate for attendance at his course say Fumon Tanaka, so I'll stick with that.
His Kukishin Ryu may be different from the Bujinkan Ninjutsu, (and I never said it was'nt) but there are certainly similarities Shiho Bo Furi Gata etc. As for him stealing the school, well I first think you need to be 100% certain of your facts, and you need to talk to him personally about this issue if you are.

Renfield Kuroda
I never said that I was an expert on Ko Ryu, I was simply stating that there seems to be a difference between Kukishin Ryu, that can trace its lineage back to the Amatsu Tatara Scroll and the beginning of martial arts in Japan, and Enshin Ryu that is a school created by joining together several different Ryu Ha.

As to their practicality in todays world, well I must point out that as Soulend has stated I did not mean that they have no relevance. Of course they have relevance. But if we are talking about practicality well the techniques practiced by the Ko Ryu were developed for a different age. Todays world is far removed from 16th, 17th or 18th century Japan. Today we are more likely to be attacked by a knife wielding attacker, a baseball bat or gun. Unlikely we will be facing a naginata or yari wielding Samurai.
That not to say that practicing the Yari and Naginata have no relevance. Of course not. Yari jutsu teaches us distancing, timing, angling, as well as giving us an understanding of where our martial roots came from, and may even improve our character.

This type of practice however is far removed from the life and death situation where the attacker is a knife wielding drug crazed rapist or murderer.

It is my opinion that if a samurai from the period of the Sengoku Jidai came back and saw some of todays Ko ryu he would be either horrified or reduced to laughter.

The Koryu have undergone significant change from the time the techniques were used on the battlefield. Research your history and you will see this.

A couple of years ago I was speaking to an expert on Medieval European Swordsmanship, and he stated that exactly the same thing happened in Europe. As soon as guns came in to use, and the use of the sword declined, although swordsmanship continued a lot of the real self defence movements were fogotten or removed.

My point is that Dr Hatsumi teaches the Bujinkan arts in such a way that they are of use today. If you attend one of his seminars he will often show an ancient technique and then show how it can be performed with a knife, gun or other modern implement. I think this is possibly one reason why Dr Hatsumis arts are not Ko Ryu. His style of teaching them is different. Whereas (and I stick my neck out here) Ko Ryu arts seem to be very kata orientated, in the Bujinkan arts there does not seem to be a set way. Once one learns a kata it is changed.

The difference?

In the Bujinkan arts we are training to develop natural movement which leads to the Ku No Seki (Void Realm) not trying to remember specific kata.

renfield_kuroda
15th November 2004, 12:33
Here's the fundamental problem: thinking that koryu are 'impractical' simply because the likelihood of being attacked by a sword-wielding enemy is fairly low.
Is koryu modern self-defence? Of course not, and I don't know anyone in koryu who say it is. But koryu is so much more than the mere techniques. That's the point; it's a system of transmission, it's a culture, if you will.
I find it stupendously practical, in that it is beneficial to me. The fact that you cannot grasp that, as your outside of the ryu, is not really my problem, but don't base your accusations of 'impracticality' on your lack of understanding. We're not even using the same ruler to measure.

Regards,

r e n

ChrisMoon
15th November 2004, 13:36
Originally posted by Gary Arthur

My point is that Dr Hatsumi teaches the Bujinkan arts in such a way that they are of use today. If you attend one of his seminars he will often show an ancient technique and then show how it can be performed with a knife, gun or other modern implement. I think this is possibly one reason why Dr Hatsumis arts are not Ko Ryu. His style of teaching them is different. Whereas (and I stick my neck out here) Ko Ryu arts seem to be very kata orientated, in the Bujinkan arts there does not seem to be a set way. Once one learns a kata it is changed.

The difference?

In the Bujinkan arts we are training to develop natural movement which leads to the Ku No Seki (Void Realm) not trying to remember specific kata.

Gary are you saying there are no koryu teachers are out there doing this?? I would suggest you do some more in depth research. I can think of several koryu teachers that will show how old techniques can be used in modern self defense. Think about it, the stuff you are learning from SKH or Hatsumi it is from old school martial arts right or did they make it up a few days ago? You think they are the only two guys in the world that know how to make that adaptation?

Your last comment shows how little you know about kata and the purpose it serves. I seem to remember your teacher is selling DVDs online of kata from Koto Ryu and Kukishinden. HELLO!?!?!
Another thing it is not about "remembering" kata. Before you go making any more silly statements like this, look into a concept known as "shu ha ri" or "hanareru". Try to fit it into your down time when you are not learning kata from To Shindo.

Gary I have one question for you. Did you ever play organized sports?

cxt
15th November 2004, 14:32
Gary

Seems you have a bit of logically inconsistancy in your last post.

On one hand you indicate that koryu have gone thu large (and unspecific, undocumented, without example) "change."

Change to the extent that a period samurai would either be "horrifed" or laugh himself silly.

Then in the next paragraph you take issue with the kata based koryu---wait for it, wait for it--NEVER CHANGEING. (my paraphrase)

See, you can't have it BOTH ways.

If they don't change then your previous opinion is invalid--by your own words.

And since AGAIN as you put it the Bunjikan stuff "changes" and has been changed--it no longer counts as koryu--because it is no longer an accurate (sp) transmission of period arts.

Shot yourself in the foot a COUPLE of times on this one bro.


Chris Thomas

cxt
15th November 2004, 15:14
Sorry

That should read "logicial inconsistant" above.

Can't even form a decent sentence some mornings.

Sorry.


Chris Thomas

Gene Williams
15th November 2004, 15:59
Actually, it should be "inconsistent" with an "e."

cxt
15th November 2004, 16:39
Gene

See below.

cxt
15th November 2004, 16:43
And since I changed the words slightly the whole first sentence makes less than good sense.

Should have reworked the entire first sentence.

Should know better than to type prior to my morning tea.

As one of students tried to explain to me once on a term paper.

"Well it made sense in my head-I just typed it wrong"

Really crossing my fingers that they won't stumble across this.

Sorry.

Chris Thomas

Kim Taylor
15th November 2004, 17:37
Originally posted by hyaku
Originally posted by hyaku
Well its quite coincidence you should out up this thread as I just looked at something else connected with your group.

I guess it would be healthy start to avoiding ridicule if you stopped hacking up pumpkins!

As a member/director of the Todo Renmei I am dissapointed that no one responded to my post.

Wheeee! Hi Colin!! Well I for one think it's extremely healthy to open yourself up to ridicule once in a while. (Other people must too, since internet discussion forums are still popular, and blogs even more so. Bwahahaha)

For instance there's a photo of meself not cutting an empty pop bottle at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~iaido/iai.oldpictures.html

I thought we had a photo or two of some pumpkin cutting we used to do each fall at the Bonsai show but I don't see it there. Oh well, we used to cut pumpkins. I've also cut styrofoam pool noodles with my iaito, and newspaper sheets with shinai.

Should have seen some of the email I used to get about that bottle shot, one fellow actually suggested that I was bringing all of ancient Japan into disrepute by having such a terrible photo up online. Went on to tell me I should quit. Wonder if he's still practicing?

Come to think of it, I was on national TV not that long ago knocking a mat off a stage, stand and all. OK it was a little plastic camera tripod that was barely enough to hold the mat upright and it was the third cut on that mat but hey, if I was any good I'd have been able to cut it right?

I can't believe folks are bothering with this thread. What's the problem here? It's not as if you can make money by saying "I'm a koryu" or can you? Am I missing something?

Kim "who met his first troll around about 1994 on wreck.martial-arts"

kenkyusha
15th November 2004, 19:19
Originally posted by Gary Arthur
major snippage
Of course not. Yari jutsu teaches us distancing, timing, angling, as well as giving us an understanding of where our martial roots came from, and may even improve our character.

This type of practice however is far removed from the life and death situation where the attacker is a knife wielding drug crazed rapist or murderer.

It is my opinion that if a samurai from the period of the Sengoku Jidai came back and saw some of todays Ko ryu he would be either horrified or reduced to laughter.
This alone rather points-up some... interesting understanding of 1) history, 2) the intentions of kata and 3) linguistics. Your assertion later in the post that the goal for you ninjers is to be able to react, but everyone else aspires to memorize kata is laughable.

Having had a very minor exposure to Kukishin outside of the Takamatsuden, and contrasting people (on tape, admittedly not the best method to base observation) w/in that loop, there is a marked difference in not just approach, but in mindset... exactly the sort of thing transmitted (effectively, one could argue) through kata. Not mere rote repetition of it, but an understanding on a 'practical' gut level.

Be well,
Jigme

Gary Arthur
15th November 2004, 20:06
Some people seem to have not really understood my post, let me clarify.

In my understanding before about the end of the period of the warring states (Sengoku Jidai Period)martial arts had very little organised structure. Warriors would wander around Japan, meet a teacher they could train with and exchange ideas. Martial arts were often taught outside and sometimes a student would only spend a few days with any teacher. In other words martial arts Ryu were very unorganised.

After this period with the unification of Japan with Tokugawa Ieyasu, and because it was a time of peace the martial arts became much more organised. Schools were started and often techniques documented on paper for the very first time. This led to the founding of many different Ryu Ha.Techniques and Kata were formalised and practiced in a set way.

My point therefore was that if a samurai could come back from the Sengoku Jidai period and could see these formalised martila arts then he would be horrified. I think even some of the martial arts teachers at the time that did this were not particularly happy with it, but there was little use for samurai anymore, and one had to make a living.

The point I am trying to make is that since then some Ko ryu (Not all) have still been teaching in the way that they were laid down at that time with little change. Now whilst there is nothing wrong with that, because as i have pointed out they indeed do have value, especially when it comes to researching how the techniques were performed at that time.

However in the Ninja arts although we train in Kata, the kata are example of a fight that once learnt are changed. We call this Henka, and whilst i agree that there are indeed Henka in the Ko Ryu there seems to be a different approach taken by Dr Hatsumi that I cannot really put into words.

And yes of course there are Ko Ryu teachers that teach modern adaptions of the art that they teach, but the Bujinkan arts seem to go so much more in depth than just an example of how to use that kata or technique.

I guess the difference is that whilst some of the Ko Ryu are still practicing the techniques as they were laid down although years ago, Ninjutsu has been under constant development and change, through the work of Takamatsu sensei who was still operating as a Ninja in the 20th century. His skills although based on ancient techniques had to work whilst he was a spy, warrior and bodyguard.

Unfortunately within various Ninjutsu organisations be it the Bujinkan or Genbukan there is a belief that the more techniques one knows the better they are without them realising that the Kata are fight examples we learn from, and then move on.

I sometimes feel that a Kata is like a bridge on a journey. As we journey we go over lots of bridges. some are simple bridges, others ornate, others are very mechanical whilst other very natural and made of wood. We go over these bridges and when we have passed over that bridge (mastered the kata) we move onto the next one to continue the journey. Unfortunately there are so many that either want to go back and look at the bridge they have just passed over or would rather look at bridges on the map and think that owning the map they understand the art.

My point here. Well its to use the Kata as stepping stones or bridges to reach our goal. Its a little like learning chop sticks on the piano. Once we can play Bethoven or Mozart, do we think I know I'd better go and practice chop sticks again.

My personal feeling (and this might upset a lot of people, but here goes) is that Ninjutsu takes the kata just a little further than most Ko Ryu forms. Just my humble opinion.

nicojo
15th November 2004, 20:45
A more accurate analogy, given my not-so-deep understanding of kata, but my fairly good understanding of classical music, is between scales and kata.

Any good classical musician practices scales ad nauseum, and when they read music that has a certain portion of a scale, it is easy enough to plug that part in. The scale is the backbone, but not the whole of the music. Chopsticks doesn't get anyone far except my niece.

What are we arguing about here anyways? I appreciate Mr. Arthur's posts in the ninpo forum when I look in, and have found some other very good posts surprisingly rising from the morass.

Seems to me that the original poster is a bit confused on what gives a system its efficacy: the structure of the system itself and how much that system validates its own structure. Is it me, or are koryu and kan apples and oranges with completely different structures, and tastes?

As far as why the federations in Japan have not recognized Mr. Hatsumi, seems like that was quite reasonably answered a few posts ago--he hasn't found it necessary for whatever reason, and so has not endeavored to do it. While some ryu may not be part of the federations, it seems always the decision of the soke to try to join, not some members at the bottom of the pole wondering if their system is as cool as somebody elses'.

cxt
15th November 2004, 20:52
Gary

So by defination then "ninjutsu" would not be koryu?

More to the point, you say above:

"Ninjutsu takes the kata just a little further than most Ko Ryu forms"

Maybe, maybe not.

Just how many forms of Ko Ryu do you know?

How many have you had in-depth experience (sp) with?

What Ko Ryu have you studied?

How long have you studied them?--in terms of years?

See, seems to me your drawing conclusions from little practical experience (sp)

Do I really need to point out the problem with that?


Chris Thomas

Gene Williams
15th November 2004, 22:06
Originally posted by nicojo
A more accurate analogy, given my not-so-deep understanding of kata, but my fairly good understanding of classical music, is between scales and kata.

Any good classical musician practices scales ad nauseum, and when they read music that has a certain portion of a scale, it is easy enough to plug that part in. The scale is the backbone, but not the whole of the music. Chopsticks doesn't get anyone far except my niece.

What are we arguing about here anyways? I appreciate Mr. Arthur's posts in the ninpo forum when I look in, and have found some other very good posts surprisingly rising from the morass.

Seems to me that the original poster is a bit confused on what gives a system its efficacy: the structure of the system itself and how much that system validates its own structure. Is it me, or are koryu and kan apples and oranges with completely different structures, and tastes?

As far as why the federations in Japan have not recognized Mr. Hatsumi, seems like that was quite reasonably answered a few posts ago--he hasn't found it necessary for whatever reason, and so has not endeavored to do it. While some ryu may not be part of the federations, it seems always the decision of the soke to try to join, not some members at the bottom of the pole wondering if their system is as cool as somebody elses'.

A kata is more like a concerto; fundamentals are scales...und now, Nicojo, "you vill play eet until you know eet.":D

tetsushin
15th November 2004, 22:27
Originally posted by Gary Arthur

However in the Ninja arts although we train in Kata, the kata are example of a fight that once learnt are changed. We call this Henka, and whilst i agree that there are indeed Henka in the Ko Ryu there seems to be a different approach taken by Dr Hatsumi that I cannot really put into words.



Perhaps if you didn't look at kata as examples of a fight it might help you understand why some people don't follow your particular line of reasoning. Kata, at a very simplified level dealing only with physical techniques, might better be looked at as embodiments of principles. Kata aren't saying "when X happens do Y" but more "doing Y as a response to X lets Z happen" By repeatedly training in the kata your body begins to absorb these movements as a natural, reflexive way of moving. At the same time hopefully a person understands the principles and they become a natural part of their mindset. Have you ever seen two sword practitioners perform kata at full-speed? Have you ever seen the more senior switch techniques in the middle of the kata? The flow is spontaneously changed but that change is completely in keeping with the principles that have been instilled through kata training. This of course isn't just limited to swords.

That is just the first level. This is I believe what Hatsumi sensei means when he says to forget the kata/form. This is by no means a unique outlook or method of training. Unfortunately a large number of people in the Bujinkan feel that variations are the key to an art being "alive", which is odd when one considers that they rarely are adept at the basic kata (which is a whole other issue), and that anyone training in unchanging, anachronistic kata is somehow missing the "true essence" of bujutsu.

This turned out to be a slightly more long-winded way of saying "the Bujinkan doesn't have the market cornered on proper kata training" than I planned but please just look at it as another viewpoint being expressed.

hyaku
15th November 2004, 23:54
Originally posted by Kim Taylor
I can't believe folks are bothering with this thread. What's the problem here? It's not as if you can make money by saying "I'm a koryu" or can you? Am I missing something?

Kim "who met his first troll around about 1994 on wreck.martial-arts"

Hello Kim

The only reason I bothered was that if I remember right Hatsumi got a certification for sword work from the Todo Renmei. So I was wondering what the standards were.

I think I have a shot somewhere of me butchering a cabbage in my younger days. We all have to start somewhere but generally over here in Japan I don't think its something its condoned. To me its an uphill struggle to try and get away from cutting the wrong kind of things be it inanimate or living. Its not so much what I personally think as the generally accepted swords standards we are supposed to uphold. If we want to call ourselves "great" there we have to put the shop in order.

Finny
16th November 2004, 00:47
As far as why the federations in Japan have not recognized Mr. Hatsumi, seems like that was quite reasonably answered a few posts ago--he hasn't found it necessary for whatever reason, and so has not endeavored to do it.

I thought he did try to join the Kyokai ages ago??

It does seem a bit strange though - in your first post Gary, you say 'some of these koryu have suspect lineages too - why are they considered koryu and the bujinkan not??'

Then later you say 'koryu haven't changed since the Edo period - but the ninja arts have changed with the times..'

Seems like you answered your own question.

Kim Taylor
16th November 2004, 02:01
Originally posted by hyaku
Hello Kim

The only reason I bothered was that if I remember right Hatsumi got a certification for sword work from the Todo Renmei. So I was wondering what the standards were.

I think I have a shot somewhere of me butchering a cabbage in my younger days. We all have to start somewhere but generally over here in Japan I don't think its something its condoned. To me its an uphill struggle to try and get away from cutting the wrong kind of things be it inanimate or living. Its not so much what I personally think as the generally accepted swords standards we are supposed to uphold. If we want to call ourselves "great" there we have to put the shop in order.

I agree, one should expect at least a passing acknowledgement of what cutting represents. All well and good to cut vegetables but I nearly fall off my chair every time I remember the day 20 years or so ago when my sensei and I were at a Jiu Jitsu tournament doing the demonstration with all the musical kata (my favourite was the guys that did the self defence thing, then did it backward in slow motion)and the inevitable "cut the apple on the student's stomach" demo showed up. The look on sensei's face... one he didn't even try to hide, Japanese as he is... priceless. I honestly think he'd never even imagined that sort of thing happened.

I remember another sensei who had to decline an invite to demonstrate at the Legion... he gently reminded the social director that some of the members may have served in the far east and might not appreciate the memories of Japanese swordsmanship. This same guy had an anthropologist show up on his doorstep one day with a whole pig in her trunk she wanted him to hack up so she could study the bone marks. He declined that one too. Hell you must remember those stories, that was Don Harvey.

The problem is, and this worries me as much as it worried my da, every generation seems to have to figure out for itself, the seriousness and stupidity behind death. Young men seem to want to argue about the minutia of manners and the seriousness of "battlefield tested" this or that silliness while never considering the total idiocy and terrible mundanity of death in war. It ain't glorious, no matter what the monuments say, and I've had the relatives die and almost die to teach me just what it's all worth.

Being the very first generation in my family that hasn't had to volunteer to go get injured (the ones that got killed didn't leave any offspring and NONE of the silly alcoholic bastards came back whole) in some war somewhere or else (after an unbroken chain of at least 5 generations) I'm quite happy to pass on the old man's advice and "run like hell for the North if asked to serve", to my son.

In other words, I'd rather the kids chop up pumpkins as pumpkins than talk to me about relative comparisons of this or that thickness of mat and bamboo compared to an arm or a leg. That sort of romanticism and fantasy gets kids murdered by us old men who send them out to fight our wars.

So I try to explain and demonstrate the absurdity of "martial arts" while teaching budo. I try to teach a healthy disrespect of authority and reliance on one's own intellect while being your typical dictatorial sensei.

And I probably fail miserably. Witness "Is ninjutsu a koryu?" .... hunh? Is Kashima Shinryu a re-created art? Do you pronounce it Musashi Miyamoto or Miyamoto Musashi? ... Hunh?

Not the point. We fail as educators yet again with yet another generation of kids. Well we can always count on the 90 - 10 rule can't we.

;-)

See ya soon
Kim.

ShaneLayton
16th November 2004, 02:12
Originally posted by Finny
I thought he did try to join the Kyokai ages ago??



I thought that too, but its funny how rumors work. The "story I heard" was that the governing body of the Kyokai wanted Hatsumi sensei to turn over original densho for inspection but that was something Hatsumi sensei was unwilling to do. End of story. I don't think anyone in Japan is worried about whether we are recognized as koryu or not. Why are we? Most of us should just remember Hatsumi sensei's reply to a person when queried about internal Bujinkan politics: "Shut up and train." I think the same could be applied here.

We have schools within the Bujinkan umbrella that are undeniably old samurai schools (Kukishin ryu, Takagi-Yoshin ryu, etc) where Hatsumi sensei is listed as soke in the Daitijen Bugei Ryu-ha (sp??). The Bujinkan, from what I have seen, is taught as a blended system. Hatsumi sensei says that we are not to get caught up in kata, or which school this came from. Back in the early days no one cared which school produced which technique. We are being taught not to specialize in one particular ryu-ha, hence the lack of transmission of a particular mind-set and feeling. As far as I know Hatsumi sensei has only awarded menkyo kaiden to a very few shihan in particular dry-ha.

As for the treatment of the Bujinkan by practioners of recognized koryu I think a lot of it is our own fault. The "ninja" aspect of the Bujinkan was hyped up quite a bit in the early days. That attracted a lot of less-than-desirable personalities to the Bujinkan (remember the "Ninja Boom?"). For a long time many Bujinkan groups accepted large numbers of people without much screening. Its different for a lot of Koryu arts from my observation. Also, especially here in America, a lot of Bujinkan members did not bother to study even rudimentary Japanese etiquette. A lot of folks did not bother to learn techniques names (kihon happo # 1 for example). There was not a great emphasis placed on building a Japanese vocabulary (yarijutsu v. sojutsu). This is not meant to paint all Bujinkan this way, because there are certainly really high quality people who are taking great pains to correct these deficiencies with great success.

I think another reason for the way Bujinkan has been treated by the Koryu folks is that a lot of Bujinkan people had this idea that because they were learning "Ninja" martial arts that they were invincible. This led to a great arrogance by a lot of Bujinkan folks (and other X-kans, too. No one is excluded here). A lot of (Americans especially) Bujinkan folks never realized that when you get down where the rubber meets the road this is just a martial art (its my preferred art, but it is still just a martial art) and that it can be defeated. A lot of Bujinkan folks would probably defeat themselves before a fight ever happened by having a bad heart being foolishly arrogant. Hatsumi sensei's awarding of high ranks to people with little training also created problems because the people so promoted would then go off and open their own dojo when they were hardly qualified. There were rumors that the fastest way to get a shodan was to show up at Hombu. Then you get into the realm of "does rank necessarily equal skill?" (already addressed several places).

I am a member of the Bujinkan and I for one could care less if we are considered Koryu. It fits me. If I wanted to learn Koryu then I would seek out Koryu (good freakin' luck here in Alabama). Don't get me worng here, I would love to, but I choose to live here and there isn't Koryu here and I am not a student at UGA (apparently a prerequisite to training over there, its only 4 or so hours away!).

Just MY opinions, valueless as they may be.

Kurinawa
16th November 2004, 03:03
Mr. Brennan,

Here's the thing - because of the way Mr. Hatsumi has managed his organization, it had bred all kinds of negative elements. Elements like the American Ninja craze (which is freakishly bigger than in other countries), practitioners posting entire groupings of Kata from the Bujinkan schools on the Internet (detailing the entire movement of the Kata as if copying a Densho direct to HTML), "interesting" rankings, Ninja-this/Ninja-that advertising, paramilitary flockings, etc. So much ignorance, so much posturing - it gets really laughable at times. Simply change your perspective and you'll see.

In the realm of Koryu and their related arts, even the term "Budo Taijutsu" is unbelievably vague and unoriginal. It screams of unoriginality as a term used to describe a particular method that does actually comprise Koryu (i.e. Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, et al). Don't think for a second that the rankings these Bujinkan students all over the world receive are in any actual Ryu Ha - they are in Budo Taijutsu. And what is that? "The best" of Takamatsu-den? Takamatsu's Greatest Hits? One man's potpourri of classical arts? Ask yourself - if Takamatsu was alive today, would he approve of this "Budo Taijutsu"? Would he approve of this one man's consolidation of these separate arts into some "Do"-like method ("do", as in "Karate-do")? I mean, instead of caring so much how others view you and your arts, look in the mirror first. It should scare the hell out of you! I can only think of this fat guy from Texas who used to say when asked about what rank he was - "I have more degrees than a thermometer, you done now?".

I see the whole "Yarijutsu" argument. Don't even go there. In contrast to Sojutsu Ryu, the Bujinkan Sojutsu methods can be described as this: "here's some quick spear techniques, if you ever get caught in a bind and one is laying around and you need to stick it into someone, use it like this, and stab with it like that. And when your skill is overwhelmed, hold it like this, then throw this powder thing in their eyes, then stab them here when they can't see". Compared to systematic curriculums in dedicated Sojutsu Ryu, no wonder the Bujinkan "Yarijutsu" methods get scoffed at. Just accept it and have fun with it.

Ninja arts are "under the hat". That's where they've always been. Keep them where they belong. Attempting to seek credit by comparing the claims and lineages of other Koryu isn't going to bring about any just reward. It will only fuel anger, tension, frustration, and in some cases, physical confrontation. There are some sharp people out there, and many are arrogant. Imagine learning to speak and read Japanese, even ancient Japanese. Then translate books, like the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten. Imagine being someone who actually MADE the sacrifice to learn the language and not base his/her opinions solely on works translated into his/her native language by non-Japanese. How would you handle someone who made wrongful claims based on hearsay and translated books about the validity of a specific Ryu, when you are damn smart enough to "look it up and see for yourself that they are clueless". Man, wouldn't you be arrogant too? You'd be like, "these dumbasses don't speak Japanese, can't read or write it, and they make these outrageous claims without even knowing how or where to document their research! Um, STFU now mister Ninja guy. Come back to the table when you can afford to play". Mr. Friday, Skoss, Lowry - these are some sharp guys. Trying to go toe to toe with them on some obscure art that has this big cultural phenomenon behind it (Ninja/Ninjutsu) is going to be difficult. Not even worth it. Sure, the Bujinkan has it's share of supposed "scholars", but they don't seem to care much about what others think. The one's that do are wasting valuable training time on topics that don't really need to be argued. In closing, I would just say "don't let it get to you, and stop caring so much about it".

wmuromoto
16th November 2004, 03:09
I've been following this thread quietly, curious to see in what directions the arguments go. Of course, I have opinions of my own, but many of my own conclusions have already been voiced, perhaps more succinctly or more cogently (and surely more intelligently) by others...

I think as far as the original question goes, it's been answered best by Shane Layton, don'tcha think? Mr. Layton does a very respectable job of soul-searching about his own system, the Bujinkan, for answers, rather than trying to cast aspersions on some koryu system, and in this way, I have developed a good deal more respect for him (and therefore for like-minded individuals in the Bujinkan) due to his honesty and self-reflection.

As he notes, perhaps a bit more introspection, etiquette, research and willingness to admit to inconsistencies may do their public image more good.

Dave Lowry says that he has nothing personal against Hatsumi s. or the Bujinkan, nor does he question the viability or applicability of the techniques. As a koryu kind'a guy, I agree with Mr. Lowry. I've trained in some of Hatsumi s.'s methods with his seniormost Western student and I can readily admit that they are incredibly painful and effective. But that's not the issue, and if you're arguing about whether or not it's a koryu, you're not arguing about whether or not it "works," whatever the heck that means. Casting aspersions on koryu (especially by using wrong historical notions or by making superficial comparisons over what you think a koryu kata is all about vs. the grand ultimate fantabulous no-counter supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Bujinkan kata) doesn't help the argument any, and indeed, it may further help to alienate others who look at such reasoning as illogical, flawed and emotionally driven.

And one must also realize, as Kim Taylor notes, that we ALL have to be wary of spinning webs of b.s. and passing off youthful machismo (and ignorance) about a "warrior" way, a "real battlefield" method, etc. The koryu evolved not only for what some may derisively say were monetary or political reasons. They evolved so as to take "fighting" methods and to hammer them into something that would be posited as mental, physical and spiritual development. Real wars and battles, as Kim notes, are ultimately ugly, brutal carnages of humans hurting and killing other human beings. A component of koryu, or "martial arts" surely is rooted in that human conflict, but one would hope that the koryu have, over the centuries, become dignified as more than that, in fact, perhaps, the opposite of that.

To the extent that other kinds of martial sports and activities strive towards the same goals of bettering an individual, I welcome their entrance to the public arena. To the extent that some exponents argue and heave their belligerent egos about, I am saddened and dismayed.

Over the years, I've met some Bujinkan people who have discussed issues with me reasonably and with greater humility and respect than I showed them at first. More than shrill arguments, their behavior has made me, in turn, open to listening to such individuals. I may still disagree with some of their notions, but we have argued and discussed concepts (privately) with greater respect for each other's positions. That, more than any other argument, would be one way other Bujinkan'ers may perhaps win more respect among some of us koryu'ers.

BTW, those who practice koryu are not a monolithic body of gatekeepers. We come from different ryu, have different views and methodologies, and also argue among ourselves quite a bit. So we're not a singular, monolithic entity. That's a straw tiger of a sorts.

--Wayne Muromoto

hyaku
16th November 2004, 04:08
Originally posted by Kim Taylor
This same guy had an anthropologist show up on his doorstep one day with a whole pig in her trunk she wanted him to hack up so she could study the bone marks. He declined that one too. Hell you must remember those stories, that was Don Harvey......Kim.

Ahh that lady I met a few times at seminars. She was an archaeological pathologist. I thought it was a body she brought?

She came over here to Japan and studied the remains of bodies from Sekigahara. She found little skull damage from swords apart from a few saw-like nicks.

Shane, If it fits you do it and enjoy.

Its not a matter of changing as trying to do what the present head wants you to do. If we follow that rule and keep up with that and remember what the others taught especially the founder we can "hope" to continue a tradition. That's the main thing, to "continue". And now and again throughout the generations one praticular special teacher is born that we can hope to brush shoulders with.

Even in a particular ryu what suits one person of a particular build or size does not suit another. That's the beauty of watching a demo and seeing a particular fundamentals with the added character of the particular person that does it. New or old its all good stuff.

shieldcaster
16th November 2004, 04:08
Got your fill yet, Bren and Gary?

I can hardly present quite as much a point as some of the heavy hitters in here, but I think I may have a few bits to add.

1) Do you think that a 'ninja' time-travelling here to the 21st century would be very impressed by what it is that you do (in the dojo, gym, garage, etc.)? Or that they would give a squirt of piss that they didn't have any limelight on Koryu.com? Think that through.

2) Any comment from anyone in here proclaiming that koryu in general are impractical, is only limiting themsleves. Certainly there are noted examples of particular koryu that probably would not be very useful in your 'modern battlefield' arena, but there are others that are impressively so. Thinking that just because some basic kata may have been designed centuries ago to fight a mounted and armored opponent on a medieval battlefield makes the entire system moot in today's world (and limiting the ryu to only 'battle' oriented practicality) is a vulgar display of naivitee. Do you think that warfare was the same for all those centuries?

Have you ever really used your budo taijutsu to protect yourself, or more importantly someone else? Are you a policeman or in the armed forces? If you are interested in some battlefield effective training, then go to your local recruiters office and ask about UAV piloting or bomber armament jobs, cause that's the battlefield these days. Oh! Of course. How could I forget all of those high speed special forces types out there who are really in it--I bet they are all super-duper experts at hand to hand stuff, maybe even BBT. Hmmm. No. Hardly. They learn the basic stuff that we all learned, maybe some oh so high speed Ranger Combatives, or they hit the local dojo for some board breaking every Wednesday night. (Not to limit them all, but in my experience that is how it is.) Cops have guns. So do soldiers. If you are an operator on or around today's battlefield and your a.s.s. is using taijutsu or jujutsu or jujitsu then you have completely failed at least most of your mission.

3)Don't kid yourself. Most people in this world do not train or study koryu to learn how to fight a tangible physical enemy, nor do they proclaim to. And for all of BBT practitioners' stabs at the inefficiency of koryu on today's streets, there are a dozen more JKD or Close Quarter guys baggin' on you for what you do. It seems that with most of you less-experienced BBT guys, you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Think about it.

4) I've had a number of coaches and sergeants that use the ole shut up and train line--great minds think alike, I guess.:o

Gene Williams
16th November 2004, 11:39
Originally posted by hyaku
Ahh that lady I met a few times at seminars. She was an archaeological pathologist. I thought it was a body she brought?

She came over here to Japan and studied the remains of bodies from Sekigahara. She found little skull damage from swords apart from a few saw-like nicks.

Shane, If it fits you do it and enjoy.

Its not a matter of changing as trying to do what the present head wants you to do. If we follow that rule and keep up with that and remember what the others taught especially the founder we can "hope" to continue a tradition. That's the main thing, to "continue". And now and again throughout the generations one praticular special teacher is born that we can hope to brush shoulders with.

Even in a particular ryu what suits one person of a particular build or size does not suit another. That's the beauty of watching a demo and seeing a particular fundamentals with the added character of the particular person that does it. New or old its all good stuff.

I would imagine that most combatants in a battle like Sekigahara were killed by either yari or arrows.

renfield_kuroda
16th November 2004, 13:30
Originally posted by Gary Arthur
In my understanding before about the end of the period of the warring states (Sengoku Jidai Period)martial arts had very little organised structure. Warriors would wander around Japan, meet a teacher they could train with and exchange ideas. Martial arts were often taught outside and sometimes a student would only spend a few days with any teacher. In other words martial arts Ryu were very unorganised.
Your understanding is stunningly, glaringly wrong.
Ryu were generally extremely well organized; in fact, they HAD to be. The very requirements of teacher->student transmission required serious commitment, dedication, and a support organization. Being a samurai whose 'job' was to train also helped immensely.

Go to koryu.com and read all the books on the recommended reading list. That should give you at least a basic historical reference for traditional martial arts.

Regards,
r e n

El Guapo-san
16th November 2004, 14:18
Originally posted by hyaku
As a member/director of the Todo Renmei I am dissapointed that no one responded to my post.

Sorry, I can get back to you in a few days. Pumpkin hacking is on DVD number two of my study at home course. :mst:

Frank, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

But seriously, some of the ryu within the Booj curriculum may fall under a koryu category, if you want to stretch things. The majority of the schools do not fall under the ninjutsu or ninpo headings, and most anything I've seen that maybe could be related to such things is generally taught in a kuden manner. As an organisation and teaching method, the Bujinkan does not fall under a traditional koryu methodology. If you've got a good teacher, then that should be readily apparent to you. And I say that as a happy Booj student who's got a couple of great teachers and has been to Japan a number of times.

Honestly, when I see words like 'warriorship', 'ninja' and 'shugendo' bantered about in relation to the Bujinkan, it makes my stomach churn. Never seen it, never care to. If I want to hang out with mountain monks, I know where Dewa is and if I want to hang out with ninjers, well, I need to go find a swampest place and look for people in black who are flipping out.

No need to bring Skoss or Friday into the debate. What possibly would they have to comment? They're doing their own things and seem quite busy.

If you want koryu, fine, do koryu. Don't confuse Kukishinden bo as the Kukishin ryu. Spending much time and energy going after appearances only diminishes your time and energy. If you get a kick out of it, well, fine, but why not learn Japanese and then go pursue primary sources on things? If one were serious, that's what they would do, instead of blowing up like a pufferfish.

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

Karl Friday
16th November 2004, 15:19
Originally posted by brennan13
I would like to know something:

There are two schools with dodgy histories that are recognised as koryu by the associations in Japan and by koryu.com and yet Togakure Ryu (and other Bujinkan ryu-ha) are not. Why? . . .

(I)f people accuse Hatsumi Sensei or Takamatsu Sensei of inventing Togakure Ryu, why do they also not say that Sokaku Takeda invented Daito Ryu in the Meiji era and refuse to recognise it as koryu?

Perhaps because the founder of Daito-ryu was Takeda Sokaku, not ¡ÈSokaku Takeda?¡É In any case, like most of the rest of your post, this question is premised on misinformation. Most, if not all, scholars of bugei history date the founding of the Daito-ryu to the late 19th century, when Takeda synthesized the system from other arts he had studied. Some classify it as a koryu; others do not. So what¡Çs the problem?


One of the more infamous critics of the Togakure Ryu and Bujinkan schools has been Professor Karl Friday of the Kashima Shin Ryu.

It¡Çs interesting to know that I¡Çve been promoted to ¡Èinfamous.¡É If you would actually check your facts, Mr. Brennan, you¡Çd notice that I¡Çve never criticized the Bujinkan or the Togakure Ryu. In fact I¡Çve been explicit and emphatic--repeatedly--about not doing so. What I have done is raise questions about the history of these institutions. In doing so, I have--as I¡Çve stated repeatedly--done nothing more than report the consensus of historians and other bugei scholars. If that gets your undies in a bunch, so be it.


I was under the impression, therefore, that his own system would be above reproach with regards to koryu status.

Your impression was correct. Your new-found beliefs about ¡Èfishy stuff¡É with regard to Kashima-Shinryu history are your own business. Believe whatever you like. If you want to convince others, however, you might try getting your facts straight, applying a bit of actual logic, and reasoning in good faith, rather than arguing by means of adolescent word games.


I believe that the previous headmaster, Kunii Zenya, was known to have "restored" the school . . . This "restored" can probably be read as reconstructed or even invented . . . Secondly, the current headmaster, Seki Humitake, it seems only studied under Kunii Zenya for a few years in the 1960s before becoming the Shihanke. This is a lot less time than Hatsumi studied under Takamatsu.

¡ÈRestored¡É could probably be read to mean lots of things, but since you¡Çre quoting the term from my book, you might perhaps try reading it in context. If you did, you¡Çd probably notice that, in regard to Kunii Zen¡Çya¡Çs Kashima-Shinryu activities, it does not refer to anything resembling what you¡Çre suggesting.

As to your second statement: your point is what, that Dr. Hatsumi was a slow learner? The length of a successor¡Çs apprenticeship before being named headmaster might have some bearing on a discussion of his skill level, but it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of legitimacy of succession, and even less relevant to the questions concerning the historicity of a particular school. Having trained under Prof. Seki for nearly 30 years, I can assure you that I have no qualms about his abilities. And, in any case, as I¡Çve noted repeatedly in these discussions, arguing about the martial merits of a school or an individual is at best pointless, and is just plain childish. Seki¡Çs succession as Kashima-Shinryu shihanke is recognized by all major authorities on the matter, including the Kashima Grand Shrine. A photograph of his succession document appears in my Legacies of the Sword book.

El Guapo-san
16th November 2004, 16:02
Well, there goes part of my post. :D

J. Vlach

niten ninja
16th November 2004, 20:08
Hatsumi appears to have taken what may have once been a koryu style organisation and has changed it so that it most definately isn't a koryu anymore, it has become a more modern system, more of a half way house. Also the comment about the bujinkans sojutsu has to take into account the idea that is central to ninpo that if you know a bit of everything then that is alot more flexible than,for example being an amazing spear master but perhaps not always having a spear in which case your in trouble.
I'm not a member of bujinkan but i am part of a shoot off from them, and to be honest I don't have much love for the Bujinkan, but I feel they are just an organisation that teaches the Togakure Ryu. The fact there is no actual direct historical evidence is not really that important because the taijutsu system in my (admitidly limited) experience is very effective and their history is quite credible, while reasons for lack of evidence are easy to find. The fact the togakure history has a lack of amazing events is one of the biggest reasons I believe it to be mostly if not entirely truthful. Look at any ninjutsu website, not linked to Togakure and you get either no history or a terrible Kung Fu movie plot (yes I am talking to you Ashida Kim) about Nine black Dragon Ninja!
Well thats my small rant over.
Oh and before I finish, just to explain Hatsumis seemingly lightning rise to soke, I remember reading that Hatsumi was actually the youngest of Takamatsu's students and that the head student actually recommended him because he believed that Hatsumi would have the abilities and energy to broaden the organisation. (don't hold me on that I just remembered it, not the source)

Ian McDonald
16th November 2004, 21:59
Hyaku-san,

Probably the reason no one responded to your (implied and unjustified) derision of pumpkin cutting is that they, unlike you who has lived in Japan for far too long, know the facts about the lethality and viscious temperament of American pumpkins and the potential threat and danger they pose today, especially in an era of terror, destruction, and airline delays. That is why serious sword guys practice cutting on pumpkins. After all, it is just past Halloween and the memory of the terrifyingly fearsome Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow (He Ho, for short) lies close to the forefront of their short-attention span memories. Probably suffering from mild cases of PTSD, these He Ho haters hack the hoary fruits before the eyes of their Little Loved Ones, thereby ritually protecting them from being bashed by a thrown pumpkin for the rest of the coming year. That is, until the next time He rides forth on his mighty horse. Beware all ye timid teachers of Budo: Ichabod is dead, and so are you. Pumpkins Rule!

Bruce Mitchell
17th November 2004, 03:19
To steal an old joke, it's just too bad that 90% of Ninjas give the rest a bad name. :D

Sillal
17th November 2004, 05:52
Its kind of sad the overall maturity of both sides on this issue.

One thing, from my understanding, the Bujinkan would NOT fall under an art at all so any argument making it koryu would be false. The Bujinkan is an organization, not a ryu. Within that organization there are nine ryu ha that are studied, and whether or not those are koryu is what really should be talking about, if anything. Am I wrong on this count?

What I generally see on this issue here on e-budo, across what dozens of threads started about it now, is really two sides that don’t really know much about koryu or they don’t’ know much about the Bujinkan. By this I mean you have people who will insist that the Bujinkan arts are koryu without truly understanding what this title means, and many, many, many people assume the Bujinkan folks are a bunch of hillbillies running around in black pajamas climbing trees, and throwing smoke bombs. Really all we are doing are failing to see each others arts and points of view.

It almost feels like some kind of sad old school rivalry exists between “ninjas” and “traditional martial artists.” I have met so many people who have an immediate disrespect for the Bujinkan martial arts without EVER seeing them or attending a class. I find that type of closed mindedness sad in the budo community and can’t imagine where the inherent bigotry that exists comes from.

In the end we are all training, and we all feel that are arts are valid. Making “ninja” jokes is all fun, but I sadly feel that its coming from ignorance. Really the image of “ninja’ that is being made fun of is one propagated by media institutions. If we assume that they are always correct then I guess all the Karate guys sit around trying to catch flies with chopsticks, and all Aikido guys are ex-CIA, ex-special ops, ex-cops, ex-DEA combat god cooks with ponytails.

We don’t have to agree, but some measure of respect should be shown by both sides on this issue. Certainly no art should be judged by forum warriors, but by historical research (and no I don’t mean you read a web site, I mean actual research) and mat time.

Gary Arthur
17th November 2004, 14:39
In response to Shield caster. Your replie:

1) Do you think that a 'ninja' time-travelling here to the 21st century would be very impressed by what it is that you do (in the dojo, gym, garage, etc.)? Or that they would give a squirt of piss that they didn't have any limelight on Koryu.com? Think that through.

No Shieldcaster I would imagine that the time travelling Ninja would not be impressed by what we do, but if we could sit down and be able to talk the same language i'm pretty sure that if I explained that our martial system is based on old techniques but adapted to fit todays world, he would probably say something like "Yes Ninjutsu is very old, we too have had to adapt the art when new tactics, armour or weapons were invented" and I think that No they would not give a damn about the Koryu.Com as their martial art was more concerned with survival than being recognised as a legit society/organisation.

You Continue

2) Any comment from anyone in here proclaiming that koryu in general are impractical, is only limiting themsleves. Certainly there are noted examples of particular koryu that probably would not be very useful in your 'modern battlefield' arena, but there are others that are impressively so. Thinking that just because some basic kata may have been designed centuries ago to fight a mounted and armored opponent on a medieval battlefield makes the entire system moot in today's world (and limiting the ryu to only 'battle' oriented practicality) is a vulgar display of naivitee. Do you think that warfare was the same for all those centuries?

There's a nice excert from Sege Mol's book on Classical fighting arts of Japan. Please remember on reading this that Mr Mol studied Ko Ryu. The quote is on page 41 entitled A SHIFT IN COMBATATIVE ORIENTATION. I will not quote word for word as it will take up too much space but he says that " Some early Edo-period schools especially those founded by warriors with practical combat experience, still showed a very pragmatic and effective approach, and included techniques suitable both for combat on the battlefield and peacetime situations" At that point in time the techniques were pragmatic I suggest because they were exactly what the warriors would use in that period of time. He continues "However the peace experienced in the Edo period gradually eroded the warriors skills and some schools that were founded near the end of the Edo period perhaps lacked real substance, and were no longer suitable for battlefield combat"

My point here shieldcaster is that NO warefare was not the same for all those centuries. Exactly my point. Martial arts had always continued to develop until some schools which fit into the KO RYU terminology were codified and taught in a strict manner. It was at this point that some schools stopped changing with the times and became anachronisms. As pointed out this is not to say they lacked substance or that they do not have relevance in todays world. Just that whereas Ninjutsu (for sake of a better word) has continued to change and grow and whilst being in some points unrecognizable to a 15th century ninja, it is still ninjutsu in that it does exactly what the warrior arts were meant to do in the first place 'Offer self protection' whether a Samurai, Ninja or Peasant.

Have you ever really used your budo taijutsu to protect yourself, or more importantly someone else? Are you a policeman or in the armed forces? If you are interested in some battlefield effective training, then go to your local recruiters office and ask about UAV piloting or bomber armament jobs, cause that's the battlefield these days. Oh! Of course. How could I forget all of those high speed special forces types out there who are really in it--I bet they are all super-duper experts at hand to hand stuff, maybe even BBT. Hmmm. No. Hardly. They learn the basic stuff that we all learned, maybe some oh so high speed Ranger Combatives, or they hit the local dojo for some board breaking every Wednesday night. (Not to limit them all, but in my experience that is how it is.) Cops have guns. So do soldiers. If you are an operator on or around today's battlefield and your a.s.s. is using taijutsu or jujutsu or jujitsu then you have completely failed at least most of your mission.

In reply to this I have served as a Police officer for nearly 4 years and before that worked as a bodyguard, security manager, and have worked on the doors. Prior to joining the police force I gained a police commendation for using my martial arts in restraining a violent burglar and in an armlock walking him to the police station. I have had been in many real situations where I have had to defend myself. I was punched in the back of the head once whilst leaving a night club and on gaining consciousness found the man sitting astride me punching my face in. I now know how important ground fighting is (something I had not practiced before) whilst a police officer I became complacent and got bit on the upper shoulde(I still bear the scar). I have however in most situations managed to protect myself. However i must say that since moving into the field of security since 1995 my outlook on training has changed. I now regulary do groundwork, target hitting, combat scenarios and fitness training as I believe these are invaluable in a combat situation.
Oh and Shieldcaster if you serve in the police or the army you will realise that todays threat is not the USSR but civil unrest and terrorism. therefore much better to practice knife disarms (remember 911) and firearm disarms than bomber armament jobs.

3)Don't kid yourself. Most people in this world do not train or study koryu to learn how to fight a tangible physical enemy, nor do they proclaim to. And for all of BBT practitioners' stabs at the inefficiency of koryu on today's streets, there are a dozen more JKD or Close Quarter guys baggin' on you for what you do. It seems that with most of you less-experienced BBT guys, you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Think about it.

Did I say that people practice Ko Ryu so that they learn how to defend themselves on the street. I think most people who practice Ko ryu know exactly what they are practicing and why they practice it.
And I share my Dojo with a JKD guy and have even done seminars for them in the past. The JKD guys that i have met have always had a healthy attitude to what I do. Did'nt Stephen Hayes used to share seminars with Dan Innosanto.

And in response to the guy who stated why Hatsumi became Grandmaster. I was speaking to Tanemura Sensei in Belgium many years ago and he said that Hatsumi Sensei got grandmastership not because he was the best but he was the right age. the other students were in their 70s. No point giving it to a 70 year old who could be dead in a few years. Thats not to say that Hatsumi Sensei is not worthy of the rank.

cxt
17th November 2004, 15:56
Gary

Ok, for another round of unanswered questions from me to you.

1-How many Koryu have you trained in?

2-How many years have you trained in Koryu arts? I ask because you seem pretty sure of what they are and what they are not--just want to know if you have ANY practical, hands on experience with koryu--or are you just reading books?

3-You YOURSELF suggested that Koryu arts were "impractical" so whats with the reverse? Now your lecturing us about how Koryu ARE practical--uh, pretty sure that we already knew that.

4-Good quote on Mols book--I refer you to the fact that he DID NOT list specific schools--so your taking a very general statment, out of contex I might add, and then drawing sweeping conclusions with it.

5-Plus it also kinda contradicts your OWN statement above--if Koryu have in fact retained practical use then they did NOT all get "weak" during the Edo period.

6-You seem to be making wildly inaccurate comparisons with primarly weapons using koryu arts and mainly unarmed arts like JKD (yeah, yeah I know its not "really" a style)

7-You also seem to making huge leaps in logic and assumptions about koryu--esp for guy that seems to have NO hands on experience with one.

8-Have you lost your mind? This is a thread about why "ninjutsu" is not considerd koryu.

Why are you jumping it to modern warfare? How in the name of whatever you find holy does dropping a laser guided smart-bomb (ie the "modern" warfare references) relate to ANY art koryu OR "ninjutsu????"

You know I first thought that you were a pretty serious guy that was trying to make a serious point.

Not so sure now.

Chris Thomas

BigJon
17th November 2004, 16:05
Why are you jumping it to modern warfare? How in the name of whatever you find holy does dropping a laser guided smart-bomb relate to ANY art koryu OR "ninjutsu????"

Maybe because someone has to sneak out ninja like, and paint the target...? Ok just kidding.

heretic888
17th November 2004, 16:07
Oh, dear. :rolleyes:

Finny
17th November 2004, 17:44
"However the peace experienced in the Edo period gradually eroded the warriors skills and some schools that were founded near the end of the Edo period perhaps lacked real substance,"

Go tell some of the Tenjin Shinyo Ryu guys that what they do is "watered-down, ineffective late Edo-Period rubbish with no real substance"

Also, wasn't it Ellis Amdur who was saying that Araki Ryu has always changed with the times while still maintaining it's 'old-school' roots and traditions - exactly what you're saying the ninjutsu arts did?

Silly questions, silly answers, silly topic.

"That horse looks dead!!! Let's beat it some more just to be sure!!!!!"

Gary Arthur
17th November 2004, 19:01
Shield Caster and others.

Please reread what I have put and look at the sources i.e Sege Mol yourselves. I may have little experience in Ko Ryu, as some of you have in Ninpo, but I have done some Ko Ryu and from my point of view, what I have seen, and of course I have'nt seen it all, no one has, it does seem different as I have pointed out before.
On page 96 there is a list of a number of schools that were started in the Edo period. Interestingly Araki rtu started before the Edo and like many Ninjutsu schools did not develop like other schools but probably carried along in the same vein like other older schools like Kukishin Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu.
It seems that it was the Edo period when warriors started the majority of schools which eventually emerged into schools for commoner rather than samurai.

heretic888
17th November 2004, 19:27
That's all gravy and all, Gary, but what does any of this have to do with the Bujinkan ryuha being koryu or not??

cxt
17th November 2004, 19:48
Gary

Ok, now I am sure that your not being serious.

A-Failed to address even one of my questions.

B-Now you talking about "schools for commerners rather than samurai"
And that means what exactly?

C-Since you seem to draw some sort of conclusion on the level of skills and combat effectiness of a school based upon social class--that would be the implication of your above quote.

Please list for me the social class of your teacher and his teacher and his teacher--just wanted to find out if they were of "samurai" stock.

Actually since many (not all of course) "ninja" were NOT samurai--does that mean that their skills were lacking??

You seem to saying so.

D-What Ko ryu have you "done?" and for how long?

Just trying to help.


Chris Thomas

Finny
17th November 2004, 20:34
Gary - I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but perhaps I can go back to your original post.

Please bear in mind that this is not entirely my opinion, more my interpretation of what other, more learned members have written on the subject.

I think what most have been trying to get across to you can be explained in a couple of simple points. With regards to a comparison of the Bujinkan and Daito Ryu - and why one is considered by some to be koryu, the other not:

- The koryu have a distinct method of teaching, which include a great deal of social and cultural aspects which are common to ALL of the recognised koryu. These include respecting and attempting to live up to the Ryu's ancestors, religious aspects, passing down the art unchanged, and the structure of the Ryu itself.

- This has NOTHING to do with combat whatsoever - this is strictly related to the cultural atmosphere in which the style is taught.

- Daito Ryu seems to fit this mold, for the most part, a lot more thoroughly than does the Bujinkan - a fact that Mr. Hatsumi is most admant about - he doesn't WANT to teach his system the way the koryu are taught. Hence, Daito Ryu has a koryu 'feel' to it, Bujinkan doesn't.

That, I believe, is the prime reason why some consider Daito Ryu a koryu (or 'quasi-koryu') and none consider the Bujinkan to be koryu - historical considerations are then another aspect altogether.

heretic888
17th November 2004, 20:45
Actually since many (not all of course) "ninja" were NOT samurai

Really?? ;)

cxt
17th November 2004, 20:55
Heretic88

Well, all the ones I asked said they were not samurai.

But maybe the sneaky little devils were tricking me.

Chris Thomas

chrismoses
17th November 2004, 23:24
I'm jealous, all the ninja I find disappear in a puff of smoke before I can ask them a question...

wmuromoto
17th November 2004, 23:27
Chris, you wrote:

"...Well, all the ones I asked said they were not samurai.

But maybe the sneaky little devils were tricking me."

Perhaps they were tricking you. --A matter of terminology. A spy can be anybody who is willing to do espionage work for you. The stoolie on the corner. The prostitute hanging out on Hotel Street in Honolulu. The Iraqi informant. Pay 'em enough and they'll rat out somebody for you.

But someone who supposedly plied his trade in the "art of ninjutsu," per a ninjutsu ryu, was usually a samurai, albeit from varying (and often lower) classes: Jizamurai, or those "country bumpkin" samurai out in the boondocks, warriors who were adept at espionage and information gathering, trained warriors from specific ryu who had skill in certain unorthodox methods, etc. There's a difference. If you are talking about recognized ninjutsu ryu, such as the historic Koga and Iga, their systems came from warrior clans; the various jizamurai families who made up the Koga, or the Iga headed by the Hattori.

Hattori Hanzo became one of Ieyasu's leading military advisors. At the time of Oda Nobunaga's death, Hattori Hanzo was already a minor daimyo of a fief worth 3,000 koku, so he was a "samurai" even before becoming a direct retainer of Ieyasu. Even in Hanzo's father's era, the Hattori used various "kashin" (samurai retainers) for espionage and guerrilla attacks in conjunction with their allies and superiors' battles, most notably at the Battle of Anegawa and Sambogahara, in which they furnished some 600 warriors for a night attack. For his work as a samurai, the Tokugawa gave Hanzo the nickname "Oni Hanzo," and considered him one of the three great braves of the Tokugawa alliance.

("Lord Tokugawa has great samurai, lo!...
Hattori Hanzo is Oni (demon) Hanzo,
Watanabe Hanzo is Yari (spear) Hanzo...
Akumi Gengo is Kubikiri (head cutting) Gengo!"
--From the Mikawa Monogatari

The book I am grazing into (Ninja No Seikatsu by Yamaguchi Masayuki) notes that Tokugawa Ieyasu enlisted the Koga Bushidan early on in his career. Note "bushidan." It means a samurai army. Not a "commoner's" army.

Other than that, I would advise you to read Prof. Friday's reply very carefully and try to understand the train of logic that should, ultimately, end this dispute and put to bed this thread.

Yours, sincerely,

--Wayne Muromoto

heretic888
17th November 2004, 23:44
Originally posted by wmuromoto
Chris, you wrote:

"...Well, all the ones I asked said they were not samurai.

But maybe the sneaky little devils were tricking me."

Perhaps they were tricking you. --A matter of terminology. A spy can be anybody who is willing to do espionage work for you. The stoolie on the corner. The prostitute hanging out on Hotel Street in Honolulu. The Iraqi informant. Pay 'em enough and they'll rat out somebody for you.

But someone who supposedly plied his trade in the "art of ninjutsu," per a ninjutsu ryu, was usually a samurai, albeit from varying (and often lower) classes: Jizamurai, or those "country bumpkin" samurai out in the boondocks, warriors who were adept at espionage and information gathering, trained warriors from specific ryu who had skill in certain unorthodox methods, etc. There's a difference. If you are talking about recognized ninjutsu ryu, such as the historic Koga and Iga, their systems came from warrior clans; the various jizamurai families who made up the Koga, or the Iga headed by the Hattori.

Hattori Hanzo became one of Ieyasu's leading military advisors. At the time of Oda Nobunaga's death, Hattori Hanzo was already a minor daimyo of a fief worth 3,000 koku, so he was a "samurai" even before becoming a direct retainer of Ieyasu. Even in Hanzo's father's era, the Hattori used various "kashin" (samurai retainers) for espionage and guerrilla attacks in conjunction with their allies and superiors' battles, most notably at the Battle of Anegawa and Sambogahara, in which they furnished some 600 warriors for a night attack. For his work as a samurai, the Tokugawa gave Hanzo the nickname "Oni Hanzo," and considered him one of the three great braves of the Tokugawa alliance.

("Lord Tokugawa has great samurai, lo!...
Hattori Hanzo is Oni (demon) Hanzo,
Watanabe Hanzo is Yari (spear) Hanzo...
Akumi Gengo is Kubikiri (head cutting) Gengo!"
--From the Mikawa Monogatari

The book I am grazing into (Ninja No Seikatsu by Yamaguchi Masayuki) notes that Tokugawa Ieyasu enlisted the Koga Bushidan early on in his career. Note "bushidan." It means a samurai army. Not a "commoner's" army.

Other than that, I would advise you to read Prof. Friday's reply very carefully and try to understand the train of logic that should, ultimately, end this dispute and put to bed this thread.

Yours, sincerely,

--Wayne Muromoto

:smilejapa :smilejapa :smilejapa

Howard Thiery
17th November 2004, 23:48
Wayne,
This thread needed to go to bed quite some time ago..thank you for pointing that out.

HJT

Finny
18th November 2004, 05:16
CAN I GET AN AMEN??!?!?!

http://www.StupidVideos.com/?VideoID=301

El Guapo-san
18th November 2004, 10:43
From class last night, here's a quote:

"The individual ryu-ha are like rivers, and Bujinkan is the lake. The former lead up to the latter, and the latter is a mixture. There are ways of training those ryu, and they have their individual rules, stances, etc. But for the past couple of years the themes in the Bujinkan have been beyond that."

This was followed by an admonition that most Bujinkan people do not know how to draw a sword or maintain a grip, and that people need to work more on basics.

That's about as close to the top as you're going to hear it from too.

J. Vlach

ulvulv
18th November 2004, 10:47
Originally posted by Finny
CAN I GET AN AMEN??!?!?!

http://www.StupidVideos.com/?VideoID=301

take a look at video 772

cxt
18th November 2004, 15:15
Wayne Muromoto

Uh, Wayne I was kinda kidding about the whole "samurai" thing.

Thought I was being pretty clear about my point--seems I was not.

So for the record:

I am well aware that many "ninja" were from samurai clans.

And at least some aspects of "ninjutsu" were part and parcel of the training of some Koryu Ryu.

Well aware that some samurai were "known" for their skill in these areas.

Also well aware that at least some "ninja" were NOT of the samurai class---they were "commoners" as it were.

I was using the fact that historical "ninja" came from various social levels to point out the problems with Gary's seeming to draw a distinction between combat effective arts and the social class of the folks who practice them.

Which is wrong many levels.

Sorry for any confusion.

Chris Thomas

heretic888
18th November 2004, 16:31
Originally posted by cxt
Wayne Muromoto

Uh, Wayne I was kinda kidding about the whole "samurai" thing.

Thought I was being pretty clear about my point--seems I was not.

So for the record:

I am well aware that many "ninja" were from samurai clans.

And at least some aspects of "ninjutsu" were part and parcel of the training of some Koryu Ryu.

Well aware that some samurai were "known" for their skill in these areas.

Also well aware that at least some "ninja" were NOT of the samurai class---they were "commoners" as it were.

I was using the fact that historical "ninja" came from various social levels to point out the problems with Gary's seeming to draw a distinction between combat effective arts and the social class of the folks who practice them.

Which is wrong many levels.

Sorry for any confusion.

Chris Thomas

Chris, this particular side-topic is continued (somewhat) here:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28763

Laterz all. ;)

W.Bodiford
19th November 2004, 00:51
This tread seems to have reached the ends of its useful life. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to correct a couple of inaccuracies. The Internet lends itself to words being taken out of context and repeated in ways that over time can make it difficult to separate facts from fictions. Since most of this tread has focused on Bujinkan, let me begin by saying that it is not my concern. Whether or not something is called "koryu" or not is really a question about who is doing the labeling and on the basis of what kind of analysis. Reasonable people can judge whose and what forms of analysis to trust. At the present time some people (perhaps including readers of this form) seem to be enamored by the idea of "koryu" (old). For most people, though, the "newest" is always more popular (profitable) than the "old" or the merely "new." Therefore, I think eventually the popularity of "koryu" will pass, the infatuation will fade, and "koryu-ness" will be seen simply as another fad whose time has gone. Meanwhile, the traditional arts will continue (or not) as they always have, living or dying on the basis of their ability to attract and retain a few very dedicated individuals. For those future individuals I want to put to rest the disparaging remarks with which this thread began.

1) Ant Brennan (brennan13) on 11-12-2004 04:01 AM wrote:


Firstly, I believe that the previous headmaster, Kunii Zenya, was known to have "restored" the school even though it is reuted to be hundreds of years old. This "restored" can probably be read as reconstructed or even invented . . . .
The development of Kashima-Shinryu is describe in the following English-language sources, which are readily available:

http://www.kashima-shinryu.jp/English/i_history.html

http://www.kashima-shinryu.jp/English/i_structure.html

Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture by Karl F. Friday (ISBN 0-8248-1847-4; http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu)

As can be seen in these sources, there are two main individuals who are credited with revitalizing Kashima-Shinryu: (1) Kunii Taizen (fl. 1780s) and (2) Kunii Zen?fya (1894-1966). Their achievements are celebrated, not denied. For this reason the Kashima-Shinryu kata curriculum includes many oral initiations (kuden) on how the kata worked in terms of Jikishinkageryu, how they were reworked by Kunii Taizen, and how they were further developed by Kunii Zen?fya. Some of this information is even posted on the website. The kata curriculum also includes some elements that go back unchanged to the very beginnings of Kashima-Shinryu in the ancient (or even mythical) past. This kind of curriculum with multiple layers of development is more common than not (and is documented in many other styles; e.g., Ittoryu, Kashima Shintoryu, Yagyu Shinkageryu, etc.).


2) Ant Brennan (brennan13) on 11-12-2004 04:01 AM wrote:


Secondly, the current headmaster, Seki Humitake, it seems only studied under Kunii Zenya for a few years in the 1960s before becoming the Shihanke. . . . .
I am not sure what is implied by the phrase "for a few years." It is quite possible, though, that Kunii Zen'ya might have identified Seki Humitake as his successor within a very short time, maybe after only four or five years. I once saw a printed membership roster for Kunii Zen'ya's dojo that dated from the early 1960s. It designated Zen'ya as the head of the dojo and Seki as number two. Then, in a separate column, it listed the names of the dojo's students, many (or a majority?) of whom were older and more experienced than Seki. Clearly, Seki was/is a prodigy. (He is a genius more ways than one.) I have met several of Zen'ya's senior students (Seki's senpai) and all of them described Seki in awe and commented on how rapid his progress was. I was told that within only one year of training Seki already was more able than many of Zen'ya's other students who had decades of experience. For the record, though, Seki trained for 10 years before being officially designated as Zen'ya's successor. During that period Seki underwent a series of one-on-one initiations devoted to the teachings reserved for the headmaster alone.

Another interesting thing about that membership roster is that it clearly designated a group of senior disciples as the "old men" (i.e., council of advisors). These are the people who assisted Zen'ya in various ways, especially in administrative matters. Those same people continued in that capacity and assisted Seki when he assumed control. I think this kind of arrangement is very common. Thus, when Zen'ya became headmaster he not only inherited the ryugi (principles of the ryuha) but also the council of advisors who had worked with his father and grandfather. Programs from early martial demonstrations in which Zen'ya appeared show him with older gentlemen who must have been not his students, but students of that earlier generation. A similar council of advisors exists today (not with the same people, of course). They will assist Seki as long as he remains headmaster and will assist whomever Seki designates as his successor.

If a ryuha is to survive, it cannot be a museum piece frozen in time. It must be alive. With life comes change. No two ryuha are the same and there is no reason why this one or another one must change in a manner similar to anything else. The way that ryuha change, though, should be an organic process that grows out of its own generational dynamics within its own particular social and geographical context. New members are socialized within this group by being placed under the supervision not just of the headmaster, but of senior students and of people like the aforementioned council of old men. This is why, over the years, Seki went out of his way to make sure that I was introduced to and worked out with those surviving members of Zen'ya's generation, was introduced to Zen'ya's wife, was able to practice austerities with the priests of the Kashima Jingu Grand Shrine, and so forth. Becoming fully embedded in this network of relationships is part of what makes one a member of a ryuha. It gives the ryuha a kind of "shared memory" and "shared identity" that is greater than any one individual even as its formal identity is embodied in the single person of the headmaster. This shared identity, hopefully, enables a ryuha to remain true to the best parts of itself even as one generation inevitably gives way to the next.

shieldcaster
19th November 2004, 02:39
Gary, I am aware that you are a policeman--a fact that surfaced on another thread. That particular question was directed more at Bren, who consequently has not posted in quite awhile.

As for Edo era ryu all being watered down, I think that may have been reasonably addressed. However, here in my neck of the woods, there is a particular ryu that was founded during the Edo Period: Nagao-ryu. Through my research and experience, this particular art seems a stunning example of sheer street practicality--with concealed weapons, too. A complete, no B.S. way to deal with an antagonist--whether the guy is holding a sword or a gun or a rusty syringe full of AIDS infected blood. Any specification of the details of an attacker's weapon of choice is using up the time you need to be neutralizing your aggressor. It's all about timing and angle, as you said. This is about as 'street worthy' as any art I've seen, koryu or gendai or western bastardization of either. The difference, as stated above, is in the etiquette. There are definitely a lot of rules regarding how you act and how you think, and how you view those who came before. I honestly do not know if the school is listed on any of the Big Lists. In any case, there are/were hundreds of koryu, and any generalization of the myriad characteristics of these ryuha based on technical or tactical application is folly. This particular ryu is a prime example of precisely why any judgement call regarding the pragmatic qualities of ALL koryu would be a difficult stance to maintain. As for Mol's book, I think that there is a big difference in 'lacking substance' and being not being suitable for battlefield combat'. I think that was the point with Edo era adaptation and development: that there no longer any battlefields, per se, the 'battlefield' was the street, building, etc.

I think that one of the underlying issues here is that many Ninpo guys who are actually in here posting (or writing books), are quick to profess how any of the budo taijutsu out there is streetwise and battle-ready--which I think no one really argues until the 'my kung fu is better than your kung fu' dialogue gets underway. As if Ninpo, in any of its varieties, has a monopoly on the modern combat effectiveness of traditional bugei. Obviously, Bren's misstep was to start this dialogue--a dialogue, might I add, that does not EVER do anyone, or their teacher(s) or their school any good. Funny how it's always rookies that get these parties started.

*A bit of a note about all of the 'put this baby to rest' stuff. No one asked you to watch or type or think. If you have a problem with soemthing in here, express it or don't. There are so many damn dead horses on this sight, it's a wonder that the glue factories aren't buying stock. This stuff is called conversation, as technologically advanced as it might be, we are all just guys--and the occassional girl--sitting around having a few beers or coffees or orange juices and chit-chatting about the oh-so dead horse of kobudo and its plathora issues. So get up from the table and walk away, don't judge us or anyone else if we would like to continue to talk. No offense intended to anyone, but have a little perspective for those of us who would like to be a little anti-socially sociable. (Sorry, Dr. B, you posted while I was writing, and said a bit nicer.*

Yes, Gary, I do remember the Infamous September 11th, 2001. Funny how that date creeps into everything these days... And in case you haven't been following the news, the 'war' in Iraq consisted mainly of air strikes and conventional warfare with bigger guns than even Rambo could carry. The 'war' on terrorism is hardly fought with knife disarms and CQB--hense all of the pillars of smoke you see over the Baghdad and Fallujah skyline, either in person or on the news. Too, I know for a fact that the VAST majority of of the 200, 000 odd 'coalition' troops there right now have absolutely no concept of self-protection short of how to put on their protective mask or how to put the little notch at the end of the rifle into the little circle at the back to make sure that when they pull the trigger the guy in the sites will fall down and not try to get them anymore. My point with any reference to actual warfare and its modern appilication is that many MA folks are so chuffed that they are 'in the martial scene now' that they think that anything they do has anything to do with how war is fought. Hence, are you are cop or a soldier? You know as well as I do that hardly anyone in this field (MA) is actually ever going to utilize what they know for any combat--especially against a gun-toting criminal or terrorist. A few in here seemed to fit this mold a bit, so I thought I would try to clarify their experience(s) with actual operational 'battlefield' and/or 'street' action to get more of a handle on why they might be interested in the validity of this art or that art's combat effectiveness.

Biscuits for your service and scars, Gary. Unfortunately there are many people out there who will never fully appreciate what you do for them.

And, you are really dating yourself with the whole USSR thing. I was there, too, and I know. And I have been there since, so, again, I know. I also know that out of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of troops involved in our nations' 'war' on terrorism, only a few of them are actually personally fighting terrorists and civil unrest. So, big guns=big success=happy news watchers back on the home front--ever wonder why Afghanistan isn't on the news so much? SF guys aren't so fun to watch for the layman.

Steve Hayes did indeed share time with Inosanto, as has Seagall and a number of other bigwigs in this arena. JKD doesn't bother with the extraneous or (what it views as) superfluous. There is no ki or chi, no underlying meaning behind what a move is or what it represents. Hell, in all my years of JKD I don't think I bowed one single time--though there was a bit of hand shaking from time to time. You weren't on the mat to pay respect to anyone or further the heritage of anything, you were there to learn to a) kick some a.s.s., or b) learn how to not get your a.s.s. kicked. Jeeze, JKD could trace many of its convoluted roots or rivers back to ancient days of glorious combat--though I don't think we had quite nine whole schools to pull from in the basics--but they sure as hell don't try to convince the ole skoolies that they should be in the club, too. Nor do they drop the mines bigger than yours bomb, either. They just train. Anytime a ninpo or aikido or jujutsu guy gets called around to a Ranger battalion or over to Delta or DEVGRU or CIA, there is a veteran JKD guy already there to break it all down for the Joe in the class after the budo guy leaves. So, if that's what your looking for, then the sky is the limit.

And, JKD guys are pretty open-minded with what anybody does, until there's a challenge to what it is that they (the JKD guys) do. To JKD, actions speak louder than words, or money talks... And if I'm not mistaken, when I was in the U.K. in the mid- and late-90's (doing JKD) there were a few ninjer-types who were doing just that. Entertaining to say the least. And A LOT of the older JKD guys will give you integrated firearms training and security stuff with the other stuff you get. (See Mark McFann, Fayetteville, AR, USA.)

So, now that I'm off the topic, Gary (and Bren). I think that the issue is that someone started pointing fingers at selected koryu in here, in some sort of effort to gain some acceptence. That tends to rank a person in the 'does not play well with others' category in elementary school. So, aside from JKD, modern warfare and cutting pumpkins, have we missed anything?

George Kohler
19th November 2004, 06:32
looks like this thread needs to sleep.

Boromir
24th November 2004, 09:38
hello to all
I am shidoshi ho in Bujinkan and I am totaly aware that Bujinkan is not koryu cause bujinkan is just organisation not style per se. But nine ryu-ha in Bujinkan colud be observe as koryu. Bujinkan NinpoTaijutsu is style of fighting which contains kihon from those 9 ryu-ha and he is created during 1970.
Certain member of this e budo forum said that sojutsu from bujinkan is bad. There is a question for him:Did you ever practice sojutsu or yari with hatsumi sensei.

Soulend
24th November 2004, 10:51
That thread was already locked down. You should ask him via PM.

tsurashi shondo
24th November 2004, 15:44
enough already, sheesh.

siralec
11th November 2005, 17:58
Hi all,

I have been a Bujinkan student for quite a while and the whole koryu.com issue has weighed very heavily on my mind for several years since I became aware of the website (koryu.com). The reason it upsets me is not because of wanting to be accepted by any "koryu community" but because of the implicit accusations of dishonesty somewhere in our recent history.

I have searched for a long time to try understand this issue, but most arguments and rebuttals seem to miss the point totally. There are many many long threads on the topic all over the forums, but they always seem to get derailed and are never conclusive. Looking at how many threads on e-budo on the topic got shut down by the moderators seems to prove my point.

I have recently found what is probably the best thread on this topic over on Budoseek

http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4672&page=1&pp=20

It looks like we may finally be getting somewhere. The discussion is civil and focused and had some great input from people who know what they are talking about.

Remember, the original question on koryu.com was "Is Ninjutsu Koryu?" and NOT "Is the Bujinkan Koryu?"

So we need to ask whether Togakure Ryu dates back before 1868 or not?

By talking about the Bujinkan, it gives far too many get-out clauses for people on both sides. It allows them to avoid confronting the real question.

What type of get-out clauses am I talking about?

Well, it allows the so-called koryu people to avoid having to come out and actually say anything is fake and to talk instead about things like organizational issues and teaching methodology.

At the same time it allows the Bujinkan side to exclaim that there is
much more than Ninjutsu in the Bujinkan system and then to point to
Kukishin Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu.

To put it another way, the problem with most internet discussions that I've seen on the topic has been that people mistake the question “Is Ninjutsu Koryu?” with the following questions:

1) Is the Bujinkan system koryu?
2) Is Hatsumi a member of the koryu organizations?
3) Is the Bujinkan training good?
4) Is it being taught in the koryu manner?

That is why so many discussions don't get anywhere. I would urge people to stick to the subject and would also welcome any information from people either by PM or by posts.

Regards
Alec Courtney

siralec
11th November 2005, 18:07
Hello,



Are you sure?

Isn't one of Masaaki Hatsumi's most famous quotes: "Understand? Good. Play! (http://www.bushinbooks.com)"?

Regards,

Ron Beaubien

BTW this is what is meant by Hatsumi Soke when he says "Play!"


An exclamation that reminds us of the fun-loving heart we must bear in order to grow. This is something that Sōke says before we try out a new technique. It is a proclamation reminding us to smile and laugh, to enjoy training, to bond with others...to play!

Source www.bushinbooks.com

siralec
11th November 2005, 18:14
Both Kukishin and Takagi Yoshin ryu are well known. It is possible that some of what we call Togakure-ryu comes from a Kukishin related scroll (Amatsu Tatara hibumi) called ryusen no maki.

Hello

This is very interesting indeed.

I always thought Togakure Ryu came from Toda.

If it came from this Kukishin scroll, would that mean it came from Ishitani?

Do you have any more information on this?

by the way I have recently found an excellent thread on the whole topic here on Budoseek: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4672

IMO we need to focus on the question of whether Togakure Ryu is koryu (from before 1868) and NOT get sidetracked into the other Bujinkan schools or the Bujinkan as a whole.

Regards
Alec Courtney

cxt
11th November 2005, 19:03
Siralec

I just read thu the koryu.com article in question.

I could find no implication of "dishonesty" on anyone's part.

Perhaps you could be more specific?

Just seems to me that they took great care to frame the statements opinion, and that opinions could be different for different folks.

Maybe I'm wrong.


Chris Thomas

fifthchamber
13th November 2005, 02:18
Hi all..

Of course "play" is important in the training in Bujinkan....but, I've still not encountered the concept of "playing ninja", i.e. nothing like running around in masks, sneaking around, disappearing in puffs of smoke etc.
I don't mean this in any way to be a criticism or anything other than what it is..But what I, and a majority of the Japanese that go to the Enbu have seen is precisely this..Ninja vanishing in smoke and catching arrows in the eyes and running around in masks..I agree that training is training but this image IS out there..And is supported in Enbu put on by those high enough in the organisation to have a good idea about what to show..These photos are from the recent Enbu put on in the Tokyo Budokan in Ayase..Make of them what you will.
Regards.

Steve Delaney
13th November 2005, 04:36
WHAT in the name of all that is HOLY???

*Rubs eyes*

Man I need another Guinness after that!

niten ninja
13th November 2005, 15:45
Dear god...

hyaku
14th November 2005, 00:00
Which Bujinkan ryu-ha are listed in the Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten , and who is listed as their legitimate inheritor?

Not all the ryu are in there.

Hattori
14th November 2005, 10:47
I have noticed that Hatsumi refers to ninjato quite a lot despite many sword experts insisting that such a sword NEVER existed.

Also, Hatsumi studied Asayama Ichiden ryu (a recognised koryu) did he not? Anyone know if he attained any substantial grading in that school and why he never mentions it?

niten ninja
14th November 2005, 13:35
I've noticed that "straight sword" often refers to a sword not quite as bent as usual.

Steve Delaney
14th November 2005, 15:22
I have noticed that Hatsumi refers to ninjato quite a lot despite many sword experts insisting that such a sword NEVER existed.

Also, Hatsumi studied Asayama Ichiden ryu (a recognised koryu) did he not? Anyone know if he attained any substantial grading in that school and why he never mentions it?

Uh-oh, that question's gonna open a can o' worms

George Kohler
14th November 2005, 16:53
Also, Hatsumi studied Asayama Ichiden ryu (a recognised koryu) did he not? Anyone know if he attained any substantial grading in that school and why he never mentions it?

Yes, he learned Asayama Ichiden-ryu and received MK from Ueno Takashi. He does not mention Ueno or Asayama because they had a falling out. I believe Hatsumi Sensei still teaches Asayama, but does not mention the names (kata and school). If you look at some of the techniques in Hatsumi Sensei's stick fighting book (co-written with Chambers) there are several techniques (Hishigi - short stick) from Asayama Ichiden-ryu.

siralec
14th November 2005, 20:07
Siralec

I just read thu the koryu.com article in question.

I could find no implication of "dishonesty" on anyone's part.

Perhaps you could be more specific?




Hello Chris,

It is not said explicitly. You need to read between the lines.
If Ninjutsu is not Koryu, it means that Togakure Ryu does not date back any further than 1868, right? (note they don't say "is not certain" but rather they say "it IS NOT koryu." They also say "ninjutsu as a ryuha does not exist." Very concrete terms they are using.

But we say it stems back 34 generations. So already we have an accusation that our lineage is false. Not just fake, but grossly fake.

But you can narrow it down even further. Because the cut off date for koryu is 1868, they are accusing one of three men of lying: Hatsumi-sensei, Takamatsu-sensei or Toda-sensei.

Only if one of these three men made it up, would Togakure Ryu not be koryu.

The dates of birth and death are such that even if Toda's father were to have made the art up and lied about it, it would still be koryu because it was made up before the 1868 cut-off date.

Similarly, if a member of the Toda family made it up in the mid Edo period, it would still be koryu, even if he lied about its origin.

So the finger of blame is being pointed at someone who lived in the period after 1868, which doesn't leave a lot of room.

Alec Courtney