PDA

View Full Version : What is really yours to teach?



Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 00:54
Hello all,


The recent uncomfortable discussion regarding the NC/Roppokai split recently has brought up an interesting topic that I'd like to get some responses on:

When you are being taught a tradition, how much of that is "yours" to keep if you leave the tradition?

For instance, licenses to teach are similar to a drivers license - it is a privilege, not a right, and you do not "own" the license. You will be asked to at least cease teaching (regardless of the conditions for the withdraw), and may be asked for the actual certificate back, if the separation is bitter or the issuing agency is concerned of misrepresentation.

However, dan/kyu ranks and menkyo/mokuroku are earned based solely on accomplishment, and are yours to keep. Even if the issuing party decides to void the rank in their books officially, you can still claim to have earned such a rank, IMHO. I don't believe it is fair to ask for such ranks certificates/makimono back.

But, what about the intellectual property of the tradition?

Many koryu used to require keppan (blood oath) in order to express their strong position regarding the representation of their tradition. Some ryu-ha would not even let you accept challenges unless the student had achieved Menkyo Kaiden level (diploma).

Okamoto Sensei has been criticized for by some for giving away Daito ryu teachings and secrets to the general public (via video and open seminars). Daito ryu is generally considered a somewhat conservative style, hence the lack of authoritative contributions from senior ranked members of Daito ryu (though many do lurk here!). :)

Angier Soke has also had a problem in the past with people taking advantage of his open attitude towards teaching core principles to seminar participants and new students.

So, how do ya'll feel about the NC group continuing to teach the principles and (I assume?) techniques of Daito ryu Aikijujutsu Roppokai under their own authority? When you've trained in a style, it is expected to change your approach to martial arts. But do you have a right to continue teaching what you've learned under a different name? Is that ethical?

Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to daily exposure at the honbu.

On one hand, they may have been told that they have all the tools they need to master the style they were affiliated with. On the other hand, nobody trained directly long enough to reach a Menkyo Kaiden level, so now that they do not have a senior Daito ryu instructor to supervise their progress, we'll never know if they are progressing along the same path (principles and strategies) as Daito ryu or not.

Before you answer - indulge me for a minute:

Imagine that you are the head/founder of your own system, or a senior ranked representative (say of the international branches) of a respected ryu-ha.

You create a study group/branch system so as to carefully foster your art in areas that presently do not have training opportunities. One study group splits off ("how" is irrelevant to this scenario), and decides to continue to teach your principles and techniques under their own name against your explicit wishes.

How does that sit with you?

Disclaimer:

I'm not trying to take sides, or point fingers. This situation has nothing to do with me. But this debate does bring up an interesting situation that is developing as we speak.

Thanks in advance for your restrained, polite response! :D

Regards,

Ramirez
1st September 2000, 01:17
Hi Nathan,
My answer to your question is that it would not sit well with me if I was the head of a system and a group decided to splinter off and form their own organization.

This is human nature, however as long as they were honest and up front on who they were, where they came from and what their history is I think it should be tolerated.


I don't want to get in the middle of the roppokai controversy but the North Carolina branch have so far been up front about everything except the reason for the split which is good, it is a private matter.

Something to think about ,almost every major martial art today , Aikido, Judo etc. could be considered a splinter group of a previous martial art.

Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 01:33
Mr Young,

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

I guess it would really be necessary to know how much and to what degree the style is being borrowed from.

For instance, are the techniques the same? Are the names of techniques the same? Are the strategies and principles the same?

As I mentioned, it is understandable and expected that a Budoka will adopt some of the principles used in one style incoroporate them (sometimes subconsciously) into another style. This is kind of like what your mentioning in your example.

But what about techniques and the names of techniques? Is that fair game?

Regards,


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 08-31-2000 at 07:36 PM]

Walker
1st September 2000, 01:39
My initial thoughts on this come from my training as a photographer. I learned it almost as an apprentice fresh out of college with little prior training and a BA degree. On the first day my boss told me that while I was working for him if I paid attention I would get much more out of this than he would. He would get labor and I would get (a really small) paycheck. If I applied myself I would learn photography and he would teach it to me. He would get a better employee as I used the knowlege, but in the long run it would be much more valuable to me than to him. He was right and it has become my career and he got good service from me in exchange, but I got the better deal. I think the student always gets the better deal in a real teaching situation (meaning something of value is taught in exchange for compensation).

I really think that there is not much to the claim of “intellectual property” and it’s really impossible to enforce so a teacher must make peace with that in their own heart because it really is not theirs either. If they wish to keep it for themselves then there is no real need to be a teacher at all. A teacher who holds back information is a teacher with students who are not performing to their fullest potential and reflect poorly on that same teacher.

One part of me thinks that the “professional” martial teacher is the cause of many problems because then you need an organization and must keep it in line. There will always be the case where someone is going to spin out of that and you have a situation we have seen so many times. On one hand I think it is right that people who tow the line have authorization to teach and use the name of the art, but if someone leaves and has no authorization then as long as the are open and don’t use the names or claim things that are not theirs then it is up to the student to figure out what the teacher has to teach and proceed accordingly.

To return to the initial example I could have opened a studio next door to my boss and he really couldn’t do anything, but I couldn’t call it My Boss Photography, it would be Me Photography and let the market decide. As a student of MA I am going to want to take advantage of whatever I can find and would rather a “disgraced” sensei who has the technique and character than no sensei at all.


[Edited by Walker on 08-31-2000 at 07:51 PM]

MarkF
1st September 2000, 10:12
No one can remove grading/licensing to what you know. It matters not whether you stop training in something and go on training in another, or if you stop training altogether.

As to forms, techniques, and approaches to either, they just are. How many different arts use the same technique and call it something else, different words, same way. It happened in the past and it will continue to happen. Ryuha would "take" from one another and use it against those from whom they were taken.

You cannot build a mind and body, and just declare that it no longer exists. It does and no matter what is said or how many times someone says "you can't do that," it generally turns to ridicule.

I don't know the story behind the breakup of the NC-Roppokai but it really doesn't matter. But one thing is known. Someone is accusing another of doing the very same thing which is at the heart of this, and it appears only one party decidedly slandered the other.

I wonder how many ryuha sued Prof. J. Kano of doing the same thing.:bandit:

Mark

Ramirez
1st September 2000, 13:59
Good point Mark, perhaps Kano did get accused of plagiarizing techniques from older forms of jiu-jitsu but how do we know that the jiu-jitsu that Kano developed Judo from weren't themselves plagirization of even older arts.

It is like the argument that Eric Clapton ripped off Robert Johnson for his version of Crossroads. Who is to say that Robert Johnson did not steal it from some street corner blues man.

Tom Campbell
1st September 2000, 17:33
The list of potential examples is long, and could include Ohbata from Nakamura, Funakoshi from Itosu, Yamaguchi from Chojun Miyagi, Ueshiba from Takeda, Tohei from Ueshiba and Tempura, Tomiki from Ueshiba, Islam and Christianity from Judaism, etc. I seem to be getting rather far afield. Sorry ;-].

Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 17:55
Thanks for the contributions.

So, it sounds like people are saying:

As long as an instructor is willing to teach "openly", it is o.k. to take the teachings and use them freely in your own style, regardless of how the instructor feels about it.

This sounds like a pretty familiar attitude here in the West, but I wonder if it is embraced as enthusiastically in the East?

Japanese that I've known who have moved to other countries tend to be rather trusting, until they get burned a few times. There are publishers, imigration lawyers, and various other characters out there that make a living off of suckering Japanese when they first relocate (at least here in America). $$,$$$.$$

Anyway, perhaps it is safe to say that those instructors who do not wish to risk having their art "plagerized" should be selective in who they teach, and pace the instruction over a course of years to ensure a stronger bond and sense of loyalty and obligation between the student and the Instructor.

Interestingly, this is how things used to be done and still are in many koryu.

Thanks for the input. Again, I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone by discussing this topic. My personal motivation was to see what the prevailing attitude was regarding this subject in general. Any futher contributions are welcome!

Regards,

Tom Campbell
1st September 2000, 18:45
Hmmm . . . I'd like to offer just one further refinement of this thread. I think in all fairness it is important to distinguish between the "prevailing attitude" (if indeed it is) of openness in teaching that Mr. Scott refers to in the last post, and what individual students and teachers believe. I for one would not necessarily learn a little bit about a traditional koryu and then jump out on my own to teach. One of the reasons I'm interested in traditional koryu is the true seriousness with which the teacher and students approach the art, considering it a gift that has evolved over generations of sincere and diligent practice. This is very different, obviously, from the more commercial approach with which many modern gendai budo are marketed, as well as some of the older martial arts. Here, I'm talking about the attitude behind pay your monthly dojo fee, study as hard or as little as you want, you'll earn rank as long as you pay your fee, easy-come-easy-go . . .

At the same time, arts do evolve, and occasionally students go deeper and become better at an art than their teachers. And the art changes/evolves in the hands of such students. We certainly would not have nearly so many traditional ryuha in the kobudo arts if that were not the case. And did all of these superior students depart on good terms with their teachers? No.

One of the traditional reasons I've heard for the conservatism and secrecy in Japanese koryu is heard more often in connection with Chinese martial arts: that the master is afraid to give away all of (generally) his martial secrets for fear of being killed by a student who learns them and can apply them more effectively than the master. Thus the master's concern with developing trust in a student over a long period of time, before revealing the "inside-the-door" secrets/principles of his art.

I'd like to make one last remark, this one in connection with the NC Roppokai group. Mr. Scott admits that he does not know much about or practice Roppokai, but characterizes the level of technical skill of Dean Stewart and/or members of the group as not being that great, and then asks why any one would want to learn from someone of lesser technical skill. That statement is not based on knowledge, only on presupposition. Additionally, Mr. Okamoto's philosophy is to introduce students to aiki principles and applications early on and have them intensively practice it, in order to take the student deeper into the art faster. That is the whole distinguishing feature of Roppokai when compared with the approach of its parent Kodokai or to Daito Ryu generally. I imagine that Mr. Stewart probably went deeper faster into the art then students of other Daito Ryu schools, simply because of the approach of his teacher.

Dan Harden
1st September 2000, 18:58
As principal of an architectural firm I "do" believe in intellectual property. While plagiarism is unavoidable it is certainly not desirable. Several good points have been made. One is that it is the "nature of man to plagiarize." My response to that is that man has several other things in his nature that I find equally repugnant, like lying, stealing, adultery, ETC.
The examples of “other people” ripping off others is simple "back of the alley" justification. These people did it… so it’s ok to lower the standard for everyone and in all cases? Not in my book.
What is wrong with just stating this is where it came from and this is what I did to change it. If you cannot say that openly, then there is something wrong with either your character or what you are attempting to do. In either case you will never be able to get the smell off of you.
In these arts you have a much more difficult situation in which to discern right from wrong. I suspect that very often it is not a question of blatant wrong doing as much as “ hurt feelings” and “imaginings” that lead to exaggerated responses………

On the whole if there exists a relationship with a teacher and student in these somewhat obscure arts, and that relationship relies on an understanding of the students limits and responsibilities, then that is a binding contract in my book. If the student should leave and break the relationship then the use of the name and the lineage should not be used. He has no rights to use them. Should he then give up the use and practice of the techniques? Perhaps not but he should not be awarding rank and affiliation by inference either.
There are several people who have trained in Koryu and had there Sensei’s or themselves get displaced or for what ever reason they are unable to train in the art. I have known and also have personally been involved in this type of predicament. No where do I think that gives someone the right to be awarding rank in that art. The group at hand, are not using the name or even the styles generic name. That speaks of integrity to me. Should they siese and desist from practicing the techniques among themselves? That gets complicated.
What if their group grows?
What do they do if asked what the techniques are and where they came from?
I wish for compassion and forgiveness on both their sides.


At the end of the day we are not left with much as men, that will withstand the test of time.
Money doesn’t cut it.
Neither does power.

Love will cover a multitude of mistakes
Integrity will always win out in the face of lies and subterfuge
And Character will stand in the face of adversity

The first two can be gained by many. They can be had through nefarious means by misbegotten men.and they will lost by everyone at the end.
You can’t buy the last three. In fact they will cost you far and away more than mere money. But they are sweet and will last beyond a life time.

Since it appears that there has been no fraud or blatant misuse of an arts name here. We should all do these men the honor of staying away from drawing sides and possibly inflating the issue.

Nathan’s excellent question is a challenge for us all

Dan



[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-01-2000 at 01:05 PM]

Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 19:25
Mr. Campbell,

Thanks for the post, but please don't change my words. My post is still in print above, and it would save much confusion to simply quote sections than to try to guess as to what I'm saying (in this case, incorrectly):

In my first post, I wrote:


Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to daily exposure at the honbu.


On one hand, they may have been told that they have all the tools they need to master the style they were affiliated with. On the other hand, nobody trained directly long enough to reach a Menkyo Kaiden level, so now that they do not have a senior Daito ryu instructor to supervise their progress, we'll never know if they are progressing along the same path (principles and strategies) as Daito ryu or not.

Mr. Campbell, you claim that I said:


Mr. Scott admits that he does not know much about or practice Roppokai, but characterizes the level of technical skill of Dean Stewart and/or members of the group as not being that great, and then asks why any one would want to learn from someone of lesser technical skill.

As you can see, this is not true. I haven't got the slightest idea how skilled Mr Stewart is, and I do not know of tne NC/Roppokai split. My statement is based mainly on the status of the NC group as having been a "Study Group", and the statement that "everyone sent back their brown belts". Even if Mr. Stewart had attained Shodan or Nidan, I don't think most Budoka (or those in Daito ryu) would consider them "high ranks".

I wish Mr. Stewart and his students all the best - my above comments were not intended as an insult, simply an observation that the group did not seem to have matured to a full shibu status, and to the public knowledge, Kyoju Dairi was not issued. Take it for what it says, and not as an inuendo please. Mr Stewart may be a highly skilled martial artist.

I tried to word these posts as carefully as possible, so that we would not have inflammatory resonses or bad feelings. The question is a ligitimate question, and I only bring up the NC example because it fits perfectly within the context of the question, and everyone already knows what spawned this subject anyway. But for the purpose of this question, it is not necessary to discuss the NC group at all.

Nice post, Mr. Harden.

Regards,

Mark Jakabcsin
1st September 2000, 20:41
Nathan,

Very thought provoking questions and interesting topic.

You wrote that a license ‘is a privilege, not a right, and you do not “own” the license.” and you wrote “You….may be asked for the actual certificate back, if the separation is bitter or the issuing agency is concerned of misrepresentation.” This cuts to a very important definition, that of a license. Is a license the permission to understand and use the knowledge/skill or the permission to use the organization’s name and reputation? Once given, can knowledge ever be taken back? I assume that your parents taught you how to walk and talk, does that mean that they can revoke that knowledge and tell you that you no longer have the right to walk or talk and that you are not allowed to teach your children how to walk or talk? Can the school that taught you the skills for reading, writing and arithmetic come back at a later date and tell you that you can no longer use these skills because they own the intellectual property to these skills? Certainly when one leaves an organization they are no longer associated with said organization and should not claim or false advertise otherwise, but the knowledge learned is a part of them and theirs to use.

“Okamoto Sensei has been criticized for by some for giving away Daito ryu teachings and secrets to the general public (via video and open seminars).”

I have heard this from many different source and chuckle each time I hear it. IMSHO, it is impossible to ‘give away’ secrets to aiki, one can not really even teach the secrets of aiki. Each student must struggle and learn aiki from their own frame of reference. At best a good Sensei develops an environment that fosters and aids each student in learning and shares his or her experiences to assist the student in their quest for knowledge. But in the end, each student learns or fails to learn based solely on their own ability, desire and dedication to learn. A master of aiki can spell it out to everyone with books, diagrams and lectures and still no one will get it unless they learn it for themselves. (Originally I had a long, boring post about learning aiki but I feel asleep proof reading it so I cut it to the above.)

“Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to the daily exposure at the honbu.”

I had the same concerns until I visited the Roppokai Honbu last year. I think it is best to leave the rank issue alone since in reality rank means very little unless you are in the military. When Okamoto came for his first visit he explained to us in detail ‘how to learn’ the principles of aiki, how to develop the dojo community and how every student had a responsibility to assist others without egos. He told us if we trained this way in between his visits we could learn very quickly. Secondly, he said within 7 visits he would be able to impart the needed knowledge to the point that we could learn on our own, provided we followed his learning process. When we questioned him about this amazing number he told us that when he visited he was only demonstrating the potential. Kind of opening our minds to the possibilities, it was while he was gone that we would have to struggle to understand what he demonstrated and actually begin to learn. Okamoto Sensei visited the NC dojo 6 times, plus Dean visited Okamoto twice in Japan and once in Santa Cruz for a total of 9, which is far more than anyone else in the US in the last several years (I am jealous because I only got 8). While you make light of our ‘occasional training sessions’ I would like to point out that this method is exactly how S. Takeda Sensei trained his students. He was constantly traveling and very few of his students spent long periods of time training with him in person. My trip to Japan only confirmed that we were more than on the right path.

During my trip, I talked with a few of the senior students and they asked how we trained and what our dojo was like. Those that had been with Okamoto Sensei for close to 20 years commented that they used to train like us 17 or 18 years ago. Being away from the honbu kept us away from the politics (three distinct sub-groups that all do technique differently) and cultural hang-ups that keep students there from being honest and helpful with each other. The senior students only help white belts, brown belts and foreigners; the rest are left on their own. Furthermore, it would be unthinkable for a junior student to make a suggestion to a senior student or even describe what they felt as uke. My belief is firm that to successfully learn aiki a GROUP must openly and honestly share as much as possible without egos. No one learns aiki alone and this type of feedback network eventually helps everyone. The community and unity of the NC dojo have made this possible.

mark

Mark Jakabcsin
1st September 2000, 20:52
"My statement is based mainly on the status of the NC group as having been a "Study Group", and the statement that "everyone sent back their brown belts". Even if Mr. Stewart had attained Shodan or Nidan, I don't think most Budoka (or those in Daito ryu) would consider them "high ranks". "

Let's slow down a minute here. Seems like a few of my posts have been misunderstood. The NC dojo was not a 'study group'. We were the only full time Roppokai dojo in the US and the organizational flag that Okamoto Sensei gave us clearly reads (in Japanese) East Coast Main Branch. Secondly, when I mentioned the brown belts I was discussing the general students not Mr. Stewart. You are correct that Mr. Stewart did not attain what many would consider a 'high rank' but he is of dan level and rank is meaningless. Roppokai ranking is set-up solely on attendance and longevity until 4th dan, after that supposedly ability comes into play. At least this is the written rules, but for students outside Japan the rules are not applied, just ask Mr. Keen, none of his students have ever been ranked (unless it has happened recently). Secondly, students in Japan can attain higher rank much more rapidly by doing favors and holding special status. Nathan, I am sorry for being unclear and leading you into an incorrect assumption.

mark

Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 23:11
Hi Mark-san,

Thanks for clarifying a few points. It looks like I did mis-speak on a few points - sorry.

However, my pointing out the limited amount of training opportunities by the NC group was not meant as a criticism. We all do the best we can do and learn as much as we can during that time. Experienced instructors can learn alot in short periods of time, as you pointed out with Sokaku S. method of teaching others.

It sounds like the atmosphere at the Roppokai honbu may be different from those I've known. I can see your point in this example, if these conditions are the case.

However, generally the student learns more by day to day interaction with the headmaster than by occaisonal training sessions. I've seen this in our organization, and in many otheres. Your situation may be unique (for the better!)

Love those politics :(

I'm not a big fan of ranks and licenses either, except that they seem to be (at the very least) useful in cases where you need to instruct others. But they surely do not reliable or consistenly indicate skill level. I think everyone knows that.

But for lack of easier terminology, we can assume that someone of Kyoju Dairi or Menkyo Kaiden level would theoretically have attained a certain percentage of the traditions teachings, as well as hopefully a reasonable amount of skill. This ideal is what I was referring to, as opposed to a measure of ability.

There are many people in arts like Tae Kwon Do (as a random example) that have a great deal of athletic ability and skill, but have not learned the underlying tactics, strategies, historical context, philosophy etc. of the art because they simply have not been "initiated" into these levels yet. This may or may not be the case with branches like the Roppokai - I don't know, but it is a consideration in reference to this subject in general.

As far as ranks and licenses, ranks like dan/kyu and Menkyo/Mokuroku represent your level of initiation, and to some degree your skill (generally). This is the teaching you are referring to, and nobody can ask for your knowledge and experience back! These are things that students and instructors both accumulate.

A license to teach; shidoin/shidoshi, kyoju dairi, shogo (renshi, kyoshi, hanshi, shihan) etc. are titles/licenses that specifically give the holder permission to teach the system under the authorization of the Honbu dojo/Soke. It has nothing to do with skill (though a level of achievment is implied by the corresponding license).

These are licences that are issued and maintained for the purpose of headquarters administration, and they have the right to discontinue the further use of the license if they wish.


If you were to quit a group as a Shihan, it is likely that the group would not wish to shame you by voiding your shihan license out, asking of it back physically, or erasing it's entry in the schools records.

In this case you may be permitted to say "I hold a shihan rank in XXX (even though you no longer teach it)", or "I was a Shihan level instructor in XXX)".

If you were to be fired, or leave on very bad terms, the group may publicly void your license, ask that you do not use the title any longer in other martial arts dealings, ask to have the license physically returned, and may choose to delete your license, ranks and name - or all of the above.

Most people agree that rank (what you've learned and earned) cannot rightly be revoked or asked to be returned. That does not mean some groups will not try, if they are upset enough, but most people do not feel obligated to give them up.

But licenses allow you to teach under another groups/instructor's authority, and as such they can choose to not recognize or void out your license if they wish. This is the reason for having licenses seperate from ranks.

Of course, you can choose to follow these policies or not, depending on your sense of fairness and morals, and some groups use different names for their licenses and ranks, and may operate on slightly different definitions and usages.

But the above definition represents a pretty common organizaiton, in my experience.

Hope this clears up my thougts a bit more - thanks for the relevant insight to your specific situation. Things are never simply black and white!

Regards,

Sheridan
1st September 2000, 23:41
Plagerism is the highest form of flattery.

Richard A Tolson
2nd September 2000, 06:36
Mark & Nathan,
Very interesting discussion!!!!
I can see the logic in both sides of the issue.
Typically when someone leaves a group for whatever reason, they no longer use the name of the group they left. For example, if one of the five dojos in the Arashi-kai decided they no longer wanted to be a part of the Arashi-ryu, or if I had to ask them to leave for some moral reason I would expect that they no longer try to represent the Arashi-ryu. Of course I could not suck the teachings from their brain or take away whatever skill they had acquired, but "politically" they should no longer claim to be a part of the Ryu. They could continue teaching the same techniques, how could I stop them, but it would be proper for them to find another name for what they were doing.
So what I am saying is, the NC group should go on practicing and teaching what they have studied. They can credit the Roppokai with being the source of the teachings. But they should no longer call themselves a Roppokai dojo or representative.
Seems simple to me! But then, "I am a bear of very little brain".


[Edited by Richard A Tolson on 09-02-2000 at 12:38 AM]

Mark Jakabcsin
2nd September 2000, 12:57
Popie,

I changed my mind and deleted my post. You just aren't worth it.

mark

[Edited by Mark Jakabcsin on 09-02-2000 at 07:13 AM]

Dan Harden
3rd September 2000, 04:28
Popie writes
Yes, I appologize for my tone for those who thought I was harsh
But, that doesn't make things ok. I am not upset a people in particular rather then the whole business relationship.
********************
Dear Sir

You do not know the people involved, nor the circumstances under which the seperation took place. Therefore, you write that you are "Upset at the whole business relationship" (?) You have drawn this conclusion, and have formed your own opinions from reading someones mail? How much of a stretch is that?


you also write
This thread and the other one are prime example of the problems faced when money and rank take presidence over trust and ethics. Unfortunately, Mr. Steward got burned in the business deal. To his credit his students including Mr. Jakabcsin stuck with him and are defending him. But, I can't see blaming one party over the other for the mess they both created. Business is business and it has far less ethics and moral motives then we pay attention to. With these two parties everyone is at fault.

******************************
Again you write definitively about things you know little about. You are standing on a cyber street corner preaching to the wind.
If you wish to stick to the generic question Mr Scot brought up ..do so. There is much that can be said about his hypothetical question. Perhaps you can share some personal experiences in that regard and give us something to think about. Other wise, until you can do more than merely postulate about a rather specific and complex situation you know little about, I would recommend you just let it alone.

The idea here is to "communicate" not "alienate." There are several ways to get strong opinions across here in a fashion that fosters communication and interplay. If you didn't care about what you are writing, or about communicating with others, you wouldn't be here.
Therefore, since you are here, in a cyber community that is very interested in sharing ideas, experiences and opinions, try putting your best foot forward. It is more productive, informative, and in the long run it will garner you more people willing to converse with you. Who knows, you may have something interesting to teach people and you may learn something yourself.

Regards
Dan





[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-02-2000 at 10:36 PM]

MarkF
3rd September 2000, 09:14
Hi, Dan,
I know we haven't agreed on much (or anything) in the past, but I do here, and with your first post on this thread as well.

Popie,
You are giving the right speach in the wrong thread and for the wrong reasons. You speak so much of koryu, but have you ever wondered why aiki jj has its own forum? No, I don't think so, infact, you just shot from the hip in this one, letting a good discussion go bad. There is a time for flame and a time for fame, but you just missed the boat.

Mark was right, it isn't worth it, not here and not now. Why didn't you save this speach for the ones concerning Mc Dojo? Oh, that's right. All that money is being made by a handful of instructors and students right here in aiki land. Why don't you delete it and post it on rec. or something?

Mark F.

Yojimbo558
4th September 2000, 01:36
Hi Nathan,

One of the reasons there's over 5,000 different styles of martial arts in the world is because some people have taken what they learned in their studies and applied their understandings to create their systems.

Someone mentioned Kano Sensei ( founder of Judo ), for example, as someone who split off and created his own system. One could easily add Professor Okazaki ( founder of Dan Zan Ryu ) or one of his students Wally Jay ( founder of Small Circle Jujutsu ).

While many continue to study various systems, there are those like these pioneers who take what they've learned and move.

There are also cases where rather than the student decides to leave, on occasion they are forced out of there systems. For these individuals, I would say you need to look closely at the reasons for why they left or were removed from their former system.

Take Hakko Ryu Jujutsu, the founder was an extremely accomplished martial artist...but his son ( Nidai Soke ) was not. He didn't want to inherit the system, but since his father was determined that the style should remain in the family he was forced to accept it. As a result, unlike most founder's, Nidai Soke has no other martial arts styles in his background. When his father gave him his name Ryuho Okuyama...the son basically lost his own identity along with his own desired direction in life. The result has been the fragmentation of Hakko Ryu with the bulk of the students leaving primarily with Irie Sensei to found Koko Do (or Hakkodenshin Ryu ).

Basically when it comes to teaching techniques after having broken off...if the names of the techniques aren't unique like kote gaeshi you don't have to change the name. The technique is also slightly altered be it with added or strikes or pins etc.

Look at Bruce Lee, while he was an excellent martial artist, he never the less enraged numberous people who felt that he hadn't been doing Wing Chung long enough to state that this style had short comings which needed to be upgraded and re-thought. What's the caliber of the instructor or his students in NC...I don't have a clue...are they in same league with people like Bruce, Wally Jay, Kano...probably not I only cited those people to point out that historically people have always adapted and moved on regardless of whether others have liked it or not.

If the NC Sensei is of low moral character then his student base most likely will bottom out and resolve the situation...if he's not of low moral character, then it will be up to him to have learned enough material for his business to keep the students he's attracted and continue to thrive.

Eric Bookin

Ogami
4th September 2000, 11:06
Hello everybody,

Is very interesting discusion.
I am studying Martial Art in Italy and register today.

I have one question?
If is making very long messages in forum, does there have any time for the training?

Why is neccessary talk so much about events for which one is having no connection?
Is only opinion and is like making joke: "is like ****ole, everyone is having one", no?
Is unneccessary attack people by word in forum. Better is practice in Dojo for understanding truth.

Is interesting only for gossip, but for else is a little boring I'm thinking. Maybe visiting hairdresser is same or better?

Of course, I don't want make anybody feel bad and is only my opinion or cento lire (exuces for my poor english).

I will leave to your discusion:wave:.

MarkF
4th September 2000, 12:29
So, why weren't you training instead of posting your comments?

The point was made by more than a few that this is much like a bar or coffe shop in which to meet and discuss training. Training, and complaining of others who are not training instead of writing is at the heighth of hypocrisy.

Ogami
4th September 2000, 13:28
Dear Mr Feigenbaum,

You are very angry that I question validity of discusion/forum.

You are Moderator I see, so you must have knowlege of subject.

I am sorry to upset you but I am thinking if Forum is like Coffee bar you must drink less coffee or maybe espresso is less caffeina, so less stress!:D

I am in Dojo now and I teaching in 25 minutes.
I am only looking for first time in forum for serious discusion, not for gossip. My first view of forum is disappointment.

I only say that this discusion about things we do not have direct knowlege or experiences is stupid and time waste.

Is interest me you no answer my question, just my words you do not like or agree.

You say to Mr Popie:
"not to judge people's character by what is written word".
But you do this to me when you suggesting I have hypocrisy for posting comment and not training. This is interest for me.

I am hypocrite if I say you spelling wrong word 'heighth', because my writing english is to bad!:D

As I say before:

Blablablablabla.

Ciao

Dan Harden
4th September 2000, 15:08
Nathan

A few comments that more directly address your excellent question.


Your question about precedent for "splitting off"

This is a tough one, and it becomes a decidedly personal evaluation. It is impossible to make an exhaustive comparative analysis of all the “split offs” in Bugei history both Japanese and other. Even if you could, what would it accomplish? Mans history is rife with murder and mayhem so there is precedent there to justify all sorts of behavior. Secondly, you have precedent for either splitting or actual founding of Japanese arts by many outlandish claims. Personally, I am completely uninterested as to whether or not Samurai Bob split from his “shadow” school of sword to form his “new shadow school of sword” for the reason that he attained some sort of enlightenment about better ways to kill somebody!! Further, I am equally uninterested if Bill the warrior tells everyone he got handed a scroll from a mountain goblin who promised to make him the “teacher of all swordsman” due to his God given techniques. These are endemic of the sort of trash we have been told are the history of some of the greatest arts in Japan. Just imagine telling a magazine interviewer or seminar attendees those same lines!! Yet here we are accepting it all. The same can be said for the way we sometimes romanticize the whole samurai thing. Its just so absurd.
As far as the Menkyo, Kyoju Dairi, menjo of differing levels and all that. We have to live with what it is SUPPOSED to mean. The truth is, it is no guarantee of skill. Heck, its not even a promise of full technical transmission. But if you are looking for a structure to support a ryu its all you got. Most men see through the sham. There is a menkyo that I have personally trained with who left me distinctly unimpressed. I have trained with many others in his art who I found to be more proficient. Hell I am being polite. I know several others who are FAR more proficient.
BUT!! Is he the best one to preserve the art? Probably. Why you may ask?
Possibly, due to relationships and history he is most able to keep the art grounded and to be a nexus for his art to revolve around. Is he the best technically? Not by a long shot. But by playing the role he draws a focus for others both good and bad. And here you have a good example. What if one of the people in his own art split off. Can they claim to be doing and then teaching that art. Of course they can. They know the techniques and principles. What if the guy who split off were actually better than the supposed "master". Those same techniques and principles are THAT art. Do we say he is not teaching that art? You can't say that with a straight face. But!, once again, what if he split under a "cloud?" It leaves everyone unsure of what to say or do. Only time will tell and men will judge if, by comparison, he amounts to much. Is he a legitimate “branch” of the ryu? Not in my book. But for anyone studying with him, they are, after all, learning the techniques of THAT ryu at some level.
There are so many modern examples of this. Sugino, and Sugawara of TSKSR for two. The former is legitimate menkyo yet is not recognized by the current shihankake. Those in the know say his technique is less martial then the present head. Others say his technique was excellent and that it was only a political thing. The later taught without the full transmission and authority from the “more” martial current head. Thus violating his oath, he got booted. Which is the most desirable (honorable?) of the two, and………if you wanted to learn and couldn’t access the head branch, with whom would you train? The legitimate yet "supposedly" less than martial teacher? Or, the more martial guy who broke a promise? What about Ueshiba? He copied scrolls from Daito ryu verbatum and then changed the name of the art on the scrolls!! while his teacher was alive. He stated openly that he studied Daito ryu "a little bit" when in fact he trained for twenty + years. In the end he changed both the techniques and the name. But during the process things got a little dicey. So, why bother using these examples as precidents. Actually, some are excellent examples of what NOT to do.
Questions questions. Who can claim to have the right answer in each case?
I trained with a displaced Koryu practitioner who wanted a training partner. Over the years I learned what others have since told me were excellent skills that were identifyable to a particular Ryu (what did I know). Including things that traditionally should not have been shown me till later in the process. What did I do with what I was given?
I made a promise
To date I have not broken it
I practice what I was taught. I teach those skills to others. But! I do not use the name of the school to advertise, nor do I offer rank. Many people still came to learn. That is open and honest.
Why would a man break an oath and use the name of the ryu? Fame? Some insecure wish to legitimize his efforts? Why not just go off on your own and start a "new Shadow school" or some such of your own? If you have anything worth merit, experienced artist will see it for what it is. If you find that you are the Emperor with no clothes, than stop and go get training.
Perhaps we have to just realize that we don’t need a precident for ethics. If you make an agreement with a teacher. It is what it is. These conservative schools should be respected for what they are trying to accomplish. That is, to preserve in the best way possible ancient technqiues that were entrusted to them to pass on. Add to that; the fact that they are faced with an unprecedented role of transmitting them OUTSIDE their own culture. We should, some how, some where, retain the moral fortitude to respect and help them in their efforts.

So much of this seems out of place and overblown to me anyway. It seems absurd to me to have a Japanese dressed up in Civil war garb and playing Civil war games, claiming he can understand the history (as legitimate as that may be). It just seems out of place. It seems equally absurd to me to see American "Soke" dressed up in Japanses garb. I have heard of one American who supposedly turned down such an offer. It seems to me that it is a cultural thing and that they should OWN it. I know of one Shihan who cracks a smile at the thought of an Amercan "Soke." Of course all this is merely personal opinion, probably based on personal bias. I am not saying that any of it is right or wrong, good or bad. Many people will disgaree with me in whole or in part, and that's fine. I offer it as food for thought and discussion only.
So...In regards to people stealing arts or walking away with the family jewels. It is just to complex an issue.I suspect that more often than not only the two players know the truth. I am more concerned with people having some sort of moral compass that surpasses the lowest common denominator of our existence.
Dan
Sorry for the length. Like I said, it is just a complicated issue.







[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-04-2000 at 10:28 AM]

MarkF
4th September 2000, 17:21
No, you are a hypocrite for suggesting I type badly by reminding me of a misspelled word. Instead of your incessant blithering about your dislike of this forum after posting once, why don't you ask me what I do, Alberto. Oh, and by the way, it is a holiday here today, and my dojo is closed. It is Labor Day, a day we honor all who work and train hard. Instead of "lurking" and then jumping when you read something you know nothing about, why don't you tell us what you do, how long, etc., and ask a question instead of complaining.

Try it, you may like it. You may even learn a thing or two, but I see Mr. Harden has done that for you. You may return to lurking now.


Mark

Richard A Tolson
4th September 2000, 17:56
Dan,
Excellent post! I think this is your best ever!
Richard

MarkF
4th September 2000, 17:56
Hi, Dan,
I won't be nearly as long, but at what point are you obligated not to keep a promise, or follow someone, who may be your senior, or the head of the school, or a military officer? If one requires you to do something outright illegal or immoral, don't you have the right, no, the duty to disobey, and, in some circumstances, tell the world (read others of that school, etc), that you made a promise to someone who wants you to do something you know is not right as a human being, and as a citizen, or even, heaven help us, a martial artist?

If you, as a soldier, warrior, whatever, were told to kill everyone including women and children, and you knew this to be wrong, would this be the right time to say "I know I promised, but that is not a humane act?"

Admittedley, that is a stretch from a group whose background is constantly in question, and a bunch of guys who "play" at killing one another, is not much above playing with toy soldiers as a child, but even in this there is something called decency, so who is anyone to say anyone else is wrong when someone opines of a small problem in this group, and then calls the promisory "conservative," and to say "you made a promise. I don't care how you are treated, shihan A is your teacher and senior, it doesn't matter that he is making the issue of slandering someone, he is to be obeyed?"

Well, OK, a little high wire act for the kiddies, but still, read what you wrote again and see if you don't agree that you may be wrong. You said it yourself. It really doesn't matter and you are not taking sides, but Dan, you really are, and you don't know much, if anything, so why the veiled or implied side which you obviously are taking and at least, haven't you just fallen off the fence to the side you just think is right? Isn't that what you mean?


Regards,

Mark

Dan Harden
4th September 2000, 18:42
Admittedley, that is a stretch from a group whose background is constantly in question, and a bunch of guys who "play" at killing one another, is not much above playing with toy soldiers as a child, but even in this there is something called decency, so who is anyone to say anyone else is wrong when someone opines of a small problem in this group, and then calls the promisory "conservative," and to say "you made a promise. I don't care how you are treated, shihan A is your teacher and senior, it doesn't matter that he is making the issue of slandering someone, he is to be obeyed?"

Well, OK, a little high wire act for the kiddies, but still, read what you wrote again and see if you don't agree that you may be wrong. You said it yourself. It really doesn't matter and you are not taking sides, but Dan, you really are, and you don't know much, if anything, so why the veiled or implied side which you obviously are taking and at least, haven't you just fallen off the fence to the side you just think is right? Isn't that what you mean?


Regards,

Mark

I admit it......I don't get what you mean Mark.

I can see where you thought I might have been "alluding to the N.C. Issue. I assure you Mark it was not about the N.C. issue at all. I don't know anything about it, nor have I ever said I did. I fact in my first post i said I don't know anything about it AND.. that I doubt anyone other than the parties in question did either. Further I stated that we should all just leave it alone since we DON'T know.
I then stated clearly in this most recent post that I was addressing Nathan's post as a hypothetical. In fact Nathan himself wanted to aske the question as a hypothetical. If I were adressing the N.C. issue directly I would have done so. I have no clue who should do what and why, or who did what and why. I may care but I can't form any opinions on it because I don't know what happened. As I wrote in the first post.I feel for both parties. Thingas like this are usually misunderstandings (not always)that are built upon and then they snowball.
By the way Mark. If I wanted to address it, I would have Bud. Blunt and direct is not a problem for me. heh heh... :-)

I would agree with you on the question of what do you do if your senior or shihan or whatever is the one in the wrong or is immoral. There are several drunkan womenizers out there who are shihan. What they do may cause you to leave, and you may take that knowledge with you. But if they dis-own you and expunge your name, there isn't a whole lot you can do.
Is it unfair? Yup!
Immoral? Yup
Unethical....certainly
But that's life. I wouldn't break my promise cause someone broke theirs.

There are aslo several child molesters who were seniors who got booted from their orginizations andhad their rank revoked. I have a babysitter who was raped at thirteen by her Judo instructor after a competition. You may have heard of this since it made the national level. She is like a second daughter to me and lives with us now. The national orginization had to make decisions on what to do with that guy. It gets hard doesn't it?
As for your military example... no you don't kill or maim cause you were following orders. This isn't quite that extreme. How about your opinion on the larger picture leaving the N.C. situation alone?
Dan

Ogami
4th September 2000, 19:50
Originally posted by MarkF
No, you are a hypocrite for suggesting I type badly by reminding me of a misspelled word. Instead of your incessant blithering about your dislike of this forum after posting once, why don't you ask me what I do, Alberto. Oh, and by the way, it is a holiday here today, and my dojo is closed. It is Labor Day, a day we honor all who work and train hard. Instead of "lurking" and then jumping when you read something you know nothing about, why don't you tell us what you do, how long, etc., and ask a question instead of complaining.

Mark


You are very strange man! Why so angry?

I did ask question. My question:

Why is neccessary talk so much about events for which one is having no connection?

You did not answer this question. That is OK. I am not interest any more your answer.

I know nothing about these Roppokai things, but I am thinking from your writing, you do not know these things. You said in previous message:
"I don't know the story behind the breakup of the NC-Roppokai".
So what is your qualifications to make comment?

Is only 'opinion'. I am having no problem with your opinion, so why you is having problem with my?

I think as moderator you may be more polite to new members not of your thought who disagree with opinion about forum question and events you are admit know nothing about.
You take my first post personally, this is pity.

My question honest. I often make joke, it is pity you no having sense of humour.:D
Also my english is no good because is no my first language. I am sorry for this, but my question is remain valid even if english no good!

Labor Day is only day off - holiday! Is no special-everybody work hard, not only USA.

I have question. What you think 'Glimmer Man' with Steven Seagal? Is good or not?

Don't worry, be happy!:D

MarkF
5th September 2000, 12:49
Dan,
I just gave you my hypothetical answer to the situation proposed here, and I thought you were falling to one side or the other. No offense was meant, I still feel that it was unseemly for that letter to produced on the website. I am not exactly clean of having all good teachers, and thankfully, that was realized with much experience gained from it.

My opinion of the subject here is as yours is. I don't know, but clearly something happened and the only black mark on record is on the Daito-ryu-roppokai website. Unfortunate as it is, that is all I have to go on, so I am in the same ball park as you are.

Besides, I did enjoy two earlier posts her by you, and I stand by those in that I agree. That doesn't happen often around here, does it? :toast:

Tom Campbell
5th September 2000, 16:59
Nathan Scott posted on 9-1-00:

>Thanks for the post, but please don't change my words. My post is still in print above, and it would save much confusion to simply quote sections than to try to guess as to what I'm saying (in this case, incorrectly)<

Sorry about that, Mr. Scott. I just noticed your 9-1-00 post in the flood of postings on this thread. You are correct in noting that attributions are most accurately done by quoting the exact language. Any distortion of your meaning in my 9-1-00 summarizing of your points was not intended.

Thanks for your clarification of your meaning.

Tom Campbell

Nathan Scott
5th September 2000, 21:22
Hi all,


Mr. Campbell - no harm done.

Good posts and points by those who stayed on topic.

BTW, let's just drop the whole NC/Roppokai incident as an example. This topic seems to be strong enough on it's own merit without rehashing the same things on two different threads!

There is not doubt that splitting from one's group/instructor has spawned nearly all of the Budo we have now. However, there are many different ways to separate.

Many that would leave had high/very high ranks in the arts, and as such had felt comfortable with creating their own variation based on their experience, research and experimentation (Shu, Ha, Ri).

Others may have left because of personal or political differences, and wanted to continue training in the techniques. Some had the endorsement of their instructor (more or less), and some didn't. Nothing has changed in this regard!

But, lets look at the subject from a different point of view:

If it is to be understood - correctly or incorrectly, that westerners/non-Japanese have no moral or ethical reservations about adopting methods taught to them by Japanese instructors and separating from them to make their own styles, do you think that:

1) they would still be as open to teaching non-Japanese their family traditions (BTW, thanks Mr. Draeger)?

2) they would have accepted non-Japanese as students to begin with? In other words, isn't there an at least implied understanding that you will respect the instructor's trust in you regardless of what happens personally or politically?

Now, I am fully aware that this is not just a problem with non-Japanese, and that it happens all the time in Japan both now and in the past. But I don't see Japanese headmasters turning away Japanese students. I do see the possibility of Japanese instructors (of at least koryu) turning away non-Japanese instructors though.

Westerners are generally believed to be impatient (not willing to train long enough) and fond of money. While the same could again be said for many Japanese, they still have something we want (their generous instruction in martial traditions, among other things) and as such it would seem prudent to make efforts to improve the way in which we are thought of.

So basically, I'm asking if ya'll are afraid that continuous splits from western branches/study groups are going to dissuade the Japanese from making efforts to spread their art outside of Japan? Some westerners have worked very hard to make a good impression on conservative koryu instructors so that the future generations would have opportunities to study.

Just a thought...

Mr.Tucinucess, welcome to e-budo. Please don't attack the regular contributors here!

Popie - go to your room.

Regards,

Neil Hawkins
6th September 2000, 02:14
Alberto, I think Mark did snap at you a little bit, he's a grouchy old man sometimes :D. I will answer your question quickly before returning to the topic of the thread.

The reason we discuss these things at length here is that there is no other way for us to do it. If I want to get the opinions of people like Nathan or Mark who have a wide set of experiences different from my own, this forum is ideal. The people I train with tend to have similar outlooks to my own, and I can't tap into the wealth of knowledge that is out there in the rest of the world.

Most of us here do train intensively, but have got to the stage in trainng where we want to understand more than our small world, to quote Chuang-Tse "Men honour what lies within the sphere of their knowledge, but do not realise how dependant they are on what lies beyond it." We are looking beyond!

Anyway to the point at hand to me there is no problem with splitting away from the school if you truly feel you can improve on the training. As has been mentioned it's been done since the very beginnings of MAs. However there is a catch, I don't believe that the majority of westerners and some asians have high ideals when they split. Some do it to cash in on the business side, others for reasons of ego. Few understood enough about the arts to improve them.

Anything you are taught becomes your own, but to pass it on in a manner that detracts from your teacher is both an insult to him and a disservice to you. Arts should evolve and grow and this is achieved by re-examining the principles and improving them, not by taking the tricks that have been taught and re-teaching them, this is a weakness. Just as in the childs game of Chinese Whispers, the origin is lost and the result has little value.

Just look at some of the sport karate schools! :)

Regards

Neil

Ogami
6th September 2000, 09:02
Mr Hawkins,

Thank you for your very kind and interest answer to my question.

Now I am understanding your reason for discusion.

Best regards

MarkF
6th September 2000, 09:55
Thanks, Neil, but I had decided it wasn't worth it, so I wasn't going to respond to those posts anymore.

Popie, of course it is not just you, it just happended to be you this time. I assure you, in the past I have set bonfires on these threads. Dan and Neil will attest to that.

Originally posted by Nathan


If it is to be understood - correctly or incorrectly - that westerners/non-Japanese have no moral or ethical reservations about adopting methods taught to them by Japanese instructors and separating from them to make their own styles, do you think that:



The word if carries a lot of baggage. The Japanese are just as immoral, or moral, as the next guy, it is just done differently. "No, there is no charge for my classes, but large gifts of mainly cash are more than welcome." Of course, it may be "hidden" or at least it used to be.

There are non-Japanese who have no moral about ripping each other off, it is what it is, and it certainly isn't a game played only by westerners. The number of Japanese who leave Japan is astounding when you count the Westerners who go, and then come back in one to ten years. No one has a monopoly on immorality, but there are different methods in which they are accomplished.


1) they would still be as open to teaching non-Japanese their family traditions (BTW, thanks Mr. Draeger)?



They have been since around the turn of the century. All kinds of schools opened up, and others were going to Japan and were being treated as the "gendai gaijin" that they were. (Thanks Mr. Svinth:D )



they would have accepted non-Japanese as students to begin with? In other words, isn't there an at least implied understanding that you will respect the instructor's trust in you regardless of what happens personally or politically?



Teachers of budo were coming here from Japan to teach since at least 1904. The dojo is far from a democracy, but things do happen, and promises are broken all the time in the name of budo. Original ryuha had contests against other ryuha, and take what they had seen that worked, and used it and felt nothing was implied, only that the contests were fair. Trust is earned, and this goes for teachers and students.

People are human, even Mr. Menkyo Kaiden has lapses, and they do very bad things to each other sometimes, not only for money, but for the feeling of power. If instructors didn't accept non-japanese students, their schools would have died a miserable death. Some had to lean on "gendai" arts for survival, as J. Kano offered a hand up to them. Later, it was Westerners who supported them, and still do. In it's way, koryu or aiki jj schools who operate small three student dojo use this as advertising. People are looking for the "secrets" so while they say you don't get it until sensei thinks you are ready, and that may be two, three decades, this is still advertising. It was amusing to read Mr. Okamoto's reasons for writing a book to desiminate the teachings for the whole world to hear.

Nathan did qualify what he said by admitting that it was not only Americans and other western countries who took advantage, so that is where I will leave it. My thought was only to answer the hypotheticals he was asking. This wasn't meant as a rebuttal, but simply answers to the questions he posed.


Regards,
Mark

Mark Jakabcsin
7th September 2000, 22:18
While this may not answer the question at hand I do enjoy Mr. Tomiki's words and thought others might as well.

"My Concept of Love in Aikido"
by Kenji Tomiki

"In seeking the truth, both master and disciple must be modest in their heart and also must love the truth.

"The way starts from the original precepts set down by the founder and reaches the final goal through the achiements of successors.

"To treat those achievements of the founder as the base and go beyond it: This is creation.

"To improve upon the achievements of the master and take them to a higher level by disciple's successive works through master's works sometimes being succeeded or denied: This is advancement.

"Mutual respect and love exist here. To respect master and love disciple is no doubt to respect love and truth."

by Kenji Tomiki
translated by Itsuo Haba


I should note that I copied this out of my training journal were I had written (hand copied)this sometime ago. Unfortunately I do not recall who shared this with me and hope that I am not stepping on any toes or misrepresenting Mr. Tomiki.

mark

[Edited by Mark Jakabcsin on 09-07-2000 at 04:20 PM]

MarkF
8th September 2000, 09:42
My only comment would be that it works both ways. Respect the disciple (student) and love the teacher.


Mark

Nathan Scott
8th September 2000, 18:13
It's finally Friday - only a few days left before "vacation"! :)


My only comment would be that it works both ways. Respect the disciple (student) and love the teacher.

That's a fact, Mark-san. Sometimes it becomes necessary for the student to take care of themselves, as this can be overlooked during the thick of training and duties.

But anyway,


Let's assume that Japanese are as guilty as westerners of splitting off, being money oriented, suffering inflated egos and borrowing techique/ryugi. It is quite possible. :)

The problem still remains that, to a large degree, as western Budoka we should be careful of how we conduct ourselves (manner and values) and how we transmit the arts we study (professional integrity).

If the word on the streets in the koryu community of Japan becomes "westerner's don't understand our way of thinking and can't be trusted with our family traditions", then we will risk being excluded from koryu transmission from Japanese instructors.

I don't know if this is the best example, but say Japanese change baseball drastically - like, all players wore business suits, and bowed to the catcher before and after coming to plate. Would westerners be as anxious to pass on all aspects of the "baseball culture" that many Americans hold as a kind of national treasure?

Regards,

Ramirez
8th September 2000, 20:06
Hi Nathan,

I don't know the specifics of what happened at Roppokai, but I have to disagree with you about "westerner's don't understand our way of thinking and can't be trusted with our family traditions",

We should conduct ourselves with integrity and honour the way we understand it as westerners which I suspect is going to be close to the way the japanese understand it , not the way the we think the japanese expect us to. If this means we do not learn some koryu arts so be it, at least we will be up front about who we are. I think it a misrepresentation to do anything else.

This whole controversy with Roppokai might just as easily occur between two western martial arts practioners or two eastern martial arts practioners, I don't think the different cultures has much to do with it.

Nathan Scott
8th September 2000, 20:30
Hello Mr. Young,

First of all, as I've stated at least twice recently on this thread - this subject does not have anything to do, implied or explicitly, with the NC/Roppokai issue. That issue was discussed on a different thread, and has since been closed since nothing further could be gained from discussing it at this point. Please, let's not muddle this topic with the NC/Roppokai issue any further.

Secondly, you are definitely free to your opinion. :)

But just so you understand my point, I am not saying that *all* westerners act a certain way, or that westerners *should try* to "act" like something they are not.

It is not important what percentage of westerners act inappropriately. What I believe is important is the *perception* that the Japanese koryu community has of westerners in general. These two points are very different.

As far as people changing to fit a mold, or "acting" a certain way, this is not going to work. This issue goes back, I guess, to the discussion of "maybe koryu/classical arts are not for everyone". Certain mentalities, manner and values are not going to coincide with those that I suspect many koryu instructors are looking for - regardless of their nationality.

I feel that non-Japanese are required to live up to a higher standard in this regard to *change* the notion that non-Japanese cannot understand, learn and transmit correctly what they typically would consider important, complex, Japanese cultural arts.

I'm asking if anyone else is concerned with being, correctly or incorrectly, negatively stereotyped as a result of a seemingly increasing trend of "westernization"/modifications of Japanese traditional "family" arts.

Any more takers?



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 09-08-2000 at 02:38 PM]

Dan Harden
9th September 2000, 01:59
Nathan writes

Hello Mr. Young,

First of all, as I've stated at least twice recently on this thread - this subject does not have anything to do, implied or explicitly, with the NC/Roppokai issue. That issue was discussed on a different thread, and has since been closed since nothing further could be gained from discussing it at this point. Please, let's not muddle this topic with the NC/Roppokai issue any further.

Secondly, you are definitely free to your opinion.

But just so you understand my point, I am not saying that *all* westerners act a certain way, or that westerners *should try* to "act" like something they are not.

It is not important what percentage of westerners act inappropriately. What I believe is important is the *perception* that the Japanese koryu community has of westerners in general. These two points are very different.

As far as people changing to fit a mold, or "acting" a certain way, this is not going to work. This issue goes back, I guess, to the discussion of "maybe koryu/classical arts are not for everyone". Certain mentalities, manner and values are not going to coincide with those that I suspect many koryu instructors are looking for - regardless of their nationality.

I feel that non-Japanese are required to live up to a higher standard in this regard to *change* the notion that non-Japanese cannot understand, learn and transmit correctly what they typically would consider important, complex, Japanese cultural arts.

I'm asking if anyone else is concerned with being, correctly or incorrectly, negatively stereotyped as a result of a seemingly increasing trend of "westernization"/modifications of Japanese traditional "family" arts.

Any more takers?

*************************************
Hey Nathan
It doesn't seem they can even stay focused on a topic. No matter how much you say it over and over and over they keep going back to it. Think they will stay focused on an obscure art for very long?
Any comments about the western mind....(grin)

BASEBALL??
There is no comparison between this and baseball. Basball is in the public domain. Koryu is not.

Koryu can only be had through personal relationship.
Koryu is transmitted through relationship, hard work, very little outward reward, lots of sweat and trust, and a certain "dug in" dogged determination. It challenges your character.
I hope it never lends itself to commerce, nor becomes overly desirous of the public eye. There is very little of value to be had in either place. Yet it is to that very place that many artist travel.

In my opinion (which isn't worth much) it is not, in any measurable level, necessarily superior to, nor less than, any other given art. In that they may range from the stunningly effective, down to the mediocre. But, they are what they are. A cultural heritage. Not the be all, and end all, of any sort of secret fighting art. In many ways I think you could make a case for them being much more than something as mundane as a study in better ways to kill a human being from 400 years ago. In the end they are a way to live. To challenge yourself and make a better life.

We may, in the end, have a fair chance at "getting it" or we may not. Who knows? In the fullness of time, we may even see an entirely acceptable western/eastern paradigm to Japanese Koryu. But that choice will forever be a personal and "flexible" dynamic between each student and his teacher. They are after all, "Their" arts not ours.
For now I agree with Nathan, that we may be unfairly disadvantaged. Perhaps looked at with mistrust. Perhaps even wrongly judged.
So what. Get over it.
Keep training
Dan








[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-08-2000 at 10:35 PM]

MarkF
9th September 2000, 11:54
Let's assume that Japanese are as guilty as westerners of splitting off, being money oriented, suffering inflated egos and borrowing techique/ryugi. It is quite possible.

The problem still remains that, to a large degree, as western Budoka we should be careful of how we conduct ourselves (manner and values) and how we transmit the arts we study (professional integrity).

If the word on the streets in the koryu community of Japan becomes "westerner's don't understand our way of thinking and can't be trusted with our family traditions", then we will risk being excluded from koryu transmission from Japanese instructors.

I don't know if this is the best example, but say Japanese change baseball drastically - like, all players wore business suits, and bowed to the catcher before and after coming to plate. Would westerners be as anxious to pass on all aspects of the "baseball culture" that many Americans hold as a kind of national treasure?

Regards,



__________________
Nathan Scott



I don't think it necessary to assumeanything here. Less than one percent of Japanese do any type aof martial arts, and most of those do not even understand the term, much as is true here. What percentage of those who do pracitice, do any koryu? My guesstimate is about the same as above.

I agree with your statement concerning how we must behave in this strange culture, possibly two cultures, as I believe the Japanese budo culture is one unto itself. Anyone, who decides to learn about and live in another culture must be advised that it isn't easy, that one must immerse oneself into the culture totally, and not just of the culture of bugei, but of eveything, from what Dave Lowry proposed in the "Food and Drink Forum" (you will have to read it for yourself. I could not write, much less reread the subject:) ), to living and working in this culture, with your koryu studies actually being a distant second to what this proposes to the amount of time you will give. This is almost never your entire remaining years; there are few, very few, who stay more than ten years, and even this is rare. Budo will have to take a back seat until you find that you can live on your salary and in which manner, meaning you will have to start thinking and existing much as the Japanese themselves do. This is not so easy. Then you will have to find the koryu teacher who will accept you, knowing few exist, and you must have a backup plan in case you are not accepted, be it "for the good of the ryu," or outright bigotry. This is the real world, and this is something with which you will deal. And if you are able to finally become comfortable in your living situation to include learning to speak the language, even think in the language, you may have started this process before you leave, with two or more years in school, but while learning the grammar of a language is certainly important, it is little comfort when you arrive there, dictionary in hand, and then find you cannot undertand the language, and since you are far from thinking, even dreaming in Japanese, it will only make your initial time there difficult, if you make it at all.

So if Plan A fails, do you have plans B to Z ready? OK, you misjudged the people, but it is too late, but you have been excluded form one koryu school. According to Diane Skoss, everything you do must be for the good of the ryu, and the good of teacher and other students, especially seniors. You cannot go and you do not even have even the tiniest of luxury of feeling anything for your self at the school, everything you do must be for the good of the ryu, but what do you have to contribute? Nothing probably. This is decided by others.

The word on the street is all ready out. Westerners cannot be trusted. You will not be trusted with anything held dear of the family. At least not very soon. You will still have to spend five, ten, even decades there to earn this trust. This is only based on the fact that most are pretty sure Westerners are not to be trusted. Your job is to change that notion. If not, and you leave before the so-called secrets are learned, then what did this experience accomplish?

In my way of thinking, a lot. While you may not get what you hoped for in the MA or koryu community, you do have invaluable experience, and if you have learned the language and speak it fluently, have immersed yourself in the culture, learned everything you could, but just not what you wanted of koryu, was it an experience wasted? Of course not. You have opened that door to another world by doing what you have done, koryu or not. But you probably have gained insight into what koryu really means, good or bad. Certainly, this cannot be viewed negatively because a fraction of the population did not trust you. If the other sectors with whom you have dealt, did trust you, and you them, well, the danger of not being accepted by this fragment teaches something of human indignaties, and also something of man's inhumanity towards man. If so, then it wasn't so important in the first place. Possibly, just possibly, you have learned, it just was not in the way you planned it.

Anyway, you come away with a lot. It may have not been what you were seeking, but it may be even more invaluable as to what you choose to learn when you come back. I hope so, anyway. Certainly, you cannot call it bad. It was far from that.

Excuse the rant, please. It must be the cleaning fluid used to clean the tatami.:)

Regards,
Mark

MarkF
9th September 2000, 12:00
Orignally posted by Dan Harden:


Hey Nathan
It doesn't seem they can even stay focused on a topic. No matter how much you say it over and over and over they keep going back to it. Think they will stay focused on an obscure art for very long?
Any comments about the western mind....(grin)



They? We have now lumped everyone into one category. Stop that :D

Mark

Dan Harden
9th September 2000, 14:13
er.......... Uhm

I meant the OTHER they.
You know......

Them!......Those Guys


Dan
Grinning

MarkF
10th September 2000, 09:31
OOOOOOOOOh, them. Why didn't I think of that? I guess I forgot how good the discussion was. How come I didn't think of the "other" other guys?:eek:

Regards,
Mark

glad2bhere
11th September 2000, 16:03
Dear Folks:

In 27 years of MA expereince I have seen this dynamic more often than I really care to count. The worst of that time has probably been my 15 years experience in Hapkido which, ironically has also been the most satisfying MA experience. Memebers of the Hapkido community have criticized, back-stabbed, denegrated and split from each other so many times that I honestly wonder where we are going to be in another 10 years. The techniques have not changed, and the teaching methodologies have remained pretty much the same. What keeps churning around is who is going to be esconced on top of what ant hill. Now I wouldn't mind re-chewing this scenerio yet one more time if I thought that it would produce one better technique to add to a syllabus, or a better methodology for imparting the art to ones' students, but life is a bit too short for me to worry about what ant colony I belong to, or who is at the top of the hill.

I recently purchased and read an article by Sensei Angier in the AIKIDO JOURNAl, a man by many accounts who is a highly accomplished MA and personality. He apparently has elected, despite his wonderful abilities and the prominence of his position in the MA world to remain aloof from much of MA organizations. Having read this string I believe I may understand his choice very well. I would be very interested to know how the students of the instructors involved have been well-served by these last 4 pages?

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Nathan Scott
11th September 2000, 18:39
Good points by all...

Hi Mr. Dan,


Basball is in the public domain. Koryu is not.

That's a very good point. I knew the baseball thing wasn't going to mirror the koryu subject, but I hadn't considered that perspective. Good post in general!

Mark-san,


The word on the street is already out. Westerners cannot be trusted. You will not be trusted with anything held dear of the family. At least not very soon.

Less than one percent of Japanese do any type of martial art, and most of those do not even understand the term, much as is true here. What percentage of those who do pracitice, do any koryu? My guesstimate is about the same as above.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. There are obviously well known koryu instructors in Japan that are the exception to the rule, and I'm sure there are many more that we don't know about yet. But it stands to reason that we still could use alot more "positive PR" to open other doors for ourselves or at least for the next generation. If koryu is not entrusted to certain members of western Budoka, there may be a serious loss of culture and history since modern Japanese show little interest in it currently.

I don't know that it's *every* Martial artist's responsibility to concern themselves with what the Japanese koryu society thinks of us, but for those who do choose to approach koryu arts - of which is a much smaller society of people, I believe need to be aware that each person can have a substantial positive or negative affect on our western perception, and as such should really be thoughtful of their manner and judgement for the better of all who practice.

Hello Bruce-san,


Having read this string I believe I may understand his choice very well. I would be very interested to know how the students of the instructors involved have been well-served by these last 4 pages?

I'm actually not quite sure what your referring to, but I've heard of several senior instructors who are very tired of martial arts organizations (generally) as well as other related problems like the usefullness of the dan/kyu system these days.

You can add Obata Sensei to the list of instructors that have gone to some effort to proceed with theri arts without the assistance of outside organizations or affiliations.

BTW, that reminds me of something Obata Sensei mentioned to me not too long ago in relation to the change in mentallity in Japan over the years. He had made the observation that in feudal times, the Samurai (martial) class was considered the elite of society, while the vendors etc. (business) were on the lowest of social classification.

In modern times, however, it is the opposite. Salary men run Japan, and Budo is often scoffed at as antiquated - and by some as even comic. Sign of the times, eh?

Regards,

glad2bhere
11th September 2000, 21:27
Dear Mr. Scott:

Sorry about that. I reread my entry and I am afraid it wasn't as clear as I had hoped. The point I was trying to make was (hopefully) a movement back towards the original querie to wit: what part of the originators' syllabus, etc.

To get back to that place I wanted to reframe the last 4 pages in terms of what good all that ink and paper had done for the generation to follow us on to the mat. What I was hearing was a lot of critical comments regarding current personalities. What I was not hearing was "..and this will make for a better__________ for the students who follow me." My comment regarding Sensei Angier was to characterize a circumstance in which the positions had been switched from what I had heard in all that dialogue. That is, suddenly it was the personalities and organizations that were put in a secondary position and the art and students were put first, and this to the point that others might even characterize Sensei Angier as "reclusive".

Anyway, to toss in my 2 cents on the original arguement of propriety of information I have always had a special place in my heart for Lincolns' quote when asked the nature of Character. As I remember his response was something to the effect that the "true measure of a mans' Character" is what he would do if he could do anything in the world -- and not get caught." People who are betraying trusts, violating confidences, and defrauding their partners know of which they do, and the natural consequences of their behaviors are their just deserts. Stated more elegantly, "what goes around, comes around."

Thanks,
Bruce

Jeff Cook
11th September 2000, 21:52
"Having read this string I believe I may understand his choice very well. I would be very interested to know how the students of the instructors involved have been well-served by these last 4 pages?"

Great question! I hope for their sake they have not read this string.

We are the sum of our experiences, our training in martial arts an integral part of those experiences. It molds who we are. Everything we are taught we own for ourselves, as it becomes a part of us. It is not something that can be taken away.

The right to teach what we know is an individual right. But we must make it clear we are representing ourselves, not an organization we may not be currently affiliated with. And while we are representing ourselves, we of course offer the history of our training, as that is a part of us. But if we are forbidden to represent a particular organization/style, we should not do it. We shouldn't say we are teaching "x-ryu" if we are not given permission from that ryu to teach, but that we are teaching what we know; it just so happens that we did learn it from x-ryu.

Leave it up to other disgruntled "masters" to argue about whether that is immoral. Then look at the students of the renegade instructor to see if they have become better people due to their receipt of "forbidden" training; examine the positive effects on these people.

That is where the true scrutiny should be.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Nathan Scott
12th September 2000, 01:28
Kind of like a Japanese version of "The Man Show", right?

:)

Dan Harden
12th September 2000, 02:41
This has NOTHING..NOTHING......... to do with the continual return to the N.C. thing. I am addressing Nathans points about "what is yours to teach." And, the several excellent responses.


1. If you had some sort of agreement not to teach until you were told you could; you stick to the agreement

2. If you agreed to only show certain things; you stick to the agreement

3. If you made any sort of commitment. Of any kind; you stick to the agreement

4. If the instructor breaks the agreement, or turns out to be a cad or simply places unreasonable demands on you; you don't become a cad yourself by breaking your end. Show some character that surpasses his.
You stick to the agreement


5. You didn't own it when you found it. You were not handed over the rights to it; it isn't yours until given to you. You stick to the agreement

6. If you blow it and you are asked to leave; you still do not own it. Change the name and go practice in private in small groups and respect your elders :nono:

Oh,......and you stick to the agreement :)


It isn't a complicated issue. Trying to make it complicated and drawing analogies to warfare and sports, just muddies the water. What is crystal clear is your word and theirs. Let em break theirs. Who cares.
Keep yours

In the long run developing and sticking to an austere lifestyle does much to foster clarity and solidify our path in life. By its very nature an austere lifestyle divests us of the extranious activities and distractions that muddy our lives and create complicated issues out of the most mundane relationships. Ever notice how many of the so called masters (hate that word but I'll use it till a better one comes to mind) lived simple lives and were sometimes called "child like" and or fiercely determined?
I think that sort of focus and simplicity fosters a superior way to live a life. It's not for everyone and its not a question of right and wrong. But it has a virtue all its own. You focus in , and the things of the world sort of just fall away. Your focus, makes your reality.
It is shugyo

Everyone talks
you Shugyo
Years go by
People are still talking
Then you get up to demonstrate
Then everyone knows the truth"

This can be applied to anything from engineering, to studies in academics, to Mother Theresa's life goal. Everyday, to save "just that one."
Which became a lifes work.
Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-11-2000 at 08:47 PM]

Jeff Cook
12th September 2000, 03:47
By all means, stick to an agreement. Just don't be foolish enough to make that type of agreement to begin with.

The "master" who tries to make those agreements is attempting to create an illusion of ownership/exclusivity that in reality never exists. They themselves don't have exclusive rights, in spite of grandiose claims carried down from generation to generation - nobody does. Why? Because there was ALWAYS somebody before them that had this knowledge of principles, and somebody before their master, and somebody before that, and also many cases of parallel evolution. Principles are universal; nobody creates them - they exist, and sometimes they are discovered.

Combative/philisophical principles are a natural event, and nobody owns nature. We all have the key to this enlightenment; the process of guidance to help lead a student to this elightenment is insignificant compared to the enlightenment itself. Why put a patent and/or a price on the process, trying to make it more valuable than the actual enlightenment?

Again, if you enter into an agreement, Dan is right - do the right thing, and keep that agreement. But I would recommend finding a teacher who does not place restrictions on the knowledge he leads others towards, a teacher who has the same faith in and respect for his student that the student is expected to have in him.

It's about teaching the student to make the right choices, not making the choice for him.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Edited by Jeff Cook on 09-11-2000 at 09:51 PM]

Dan Harden
15th September 2000, 13:53
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
By all means, stick to an agreement. Just don't be foolish enough to make that type of agreement to begin with.

The "master" who tries to make those agreements is attempting to create an illusion of ownership/exclusivity that in reality never exists. They themselves don't have exclusive rights, in spite of grandiose claims carried down from generation to generation - nobody does. Why? Because there was ALWAYS somebody before them that had this knowledge of principles, and somebody before their master, and somebody before that, and also many cases of parallel evolution. Principles are universal; nobody creates them - they exist, and sometimes they are discovered.
***********************************

Slow down a minute Jeff.
I would like to leave your opening statement for last.

First; You say a man who makes these agreements is trying to create some sort of illusion. There is no Illusion to it that I can see. If, a group of people have established proprietary knowledge of a "thing." And they have an agreement established among themselves that this knowledge will only be passed between themselves or others they let into their "group." Then it is up to them to decide where and how that knowledge is disseminated. No opinions asked for or needed from the general public.

second; You say a man has no "exclusive" rights right to make these claims even though it is passed from generation to generation.
Excuses me?
If it is knowledge gleaned from one individual's studies or several in their group, it is THEIR knowledge not yours or mine to comment on. It belongs to them.

Third; your comments on parallel evolution are true, yet they have no place in the first part of the discussion. We have patents. Why? To "attempt" to protect proprietary knowledge (lengthy paragraph of the unfairness of patents deleted):rolleyes:. It matters little if someone else, somewhere else, has discovered similar knowledge. They have theirs you have yours. Again it is theirs to do with as they please.

You went on to say
"Combative/philisophical principles are a natural event, and nobody owns nature. We all have the key to this enlightenment;

I don't agree here Jeff. I am to old and have seen/felt to many "masters" and artist to think that we "all" have the key to anything. The vast majority of "us" are mediocre. The rare shining ones who not only grasp principle but can make it work under duress are few. The ones who have grasped deep principles of both weapons and body arts rarer still and those who have mastered (still hate that word) these and have studied troop tactics and modern warfare are truly rare.
I am NOT of the belief that all arts are the same, and all principles the same. I think that is the pedestrian observation of people who "dabble" in to many arts. I believe there actually ARE superior principles and arts.They are uncommon hard to find that can only be realized through many years of hard work. Further, the knowledge of the deeper principles, and the experience to know when someone is able to step into them IS knowledge possessed and passed on by an individual or group. The instrument of our "enlightenment" that were "guided" into (sounds like some new age crystal cult Jeff) is proprietary knowledge.
Intellectualizing combative arts is a practice with a meritorious history. It is a valid exercise that both elevates and refines the pragmatic acts of killing and/or not being killed, yet paradoxically dehumanizes the process as well. However, whether it is group or individual tactics, the knowledge is passed on through rote training exercises. In so doing we spare the individual or the army of reinventing the wheel or simply dying:). The process is hardly one of "a journey of mutual or self enlightenment." Most of our pursuits of the so called "martial arts" are accomplished in a much more tepid venue. With moms and dads playing a couple of times a week in a controlled atmosphere till they get bored and then trying some other art when they believe they have "gleaned" something of value from their current pursuit.
My opinion is my own and I make no apologies for it. As stated, I believe the vast majority of us practice tepid arts in a tepid fashion. Further, most have not even seen anything of deep substance or principle. We are the possessors of cursory knowledge, gained through casual pursuit. We have not, and are not, going to "enlighten" ourselves to anything substantial for the simple reason that we either have not found anything deep to pursue or are uninterested in the sacrifices that come with a detailed and lengthy study in these arts.
Iron sharpens iron. We need someone to keep drawing us in, assessing our skills and adding to them through training. The learning process and the ability to lead someone through it is significant. In many cases more important then the knowledge gained.

*************
you wrote
the process of guidance to help lead a student to this elightenment is insignificant compared to the enlightenment itself. Why put a patent and/or a price on the process, trying to make it more valuable than the actual enlightenment?"
Again, if you enter into an agreement, Dan is right - do the right thing, and keep that agreement. But I would recommend finding a teacher who does not place restrictions on the knowledge he leads others towards, a teacher who has the same faith in and respect for his student that the student is expected to have in him.

It's about teaching the student to make the right choices, not making the choice for him.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

****************************

The teacher who teaches openly to the masses is either
throwing himself away, has nothing deep to teach or is about the business of transforming his once substantial technique into an art that will eventually lead to a large contingent of tepid practitioners. They are casting pearls before swine. Moreover, the organizations that must, by nature, rise up to support his endeavor, eventually serve to be their own undoing.


As I said, I would address your first comment last.

you said
By all means, stick to an agreement. Just don't be foolish enough to make that type of agreement to begin with.

I believe that many of the truly wonderful arts, martial or otherwise, came about by this "hand passed to hand" personal agreement and trust. In my view the "open to all comers" and/or "mass seminar" venue of teaching IS the foolish pursuit.


Sorry for the length. I have to learn to condense

Dan
"Making others suffer through his learning process"



]

[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-15-2000 at 08:18 AM]

Ron Tisdale
15th September 2000, 16:05
Dan,

While I don't always agree with everything you say, I really have to respect what you said in your last few posts. Not only did you say it well, but you also exposed some admirable principles to live by.

I'm not sure the masses are really swine....but the arts we speak of are pearls. I guess we might not always like the exclusive nature of some things, but then, that is part of what makes them what they are. I guess we have to accept what we are willing to work for, travel for, sacrifice for. No use longing for what you won't work for. Thanks again for some very good posts.

Ron Tisdale

Jeff Cook
15th September 2000, 19:41
"Slow down a minute Jeff.
I would like to leave your opening statement for last.
First; You say a man who makes these agreements is trying to create some sort of illusion. There is no Illusion to it that I can see."

That's what makes it an effective illusion. If you could see it for what it truly is, it would not be illusory. The deception is in creating the perception that what you own is exclusive to the group, not "owned" by any other group; as if your group is the only one that understands and "owns" those principles, when if fact they are "owned" and shared by many outside your group, which is counter to the illusion of exclusivity. Truth is a universal thing, but only some people discover the truth. I want to be enlightened to the truth by somebody who does not place restrictions on dissemination of the truth.

"If, a group of people have established proprietary knowledge of a "thing." And they have an agreement established among themselves that this knowledge will only be passed between themselves or others they let into their "group." Then it is up to them to decide where and how that knowledge is disseminated. No opinions asked for or needed from the general public."

That's fine; I agree. That is what I am warning of. Don't enter into such an agreement! Once you are led to a personal enlightenment of the truth, it becomes your truth, your perception of reality. I am suggesting that some people may want to avoid others who try to exert their own personal power/control over what you do with your perception of reality. That is a parent's responsibility with their children, not an adult's responsibility over another adult. But again, if you do join a group and enter into an agreement, HONOR IT!

"second; You say a man has no "exclusive" rights right to make these claims even though it is passed from generation to generation.
Excuses me?
If it is knowledge gleaned from one individual's studies or several in their group, it is THEIR knowledge not yours or mine to comment on. It belongs to them."

You're right, Dan - I worded that a bit strongly and for that I apologize (thanks for the correction!) Every man has the right to make any agreement he sees fit concerning what he knows and/or owns. My opinions of ownership concerning the particular type of knowledge we are discussing, in a modern context, are a bit different from yours (obviously!:)) Knowledge is not owned. It exists to be discovered. It is universal. If you discover a "secret" that others have not discovered yet, and you decide you want to share that secret with somebody else, of course it is your right to try to control the dissemination of that secret by making agreements. Personally, I am not going to enter into that type of agreement in this modern day, not concerning martial arts. I feel that the "koryu exclusivity" is an anachronism, and not appropriate for me in this day and age. Not saying it is wrong or bad, just not for me, and it may not be for others.

"Third; your comments on parallel evolution are true, yet they have no place in the first part of the discussion. We have patents. Why? To "attempt" to protect proprietary knowledge (lengthy paragraph of the unfairness of patents deleted). It matters little if someone else, somewhere else, has discovered similar knowledge. They have theirs you have yours. Again it is theirs to do with as they please.
You went on to say
"Combative/philosophical principles are a natural event, and nobody owns nature. We all have the key to this enlightenment;
I don't agree here Jeff. I am to old and have seen/felt to many "masters" and artist to think that we "all" have the key to anything. The vast majority of "us" are mediocre. The rare shining ones who not only grasp principle but can make it work under duress are few. The ones who have grasped deep principles of both weapons and body arts rarer still and those who have mastered (still hate that word) these and have studied troop tactics and modern warfare are truly rare."

My idea here has a Zen slant - that we all have the key to seeing things as they really are. Our mediocrity is due to us not seeing that which is directly before us. Once the truth is perceived, it seems remarkably simple, and we wonder why we didn't see it before. Martial principles are the same. We can be led up to these natural principles, but we cannot be made to own them. Ownership has to come from within. We all hold the key to allowing ourselves to own the principles once we are exposed to them. Not everyone will use that key, but it's there nonetheless.


"I am NOT of the belief that all arts are the same, and all principles the same. I think that is the pedestrian observation of people who "dabble" in to many arts."

Like you, I believe that all arts are NOT the same, but I still believe that principles are universal. Arts are methods by which we are led to these universal principles. Some really weak arts do not recognize certain universal principles, therefore they are incapable of leading you to a principle that they are not aware of . But all of the arts I have "dabbled" in share the same principles - they just have a slightly different path to get you to the ownership of those principles.


"I believe there actually ARE superior principles and arts.They are uncommon hard to find that can only be realized through many years of hard work. Further, the knowledge of the deeper principles, and the experience to know when someone is able to step into them IS knowledge possessed and passed on by an individual or group. The instrument of our "enlightenment" that were "guided" into (sounds like some new age crystal cult Jeff) is proprietary knowledge."

I'm not sure I understand you here. It sounds like you are equating the instrument of enlightenment with enlightenment itself, the instrument being the art that leads you to the enlightenment (the proprietary knowledge). This sounds like mistaking the finger that points at the moon for the moon itself.

"Intellectualizing combative arts is a practice with a meritorious history. It is a valid exercise that both elevates and refines the pragmatic acts of killing and/or not being killed, yet paradoxically dehumanizes the process as well. However, whether it is group or individual tactics, the knowledge is passed on through rote training exercises. In so doing we spare the individual or the army of reinventing the wheel or simply dying. The process is hardly one of "a journey of mutual or self enlightenment.""

The dehumanization of the training process is an intentional act when it occurs, and also not necessary. It is quite possible to train others to effectively destroy the enemy while at the same time teaching a reverence for life. Also, my use of the term "enlightenment" in this discussion describes an epiphany concerning the ownership of combative principles, not necessarily satori, although that may be achieved through this process as well. The process can be "a journey of mutual or self-enlightenment." But as you go on to say correctly below, the process is usually too tepid. Whose fault is that? The instructor's or the student's? Or both?

"Most of our pursuits of the so called "martial arts" are accomplished in a much more tepid venue. With moms and dads playing a couple of times a week in a controlled atmosphere till they get bored and then trying some other art when they believe they have "gleaned" something of value from their current pursuit."

As you well know, as a student and an instructor you are going to get out of it what you put into it.

"My opinion is my own and I make no apologies for it. As stated, I believe the vast majority of us practice tepid arts in a tepid fashion. Further, most have not even seen anything of deep substance or principle. We are the possessors of cursory knowledge, gained through casual pursuit. We have not, and are not, going to "enlighten" ourselves to anything substantial for the simple reason that we either have not found anything deep to pursue or are uninterested in the sacrifices that come with a detailed and lengthy study in these arts.
Iron sharpens iron. We need someone to keep drawing us in, assessing our skills and adding to them through training. The learning process and the ability to lead someone through it is significant. In many cases more important then the knowledge gained."

It is significant, but in my opinion the process is not more important than the product. If the learning and leading process does not achieve the goal of teaching and guiding, if the student learns nothing about technique nor becomes a better person, what was it worth? I do understand what you are saying, and I agree to a certain extent. A knowledgeable mentor/teacher is necessary to gain new knowledge and lead us to new insights. That is not my argument. My argument concerns the teacher's imposition of will on the student after he has led him to these new insights.

"you wrote
the process of guidance to help lead a student to this elightenment is insignificant compared to the enlightenment itself. Why put a patent and/or a price on the process, trying to make it more valuable than the actual enlightenment?"
Again, if you enter into an agreement, Dan is right - do the right thing, and keep that agreement. But I would recommend finding a teacher who does not place restrictions on the knowledge he leads others towards, a teacher who has the same faith in and respect for his student that the student is expected to have in him.
It's about teaching the student to make the right choices, not making the choice for him.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu
****************************
The teacher who teaches openly to the masses is either
throwing himself away, has nothing deep to teach or is about the business of transforming his once substantial technique into an art that will eventually lead to a large contingent of tepid practitioners. They are casting pearls before swine. Moreover, the organizations that must, by nature, rise up to support his endeavor, eventually serve to be their own undoing."

I agree in part. It is the responsibility of the instructor to provide quality control. The ones that "don't get it" after years of studying will not be promoted, and will not be sanctioned to teach and represent that style. And that is the crux of my argument. We as teachers have to be responsible to a certain extent in selecting our students. No axe murderers in my class! :) However, when I studied a koryu art, I learned a few principles along the way, demonstrated to me through technique. I do not have permission to represent that koryu, but I was never denied the right to teach what I know. I was not asked to make any agreements. So when I began teaching, I taught what I knew. I relayed the universal principles to my students, sometimes using the same techniques or similar ones as a vehicle, but I did not state that I was teaching that particular koryu. If one of my students were to quit class today and go out and teach, regardless of his lack of maturity and skill, I would not give his teachings my endorsement. But as a fellow adult, I am not going to dictate to him what he can and cannot communicate to other people. That is not my right. I will tell him what my wishes are concerning teaching others before being certified to do so, and I will trust him not to until certified. If he decides otherwise, that is his right, but it is also my right not to give him my endorsement. I am not teaching him nuclear secrets, or decryption codes. I am teaching him natural principles of movement/interaction.

Your generally negative attitude towards the teaching of martial arts "to the masses" I find disturbing, although not entirely without merit. Judo was designed as a method of physical education, character development, and self-defense. It has been quite successful at this endeavor, and I don't see it's organizations collapsing under their own weight. The same could be said of aikido. But maybe you feel that judo and aikido are tepid arts, without much merit or substance. But that's an argument for another day!:) You are correct in implying that the small, semi-private method of instruction is much more efficient at producing a higher percentage of highly skilled and "enlightened" practitioners; that too is how I teach. However, the vast majority of martial arts clubs in this country have very small classes as well - we just don't see them, because they are not on the street corner with neon signs flashing. The true gems are the "backyard dojos," with instructors that couldn't give a squat about making money. Virtually all of my instruction in the arts I have "dabbled" in have been in these "backyard dojos."


"As I said, I would address your first comment last.
you said
By all means, stick to an agreement. Just don't be foolish enough to make that type of agreement to begin with.

I believe that many of the truly wonderful arts, martial or otherwise, came about by this "hand passed to hand" personal agreement and trust. In my view the "open to all comers" and/or "mass seminar" venue of teaching IS the foolish pursuit.


Sorry for the length. I have to learn to condense"

Dan, please don't apologize for the length; that would make me guilty as well!:) Besides, this is pretty important stuff.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Edited by Jeff Cook on 09-15-2000 at 01:58 PM]

Dan Harden
16th September 2000, 14:38
Hi Ron.

The phrase "casting pearls before swine" Is not intentioned to denote people as pigs :) Rather it is a well worn analogy used to outline the foolishness of giving something of value to a group that neither recognizes that value or can identify with its use. In our little discussion here it is particularly poignant. Too, it characterizes what I believe to be the wasted efforts of some teachers.
Some arts, even some decidedly martial gendai arts, are easy to learn and really not that detailed and deep. Just sort of a “crash course” in personal defense. Others whether Gendai or Koryu are very deep in principle and make a life long study though they are not that martial. Still others, are both very deep in principle and decidedly deadly. The former can be taught in a few years. The later may take a lifetime. Yet my analogy applies to both. I would be uninterested in teaching effective skills of any nature to people I do not know.
Again not casting pearls............

Fast “self defense” type of skills are taught rather quickly by rote and do not COST either party much in the way of lost time or relationship. However, you should at least have some knowledge of who is standing in front of you. The more detailed studies that encompass basic to advanced principles and a technical syllabus that could kill or at least cause serious damage to others, Should NOT be shown to anyone whithout them entering into a gradual relationship with a teacher.
Again not casting pearls............

The long road taken by those who would choose to study a more complete art with weapons and body techniques requires even further commitment some from the student, and much from the teacher. Will that student prove to be a waste of time?
Again not casting pearls............

Lets take up Jeff and my discussion here. Particularly Jeff's point about the result being more valuable then the study, (which I disagree with) and what I think is his rather myopic view of the learning process. Sorry Jeff:rolleyes: I know you teach as well but you only discussed the student side of the coin.

Beyond safety concerns, there are many other aspects to the teacher student relationship that become very complex. I don’t know about you but my time is very precious to me. I do not want to spend the time needed to bring someone through …….Cuts to kata, Kata to shiai, Shiai to Iai in weapons or to bring them through a complex Jujutsu syllabus, to have them leave somewhere in the process. Leaving me feeling like I wasted myself, and or having them think they learned anything useful. Even if they realize they have not learned anything useful yet, they have still wasted my time, their time, and others in my Dojo times. Beyond that, we have the obvious concerns that they may go out and tell people they trained with me and then demonstrate dismal technique, fooling not only others but themselves as well. Yet so many times this is the case with people who take up these arts. They dabble here and there, without ever getting the deeper aspects their art and teachers can offer them.
Many people seem to talk about and are concerned about, students, more than they are teachers. Bring up the learning process and you hear very little about the sacrifice on the front end.
To me, the teacher has more invested than the student any day of the week. He is also the one with the prepatory work and the expection of his presense. Weather or life's circumstances notwithstanding.
Last time I checked, I was the ONLY one in my Dojo with a perfect attendance record!!

In my own Dojo I offer no rank. We have seniority of joining but no rank. This has created some interesting situations. Like when after 6 years of half hearted attendance the two year student is better at technique yet has to acknowledge the other as senior. It tends to put everyone in their place. The senior gets to see his failings. The junior gets to sharpen his character by ackowledging the senior, all the while knowing he is better. I get to live with the expections people have of me.It all goes unsaid. But, it is good for the soul.

I also get to experience both sides of the coin Jeff. For I am still a student. I am currently in an art, that after nine years, I feel I am only “practicing.” If you come back in 40 years and ask me “What is that you are doing?” I will still say. “I am PRACTICING!” The art is that deep and difficult. I am very aware of; first, my teachers time, second, my time, and then the time of those who are willing train together to sweat it out. I do not taketheir efforts lightly. Yet many people do in their endevours. They practice a bit and they think they know something.



Jeff
As I said. The PROCESS of learning can be more valuable than the result. All along the road there are check points. Places that teach you about YOU more than about the “thing” you are studying. Times when you find that you thought you knew a thing, only to have a newer student not only do it better but be able to correct YOU. You may find that you were feeling your oats and need to be corrected. On the other side you may feeling gross inadequacies that in themselves are simply false pride and you are not allowed them either.
Add to that; the simple distractions of life and the things you have to continually set aside to focus and train. This tends to teach you a bit about where your priorities and commitment are
Add to that; the things you discover about yourself. Whether or not you have what it takes to continue when it hurts or when you just…… can’t……… get it……… yet you continue.
Add to that; having to look in your teacher’s eyes to see disappointment! Ever seen that look that says “What the heck was THAT?”
Add to that; the sacrifices that both parties have to continually make in order to sustain the relationship for you to learn.
These things are valuable to both teacher and student. They serve as milestones to denote your character. And all along the process everyone involved learns and grows. But the entire process is still not simply “yours” is it? The student is experiencing his part. The teacher goes through it with everyone. Your fellow students help you out as well. So I can't see how it is ever "yours." it cost too many other people, for you to personalize your gains.
Is a marriage YOURS? It took many years, from spouse and family.
In these arts. It has taken much time and effort from multiple peoples lives to get everyone where they are. It makes me shudder to think that people think so much of themselves and their efforts in the learning process or in life. They are surrounded by sacrifice and accommodations on all sides, yet so much of what they see and do, they call their own.
In some of these arts we have actual generations of people who strove to perfect them and preserve them for others.


So as the title says “What is yours to teach?”


Dan
"Who realizes he is standing on the shoulders of others and he still has trouble seeing the parade"










[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-16-2000 at 11:50 PM]

Brently Keen
19th September 2000, 08:24
Nice posts lately Dan.

I agree whole-heartedly with your statements about proprietary knowledge and principles. I would only add this from my perspective:

While arguments can be made about the universal nature of principles what I think is really the point here is not their accessibility, but rather their adoption and use.

Without rehashing the old aiki debates, I think that the adoption and use of certain little known and even less understood principles is what makes aikijujutsu unique. It is the unique method(s) of teaching and developing the skills to apply these principles that makes Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu exceptional and unique as a koryu bujutsu. This "operating system" if you will, is IMO what is really proprietary to the tradition and each subsequent master of the art.

Whatever head knowledge or theory a student gains over a period of time studying the art is like a trust established and given by the teacher and the tradition to the student. That trust is not available to the student to be used in anyway until: 1.) the student comes of age and 2.) the student can put it to effective use.

The student however has a responsibility to honor the teacher and the tradition by handling that trust with good stewardship. Failure to do so only tarnishes his own reputation, and likewise violates the "secrets" or proprietary principles and distinctives of the art. Failure to respect the institution and terms of the trust in fact, immediately begins to hinder and restrict access to that trust.

Violation of the trust whether in principle or application is in my opinion theft. A legitimate master of an art does not attain that level without being able to read the intent and sincerity of others. A thief may attempt to steal the subject matter of an art, but without the proper keys, combinations, complete instructions and support it's value is diminished. In the end he discovers he has a conterfeit that is worthless. All by itself it may fool some, but next to the real real thing it's clearly an imitation. Therefore he can't even display it openly lest the truth become known.

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 09-19-2000 at 02:37 AM]

Brently Keen
20th September 2000, 07:17
Popie wrote (edited for some spelling and grammar):

"The above is a noble philosophy, but what if it is used by
the instructor for not so good intentions, i.e. to manipulate the students for his or her own gain or agenda, or do as I say, not as I do?"

Then that would not be so noble would it? Again, the teacher has the same if not more responsibility to his teacher and the tradition. If he misuses the "trust" and violates the principles of his own art by manipulation (or any other means) for his own selfish reasons he can hardly be considered a true master in the full sense of the word can he?

If a teacher has ulterior motives and/or says things like, "Do as I say, and not as I do" then he can hardly be said to have any practical understanding of mind, body, and spirit coordination, can he? This certainly disqualifies him as a "master" in my mind. It also calls into question his authority and legitimacy to teach in the first place (regardless of the paperwork he may possess). I'd say he is neither of age (maturity), nor does he have the effective ability to access the "trust".

And then Popie said:

"I think many people in other arts face such a problem, so what would be your solution, as a suggestion?"

You're right. The problem is widespread. I think we can safely say that there are far too many teachers and so-called masters out there who simply are not qualified or skilled enough to be in such a position. In my mind they're all frauds. They start with delusions of themselves being great and they steal from their teachers and their traditions and they deceive their students. It's wrong.

The problem will continue as long as we continue to tolerate it. Before we can realize a solution, we have to realize a fundamental principle of human behavior:

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR YOU MUST STOP REWARDING IT.

This is a universal truth. It applies to this problem just like it applies to reducing crime or raising kids. Contrary to popular belief, universal tolerance and acceptance are not virtues. As long as we continue to put up with unacceptable behavior that behavior will continue to persist.

My suggestion is that we as a community need to REALIZE this principle and just not accept the nonsense propagated by all these charlatans. We can just call them on it, call attention to their humongous egos and poke fun at them. I believe this can be a very powerful tool since nothing humiliates these folks (who are mostly egomaniacs) and puts them in their place more than public ridicule and scorn.

Poking fun at and ridiculing unacceptable behavior is just good old fashioned peer-pressure put to good use. It helps keeps people in line. If all these thieves ever get is public humiliation when they're really seeking adoration you can bet they're going to change their behavior or at least severely restrict it.

There is another principle that goes along with this:

PEOPLE NATURALLY RISE TO EXPECTATIONS.

We simply need to raise the expectations of acceptable behavior for ourselves, our children, our parents, our leaders, our teachers, and our students. We need to raise the expectations of acceptable behavior in dojo's, at home, in the workplace, on the streets, in government, in our schools and churches.

We need to expect more rather than less and excellence rather than perfection. We need to set clear boundaries and let people know that we not only respect integrity we expect it. We expect our leaders to serve selflessly and respect those whom they lead more than themselves. We need to expect our teachers, pastors and priests to practice what they teach/preach. And we need to expect students to dedicate themselves to learning and training in such a way that they can master the subject at hand and apply it for real.

It all starts at home with each one of us. We have to raise expectations for ourselves first and then accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Pardon me now, as I get down off my soapbox and call it a night. :)

Brently Keen





[Edited by Brently Keen on 09-20-2000 at 01:19 AM]

Jeff Cook
20th September 2000, 11:40
"They start with delusions of themselves being great and they steal from their teachers and their traditions and they deceive their students. It's wrong."

Let's see how many well-known and generally respected martial arts pioneers have been accused of this. I'll start the list.

Morihei Ueshiba
Gichin Funakoshi
Jigaro Kano
Hidenori Ohtsuka (accused by the above Funakoshi!)
Bruce Lee

That's all I can think of now at this early hour. Brentley and others, your argument does have merit - I am not trying to diminish it with this list. I simply want to point out that we need to be careful when applying our standard to others "outside the box."

Can anybody else add to the list?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Cady Goldfield
20th September 2000, 17:23
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
"They start with delusions of themselves being great and they steal from their teachers and their traditions and they deceive their students. It's wrong."

Let's see how many well-known and generally respected martial arts pioneers have been accused of this. I'll start the list.

Morihei Ueshiba
Gichin Funakoshi
Jigaro Kano
Hidenori Ohtsuka (accused by the above Funakoshi!)
Bruce Lee

That's all I can think of now at this early hour. Brentley and others, your argument does have merit - I am not trying to diminish it with this list. I simply want to point out that we need to be careful when applying our standard to others "outside the box."

Can anybody else add to the list?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu


Jeff, IMO that's not at all what Brently was referring to. He spoke of the many self-professed "masters" and hundreds of ill-equipped individuals who are teaching out there...full-well knowing they're frauds. I can think of quite a few off hand, and many are doing quite well financially while fooling their students and dishonoring their teachers (some of whom probably aren't aware that they were teachers of these individuals, if ya know what I mean).

There's a huge difference between what a handful of detractors might hurl at an established martial artist out of jealousy or sour grapes, and an honest assessment of the amount of self-deception and just-plain charlatanism that goes on in the martial arts world.

Jeff Cook
20th September 2000, 23:37
Hey, Cady! Welcome back! I don't know about anybody else, but I missed you!

You are absolutely right; I am certain that Brentley was referring to the situation you speak of. I threw my post out there to get other's opinions, and to also point out that the frame of reference has everything to do with how one is perceived. Some of the folks I mentioned have been and continue to be accused of being charlatans and frauds, as I think Popie was pointing out.

Just trying to poke and prod to get some more very intelligent and telling posts from the high-class of budoka (such as yourself:)) that have been posting to this thread.

I also appreciate the kind,gentle and respectful way that you folks agree to disagree. It is very refreshing compared to other threads on this board.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Dan Harden
21st September 2000, 03:23
I am not sure anyone will reach a definitive answer for all sides of this issue. Enough has probably been discussed to raise more questions than to arrive at answers. Also, it gets too confusing to juxtapose the behaviors and actions of the obvious frauds and/or incompetents, to the qualified. Who, upon maturing, turn their backs on their teachers and go there own way.
I am somewhat in agreement that regardless of their vision and what eventually became of them. Perhaps the Ueshibas and Kanos of the world began their journeys under dubious circumstance.... Perhaps not. Of those that have "walked away with the goods," turning their backs on the teachers and fellow students who sweated it out with them; some have become infamous, some famous. Funny, how men talk allot about ethics and such, but in the end, so many will accept most any behavior under the guise of success.

I am reminded of the scene in Shogun (paraphrased) where Mifune says to Chamberlain.........

"You are committing treason against your sovereign lord!!"
"No I am not Sire" says Chamberlain.
"When is going against your lord not treason?" asks Mifune.

"When you win." says Chamberlain

If you doubt the sale of ethics, or the ability of people to actually accept it, go into Business. After twenty-two years I am still amazed at what men do. And even more amazed at what others will deem acceptable behavior or at least forgivable "foibles" in the presence of success.

Dan
"Who always wondered why supposed "Budo men" want to teach allot of people instead of train. Drawing attention to your technique just seems like bad Budo to me."

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2000, 04:17
A lot of the individuals on Jeff's list didn't "walk away" from their teachers. They simply had reached a level of developmental maturity at which point their teachers endorsed their going off "into the world" to do what they may do. Funakoshi had the blessings of his Okinawan teachers, and chose to make karate available to "the masses" of Japan, and later the world, by sportifying what he had learned and designing a school physical education regimen. Kano sportified jujutsu for similar reasons. Both men recognized that, with the Meiji Restoration, the fighting and combat arts of old would all but perish unless modified into something the "basic person" could learn and appreciate. In a sense, perhaps they were affected by the political climate of the day in making their decisions in creating new approaches to old systems.

Lee did the same thing in his own way, mixing principles from different systems and working with his Chinese martial heritage and making it accessible to non-Chinese. This, in my eyes, was as radical (perhaps more so) as Japanese martial artists of the samurai class (as Funakoshi was)making their arts accessible to students of humbler castes.

IMO, none of these men were dishonoring their teachers or ancestry by taking a new course with old knowledge. However, I cannot help but feel that the ancient knowledge and wisdom is slowly being lost forever when a gifted and well-taught student of an art chooses to withhold teaching and handing down principles he has mastered, so that future generations of an art's practitioners fail to learn the core and essence of what their art is all about. After all, they had their teacher's endorsement to pass on the art as it was given to them. They opted not to, and a chain of transmission was radically altered forever.

Jeff Cook
21st September 2000, 14:11
Cady,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You helped make my point. Your perception of Funakoshi is the commonly-accepted one today (in mainland Japan, but not in Okinawa).

First, a couple of historical corrections. Funakoshi was not Japanese, he was Okinawan (a much clearer distinction during his time), and he was not of the samurai class. He also did not sportify karate - Ohtsuka and Funakoshi's son did that. Gichin was adamantly opposed to sportifying - that's the main reason why Ohtsuka and Funakoshi split. Gichin's son radically changed Shotokan after his father's death.

Funakoshi had the endorsement of his Okinawan teachers and the Okinawan karate organization to go to Japan to teach karate. He had their unequivocal blessings. Unfortunately, Funakoshi's methods of instructing karate were entirely different than how he learned karate in Okinawa. Not initially, but over time he changed his methods drastically to make it more popular to the Japanese. Basically, he sold-out his teacher's training methods, and this is how it was perceived by the Okinawan karate community! The Okinawans do not consider Shotokan to be a "new approach to an old system," they consider it an entirely different system that bears little resemblance to an Okinawan system.

The same can be said of Kano (jujitsu), Ueshiba (aikibudo/aikijujitsu) and Lee (wing chun), but that is for another thread!

In your opinion and mine, Cady, Funakoshi did not dishonor his teachers or ancestry, but unfortunately that is not the view held by many Okinawan martial arts leaders. And that is my point. It is a matter of perception.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Edited by Jeff Cook on 09-21-2000 at 08:14 AM]

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2000, 15:53
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Cady,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You helped make my point. Your perception of Funakoshi is the commonly-accepted one today (in mainland Japan, but not in Okinawa).

First, a couple of historical corrections. Funakoshi was not Japanese, he was Okinawan (a much clearer distinction during his time), and he was not of the samurai class. He also did not sportify karate - Ohtsuka and Funakoshi's son did that. Gichin was adamantly opposed to sportifying - that's the main reason why Ohtsuka and Funakoshi split. Gichin's son radically changed Shotokan after his father's death.
[QUOTE]

Actually, Jeff, if you read Funakoshi's autobiography, you will find that he does claim to be of samurai class, albeit of the lower eschelon. I believe that one of his ancestors was "raised" to samurai class by his superiors and was given lower level court duties. The early part of Funakoshi's memoire recounts the early days of the Meiji Restoration, in which his male relatives refused to cut off their samurai topnots in defiance of the new government's edict. Funakoshi, in order to get a job as a schoolteacher, went against his family's orders and cut his hair. There are also many telling remarks in the forward/introduction and in Funakoshi's own words describing the habits of his class and how it affected his daily life under a new regimen.

[QUOTE]
Funakoshi had the endorsement of his Okinawan teachers and the Okinawan karate organization to go to Japan to teach karate. He had their unequivocal blessings. Unfortunately, Funakoshi's methods of instructing karate were entirely different than how he learned karate in Okinawa. Not initially, but over time he changed his methods drastically to make it more popular to the Japanese. Basically, he sold-out his teacher's training methods, and this is how it was perceived by the Okinawan karate community! The Okinawans do not consider Shotokan to be a "new approach to an old system," they consider it an entirely different system that bears little resemblance to an Okinawan system. The same can be said of Kano (jujitsu), Ueshiba aikido/aikijujitsu) and Lee (wing chun), but that is for another thread!
[QUOTE]

Yes, that's pretty much my impression too, as I stated previously. After reading biographies of both, and Funakoshi's autobiography it becomes pretty clear that both men were going along with the changes in their society. Again, I suspect they felt that they were dinosaurs that had to give in to the "new ideas" and to serve the "greater Japan." The fact that Funakoshi removed his topknot to take a job as a civil servant/teacher indicates that he was not sealed to his ancestory. That makes him something of an iconoclast in his time and circumstance.

As regards your final comment that many Okinawan teachers had quite a different view than we regarding whether they and their arts were dishonored... Well, that ain't to say that I personally agree with what Funakoshi did with "his" karate, Jeff. :) I'm just saying that I do believe that as martial arts are "man-made," and not "God given," there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him. As you know, both Funakoshi and Kano renamed their arts to make that distinction. So did Ueshiba, although I don't see him as being as "pure of heart," at least not earlier in his career, as the former two men were.

I also sympathize with Funakoshi's Okinawan teachers, who spent years of their lives and great investments in their labors and personal concern for Funakoshi as their student... treating him like a son... only to have him not pass along their "karate genes" to the next generation.
Alas, it's the same lament that many a grandchild-less parent has... ;)

On the other hand, there are many so-called "pure artists" who learn and study hard in their chosen arts without concern as to whether their knowledge is passed on. This is a whole 'nother topic, though.


[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 09-21-2000 at 10:09 AM]

Jeff Cook
22nd September 2000, 13:14
Hi, Cady! Thanks for the reply.

I will concede the samurai claim that Funakoshi made. I read the same thing you did. Let me just say that I question his claim, for reasons that would make up another heated thread (I'm too tired to take that one on now!:)).

"...there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him."

Thank you for saying this; I was beginning to feel alone in my view. That is the point I was making; there are others that disagree with this view, for understandable reasons.

Again, thank you all for your intelligent and well-worded insights!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Cady Goldfield
22nd September 2000, 15:39
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Hi, Cady! Thanks for the reply.

I will concede the samurai claim that Funakoshi made. I read the same thing you did. Let me just say that I question his claim, for reasons that would make up another heated thread (I'm too tired to take that one on now!:)).

"...there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him."

Thank you for saying this; I was beginning to feel alone in my view. That is the point I was making; there are others that disagree with this view, for understandable reasons.



Well like I said, Jeff. I suspect there was nothing "unkosher" going on with many if not most of the individuals you named on your list. Those that I know of -- Funakoshi, Lee in particular -- had their teachers' blessings or at least permissions to teach, and as far as I know, no oaths had been broken or trusts betrayed, despite the different directions the students had taken with the art.

However, as has been said earlier on this thread, if you make an oath, you are obliged to keep it. Without fail. There may be some on your list who did in fact betray a trust and an oath, and to me that is unforgivable. No amount of personal mastery or "possession" of an art gives one permission to break a promise made to those who gave it to him. Read Stanley Pranin's books and you will discover that such a thing seems to have occurred in at least one now-popular art.

I trained in a traditional art for 20 years before going in a different direction. I made an oath to my former teacher, upon reaching dan grade, that I would never teach what he had given me without his express permission. To this day, although I no longer study with him, there is no way that I will break this promise. If, some day, one of my nephews or nieces comes to me and asks me to teach him or her, I will have to ask permission of my teacher (or his descendent) first. If I am refused, then I can't teach without betraying a trust. That's the way it is. You might think that this is nothing more than a way for the teacher to maintain total control over an art for financial gain and/or ego and power. While for some that's true (although from what I've seen, their "art" isn't really worth protecting), there are those who do so to maintain the integrity of the art.

Promises are made for a reason.

Dan Harden
24th September 2000, 17:09
Has anyone noticed how many "hits" this topic has? Before its over it will be well into the three thousand + range. The questions raised, and opinions offered, are probably reflections of the unresolved issues many of us face within these arts. I have only one last thought to add here.
The notion of intellectual property and what you may have "earned the rights to" can be resolved (at least in my mind) by thinking beyond "your" efforts and "your" self-interests.
As I stated earlier “The art was there before you found it.” I would like to expand on that.

It has been my experience, that there are principles and techniques involved in some of these arts that are far deeper than the majority. Those principles and techniques still exists due to the efforts and the unity of the men involved. While it is true that some have departed “with the goods.” Setting up shop elsewhere. Enough have remained loyal to ensure the continuation of established schools. Perhaps people have not considered the totality of the sacrifices made by the men involved. We speak of the sweat equity and the “time in” of the student. But, that isn’t the total picture. What about the relationships and trusts formed? What of the relationships between you and the “other” students? It is more than just an individual involved here. Therefore, when discussing this topic we have to speak to the whole.
I am reminded of a scene in the Nick Nolte movie “Farewell to the King.” In it, there is a scene where a visitor to a dense jungle is shown a secret pass to a village of people called the “cloud people.”
The visitor asks, “Why do you keep it secret?
“So it will be here, unchanged for all of us.” He is told.

In my mind, it is much the same with many of these arts. Think beyond yourself to the sacrifice of the men before you.

The art is there
Men come and go……….
The art is there

Situation A.
Some men decide to stay. They sacrifice. They gain, and overall they contribute to the art, perhaps even improving it, but all in all they strive to ensure that is survives. “To be there for all of us”. So……….
The art is there.

We have to take our hat off to these guys. At times they may have felt the same as all the other ones in my little list here. They put up with demanding teachers, schedules, and much sacrifice. Yet they stayed and helped out

*******************************
Situation B.
Some men leave to pursue their own way. Taking some of the principle and technique.
But, they change the name and give it their own slant. Leaving the core art alone and pure so that others may come and study.
The art is there……………..

For those involved with situation B. What can be said? People change and want to go their own way. Did they say where “the goods” came from? Hopefully, these men have enough integrity to acknowledge where their technique came from. This helps the core art. Perhaps even encourages the student to pursue it. To see where his teacher go his stuff.
There are enough people who have done this, over the course of hundreds of years to keep the arts flexible and ever growing.
For those studying in Situation B, they look at their teacher and respect the skills. They may even go on to write books about him and applaud him to the four winds. But the essence of the man’s technique were not his. The honor belongs elsewhere.

This is a whole other topic. But! I think while many are sincere, and have gone on to create something of substance. Most were probably nothing more than disgruntled people who for one reason or another simply wanted to be on their own.

*****************************

Then it gets dicey

Situation C.
c. Some men train for many years and are quite accomplished but they leave and set up shop, Calling the art by the same name. These men have the goods, and our disseminating a true albeit, “altered” version of the art. But, More importantly, they left without the rights or the authoriy to teach it nor grade others in it. In essense they are NO LONGER part of the Ryu.

Have you ever noticed, how many of these men, upon leaving, say the same thing? They are "improving the art.”

**********************************

Situation D.
d. Some men with inadequate skills, decide their “own” efforts, and their “own” understanding, are more valuable. They leave. Set up shop. Use the name. And disseminate a watered down version equaling their experience.
When that happens often enough It hurts the art. Further, it hurts everyone involved. And this is the real key. IT HURTS EVERYONE. The damage this does can range from; minor and of little consequence to very damaging.

For those in situation D, they think they are learning “a specific art” when in fact, they are not. They have been cheated and played for fools. This hurts them, the ones who gave so much of their time effort, and of course money. Their teacher who felt he “needed” to teach has hurt his teachers, and his students. Whether teacher or student isn’t the point. It hurts people. Period.

***********************************

A bit simplistic to be sure, But it encapsulates the essence of the various arguments. The right or wrong of each individual circumstance is beyond me. I am hopeful that there are enough men around who will keep these arts preserved.
That way “They will be there for all of us”

Dan







[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-24-2000 at 11:21 AM]

Jeff Cook
24th September 2000, 18:01
Dan,

Thank you for your very eloquent and wise reply, and for your patience with my lack of skill with the written word. Sometimes I find it difficult to convey my point, and I do not make the necessary distinctions in the "big picture" as you did above.

Your "situation B" is the scenario I was referring to. There are still many, many people out there who are highly insulted and offended by the SitB folks that are doing absolutely nothing to sully the arts they studied, and have tremendous respect for their previous instructors. These are the people that I feel strongly compelled to explain their point of view and defend their position.

I see now that I do not need to do this with you. Thank you again for your wisdom.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Brently Keen
24th September 2000, 23:15
Dan, my hat goes off to you for your latest eloquent contribution. I think that you have made some very astute observations that very accurately describe the various situations and the sentiments of many of us.

I can relate particularly to those in "Situation A" who think and act for reasons beyond just the betterment of themselves, to something bigger. There is dedication and commitment to the tradition, it's reputation, it's principles and ideals, but there is also personal sacrafice involved in the practice and preservation of such an art.
For me that loyalty stems not just from blind devotion to a teacher, a tradition or personal integrity to an oath, but rather from a sense of personal responsibility. Having been blessed with the opportunity to receive much instruction from my teacher in the methods of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, I am not only filled with sincere gratitude toward my teacher and the tradition, but I also have a responsibility, an obligation to give back and contribute as well.

As Dan stated before, the sacrafice does entail more than just time, sweat and effort. It involves relationships. My teacher has made a tremendous investment in me, and I in turn have made an investment in the art he teaches. As long as I remain loyal, then the investments remain mutually rewarding.

In addition to the student/teacher relationship, there are also other relationships such as those between dojo members, and the relationship of the school to the community or the country that benefit as well.

We must not forget the sacrafice of time not spent with our families in order to train and partake in the activities of the dojo. Our investment in the ryu should be for the benefit of our families not to their detriment. Sacrafice by definition must be for the gain of others more important than ourselves (if it is to be honorable).

With regard to what is yours to teach, I think an important question should be asked regarding the intent of the would be teacher:

Who or what has become more important when the choice is made to strike off on ones own?

Dan said, accurately (IMO) of many people in Situation B:

"I think while many are sincere, and have gone on to
create something of substance. Most were probably
nothing more than disgruntled people who for one reason
or another simply wanted to be on their own.

Has the teacher in situation B branched off to create something new because of natural growth or the necessity of change? Or because they were simply disgruntled? Or would a closer look reveal perhaps an overly ambitious need for personal validation in the form of some deshi of their own?

In the case of Situation C, is it also for the same reason or motives?

Certainly, throughout history there have been a few instances (or exceptions) where it was the "legitimate" headmaster or soke who was acting vain or from selfish motives, and it was the so called "unauthorized" teacher who honorably (and therefore perhaps legitimately) branched off to uphold and preserve the tradition. In my mind, the "legitimacy" question also involves the element of honorable and respectable intentions, personal responsibility and obligations to past and future generations as well as to ideals bigger than oneself.

Sadly, there are also some of those in Situation D who also pretend to be honorably in camp A, B, or C.

All of this suggest to me that when it comes to qualifications for leadership and the right to teach, character matters in addition to technical skill and competence.

For those few who are honorably (and thus legitimately, IMO) in situations A, B, and C they should be applauded or at least respected for their various efforts and contributions. For the others, well, let's not reward their behavior, but call them on it, and inform the public. Hopefully we can keep them honest, or at least restrain the damage they inflict.


Brently Keen

"The most effective refutation of error is to teach truth."

[Edited by Brently Keen on 09-24-2000 at 05:33 PM]

Neil Hawkins
26th September 2000, 07:47
I like Dan's list, it does allow us to categorise the groups well, but I think there might be one more group, we have discussed this before (though after six pages who can remember! :)) but I don't think it fits any of Dan's outlines, and it is relatively common.

Two students study under the same master, they train diligently for many years attaining full mastery of the art. One leaves the area and is given permission to teach the art, the other stays at home. The master dies and leaves control to the student that stayed home.

Now this is where it gets tricky, the guy that went away who is teaching the system returns home to discover that the art has evolved away from what he is teaching, he doesn't believe that it is right, he feels that the master would not like what is happening, and so voices his disagreement. Ultimately there is a split, one teaches the art as he was taught, the other teaches an evolution, both use the same name, both claim to be right whilst the other is wrong.

Can the new master revoke the authority of the old master? Can the other teacher petition the students and remove the new master? How do you explain to the students of both teachers what has happened and why the same style is done differently?

It becomes a matter of perspective again, but when do we stop thinking about the continuation of the style. If the styles name is likely to be dishonoured by the nominal head, are the students still obliged to follow, or can they take control? Will this look like an ego driven struggle by outsiders, or will it be seen as justified?

I don't know, I'm asking for opinions! :)

Regards

Neil

rossl42
26th September 2000, 09:34
Firstly, Jeff, do not feel alone: I am sure that there are others, like myself, who believe that not all circumstances are easily judged.

The number of possible scenarios related to this topic is limitless and those discussed above include some reasonably clear cases. I would like to add a few more grey cases to consider.

Scenario X
A person signs an undertaking not to teach until they have reached level X. Their instructor later gives them permission to teach even though they are just a little short of being recognized at that level. The person concerned commences teaching a small class.

Scenario Y
A person has reached the level where he/she is an “authorized teacher” in a system, but finds that fundamental differences in philosophy have arisen between his instructor and himself. The senior suggests to him that if he is to continue to teach he should no longer claim to be teaching “My ryu” or to continue to claim any direct association. Out of respect, the “junior” teacher changes the name of the art he teaches and remains quiet regarding his association with his teacher’s tradition.

Scenario Z
A person has reached the level where he/she has become an “authorized teacher” in a system, but not yet an “acknowledged master.” Due to environmental circumstances (say, war) he loses touch with his seniors. A number of years later he tries to trace his seniors but finds himself to be (apparently) the only remaining holder of the tradition. He chooses to teach the tradition as he knows it, modifying it over time as his knowledge of associated arts increases.

Our view of each scenario will be contingent on our own value system and our interpretation of the limited facts available to us. If I have read the above posts correctly there are some who believe that, in each of these cases, the “junior person” has done something wrong. I would suggest that none have done anything for which they deserve reproach.

Neil Hawkins
26th September 2000, 09:50
So you finally decided to join in, welcome.

Neil

Nathan Scott
28th September 2000, 23:16
How about a situation in which a headmaster has several senior students that reach Menkyo Kaiden (or equiv) level, and have achieved full instruction in the ryu. They may assist with classes at the Honbu under the headmaster, but the perhaps the headmaster does not wish to open branch schools. Whatever nitch the MenKai (tm) can create for themselves will be it, since there is only one dojo and one headmaster (teacher).

In this scenario, one or two assistants might be beneficial, but 4 or more would MenKai's would be a waste of potential with no outlet for their skill and experience, and as such some might go out on their own to develop their own variation.

It was not uncommon at all for an experienced samurai to found his own ryu-ha (at least a family style if nothing else). I understand that most highly skilled Budoka did.

So anyway, judging from this discussion so far it could be said that there are alot of scenarios in which it would be considered understandable for a student to branch out his own.

I guess it comes down to a couple of things: What level of training did the student receive before branching out on their own, and how do they represent their styles and themselves as teachers?

It could be argued that the political situation between the student and previous teacher is private and irrelevant to the founding of a style, but the previously mentioned two areas would seem to be of concern regardless.

If the student leaves before reaching a high level of skill/license, and uses said style as the foundation for their own style, this seems a little strange and possibly inappropriate. Especially if they use their previous style and teacher as a way to validate and promote their own methods.

But if the student represents themselves honestly, that would definitely go a long way toward public/peer acceptance. New students could still decide for themselves if they think the instructor has a deep enough understanding of what they claim to teach, but have the correct background upfront. History is important for some people.

My main hangup is whether it is morally right to teach the techniques or a teachers style who does not wish you to use their methods anymore. It seems to me that any teacher is going to teach hoping that the student will be loyal and patient in their training. Teaching is mostly a thankless job, and takes a great deal of effort and energy. It is extremely frustrating to have students break off or quit just when they are starting to learn something!

I for one would not even teach anymore if I thought all my students would teach what I teach them without my permission. I believe there is a explicit or at least implied trust between students and instructors.

The Eastern way of teaching generally does not give you all the answers up front. The methods are designed to be learned over a given period of years, and often the waza/tactics are not fully functional and understood until one gets to "Menkyo Kaiden" ir equiv level. The teacher rarely explains why they teach the way they do or what is a "teaching method" (like learning body phisics) and what is real waza. You are largely reliant on your instructor to guide you through your training up to a certain point, and trust their knowledge and methods to get you there.

This makes it very hard to be confident of what you know until you reach that level, IMHO.

Good discussion,





[Edited by Nathan Scott on 10-09-2000 at 04:07 PM]

George Ledyard
7th October 2000, 17:48
I think that the traditionalists who want to keep their arts pure and limited only to the small number of people who will train in that style for many years and recieve a licebse to teach from the head of that syle are doomed to be disappointed. Globalization effects the martial arts just as much as it does every other area of our society.

It's not that it is impossible to maintain a pure form of an art using the traditional means of transmission. But is is increasingly impossible to keep the techniques of a style from being appropriated into the practice of people not certified in any way by the seniors of that style.

Just as computer folks have discovered that the only guarenteed way to have a secure network is to never connect to any computer outside the network, the only way to prevent people from taking techniques and concepts into their own arts is to not teach them. People who hold seminars open to all styles, who put videos out into the public domain, have to expect that what they show becomes public property and will be incorpoarted in many ways into people's practice. Even public demos are the same. The Founder of Aikido only showed the general principles of his art in public. He was always aware that people would take his techniques if he showed them publicly.

In my own case, I have made no attempt to inorporate any of the techniques from training in Araki or Buko Ryu under Ellis Amdur Sensei into my Aikido. I respect my former teacher and acknowledge that I have no license to teach anything from those styles. However there are a number of general principles that I learned doing classical training that I have used to influence how I do Aikido. I would say that that is inevitable. It's not like you get a mind-wipe when you stop training in a style.

I have a very eclectic style of training in Aikido. Like my teacher, Saotome Sensei, I'll incorporate anything into what I do if it fits and will benefit my own and my students Aikido. I have a friend who is one of Dan Inosanto's senior instructors. He is highly accomplished and I respect him very much. He let me know that he was upset with me because I was teaching techniques that were derived from Kali and I had no certification to teach those things. My reply was that I had two sources for the techniques, Instructor classes at the Police Academy which he taught and the many videos I have purchased from a variety of sources. If you go into a room of instructors who are not your students and don't even do the same art you do and show them things, what was your expectation about what they would do with the training? Did you think they attended the training as an academic exercise and would pretend they had never seen those techniques until they could train extensively in the style and get certification? Of course not.

Someone from Jeet Kun Do especially should understand picking up principles and techniques from any source available and putting it into a new form. Was it ok for Bruce but not the folks who came later?

My own practice is to get as much information as I can whether from video or seminars. I try to be honest about where I got my techniques. I am the first one to say to my students that I got something off a video or from a particular Sensei. I try to give credit to everyone who has helped me and I never pretend that I made something up that I got from elsewhere. I do admit that as I approach the 25 year mark in Aikido, there are a number of things that I am sure I didn't get directly from Saotome Sensei but I can't actually remember when I didn't know them. I have invited every teacher with whom I have trained over the years to teach at my school, in part as acknowledgement to my students of the debt I owe to them. But other than that I can't remove things I know from the whole because they derived from particular sources. If Angier Sensei hadn't wanted me to know about the principles he has identified in Yanagi Ryu, he wouldn't have taught them to a room full of strangers.

There are now a number of excellent Daito Ryu videos available to the public. It is my considered opinion that anything I see in those videos can be used to better my Aikido training without feeling like I am stealing someone else's property. In the old days the scrolls of a style were given only to members of of a style that were licensed and then even then they were in a sense coded so that they wouldn't be useful for a non-member of the school. That could still be done. I know of many schools that use videos for training the members of the school but do not make them available to the public and ask the students who do have the videos to promise not to copy them. But when you put your stuff On-line and sell it to anybody anywhere in the world, that stuff becomes public at that point. I will still point out the origins of what I do to my students so that they understand where my stuff come from, that I think is actually more honest than changing the name of what I do, setting myself up as the Founder, and acting like I either invented this stuff or that it was all taught to me by some currently unverifiable mystic source in my childhood in the East.

Never before in history has so much information been available to martial artists about the various styles that exist. Some of the top instructors in the many styles are putting their techniques out to the public in video form. I believe that we will find the "pure" style is an endangered species. They won't cease to exist but the numbers of people who are training in these styles will necessarily stay very small or they won't stay pure. And there will inevitably be influences that those styles exert on other styles outside their own. I can't think of a tiume when that wasn't true.

I expect people to be honest about what they do and how they represent themselves. If they aren't licensed to teach a style they shouldn't say so. If is a 4th Dan who thinks he deserves a 10th Dan I don't think joining an organization that grants him a 10th is legitimate. I don't think you should advertise that you teach things that you aren't licensed or certified to teach ie. don't say that you offer Aikido at your school when your are really teaching a couple of wrist locks and no one at the school even has a Shodan in the art. Always acknowledge the teachers that went before you from the various sources you derived your knowedge. After that if people are upset about what I am doing it's too bad but I don't feel any compunctions myself.

[Edited by George Ledyard on 10-07-2000 at 11:56 AM]

miguel ibarra
9th October 2000, 18:29
if one looks at the history and development of many of the martial arts studied today, one finds that it is/was common practice to break away/be expelled or receive authority, to teach whatever one was/has been taught. this is done either by giving credit to the former instructors or not.

this is akin to a university telling an individual that he/she cannot use any of the knowledge acquired while at that university. the knowledge is there to be used.

the real question is whether in fact an individual has the ability to teach the material and whether he/she is willing to give credit where such credit is due.

in daito ryu we have a situation where it appears to be ok to teach openly if you happen to be a japanese instructor.[see the many books and videos now available in japan] but not for us "outsiders". i don't usually comment online but this is an issue that has been and is being discussed in the aikido circles as well except it is limited to teaching credentials [japanese shihan vs. non-existent hombu american shihan. miguel ibarra

Richard A Tolson
9th October 2000, 18:52
Mr. Ibarra,
I have often said that we seem to hold ourselves to a much higher standard than we do Japanese instructors, or than the Japanese hold each other to. If a Japanese person (living or deceased) makes up his own art, lies about its origins, creates false genealogies, etc., it is overlooked. But let an American even seem to not be telling the 100%, swear on the Bible truth, and they open themselves to constant abuse. Whether deserving or undeserving. This always amuses me.

Brently Keen
11th October 2000, 08:13
Ibarra-san,

Thanks for joining in the discussion and welcome to e-budo. I think everyone benefits when people like yourself decide come out from lurking and share your thoughts.

If I may clarify my perspective, you said:

"...akin to a university telling an individual that he/she cannot use any of the knowledge acquired while
at that university."

I see this a little differently, because in my mind we're mostly talking about people who have only studied the equivalent of one semester/quarter at the university and then started passing themselves off as not just graduates, but teachers, masters, professors, and founders of their own schools and such.

"the real question is whether in fact an individual has the ability to teach the material and whether he/she is
willing to give credit where such credit is due."

With this I agree. But there is also the very important question of WHO determines an individuals ability. Unlike in most modern martial arts where anyone with a blackbelt can teach, the legitimate branches of Daito-ryu (like ather koryu) are still traditions with a "headmaster" who inherited that tradition. This individual not only leads the organization, but actually embodies and possesses the art. He is the living manifestation of it, and he defines it's completion and proper expression. Since the headmaster defines for each generation what the art consists of, it naturally follows that we should receive our ability from the source.

If I for example, were to declare myself an aikijujutsu master with the ability to teach others, I would lack credibility (regardless of my technical skill level), because I as a student am not the one who defines what ability in Daito-ryu is. I can say whatever I want, but that doesn't make it true. Even if my friends and students all insist that I'm an amazing master and I constantly "wow" them (and myself) with my insight and prowess, in their eyes I may even be gifted by God, but it doesn't matter because the standard for ability (and thus credibility) is set by the headmaster not by me, my students, or a council of my peers.

"in daito ryu we have a situation where it appears to be ok to teach openly if you happen to be a japanese instructor.[see the many books and videos now available in japan] but not for us "outsiders"."

Appearance and reality are not always the same thing. The problem is outsiders by nature of their position are not always able to discern what's really going on. First-off, of the books and videos available in Japan on Daito-ryu, some are produced by legitimate headmasters and inheritors of the recognized branches of Daito-ryu. It is ok for them, since they have received their ability from their teachers and it is they who define the art for us.

But there are also many other self-proclaimed "Daito-ryu" experts who are publishing books and videos. These are not recognized by the legitimate branches, and while they exist, they lack any real credibility. It's not theirs to teach. And they are generally referred to as "imitation" groups.

It's not ok or appropriate for us outsider's (gaijin) either, because none of us have made it (yet). As far as I know, there is not one non-Japanese in any of the legitimate Daito-ryu branches who has made it to the level of shihan, or kyoju dairi. There are only a few Japanese who have received that kind of ability. And I'm talking about the ability to teach Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu completely and legitimately. I'm not talking about "fighting ability" or teaching skills. A person may be a great coach and very skilled martial artist in their own right, and the headmaster may even recognize them as such, but that doesn't qualify them to truly teach the art unless he grants them the ability and with that the responsibility, priveledge and honor.

So basically I agree that one does need ability to teach, but the ability has to come from a legitimate teacher. It's not enough to just have studied with or learned from a real master either, you have to have received ability from them. If one's ability comes from somewhere or someone else, then it is something else altogether, and is not Daito-ryu, nor derived from Daito-ryu.

Just the way I see it of course.

Brently Keen



[Edited by Brently Keen on 10-11-2000 at 02:24 AM]

Richard A Tolson
11th October 2000, 18:42
Popie,
No offense taken. I have never yet been to Japan so my perspective on how they treat each other is limited. Thank you for the education.

miguel ibarra
11th October 2000, 22:39
mr. keen, i have no real disagreement with what you are saying except that i do not believe it is ability that we get from our instructors but authorization. ability [proficiency] comes from practice [shugyo].

bottom line. there are too many fakes in the world of jujutsu and lately daito ryu. it has become the ninja craze of the 0000. ibarra

Jeff Cook
11th October 2000, 23:42
Brently,

I agree with you in part. The problem with your statements, especially regarding credibility, is that they are not universally applicable, nor absolute. Credibility is highly subjective. A successful "breakaway master" can form a really large following, teach seminars all over the world, write books, etc, and within that extremely large crowd he can have tremendous credibility, and be seen as an innovator. (But there are also definite frauds out there producing a bad product!)

However, within the core group that he was raised in, he is seen in an entirely different light. He is seen as a traitor, fraud, and a bad guy. Now you have two conflicting factions. Look at the current state of affairs in the ninja world for a grand example of this.

Which one is "right" or "valid?" This is a matter of opinion, not incontrovertible fact.

Also, ability is not given; it is an acquired trait, and comes from within. It does take a master providing outside guidance to lead us to the answer; they point us in the right direction, and help us with our struggle with ourselves.

But the master points out the path of the Way - he does not give us the Way.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Gil Gillespie
12th October 2000, 06:08
Hi Jeff

I have to say that you ended your post with one of the great quotes I've heard lately. "The master points the Way; he doesn't give you the way." Brother, that's wonderful. Recently I addressed a post who said he was tired of hearing "just keep training." I told him the great men of budo use that as an answer. It's not a cliche. It's an INVITATION. Find your own answers; find your own direction on the Path. That's the challenge and the joy.

Brently Keen
12th October 2000, 07:41
Jeff, Miguel & everyone else,

Perhaps we're just splitting hairs here on semantics, and maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think we do agree in general but a distinction needs to be made to understand my point. My dictionary defines ability as:

1.) a being able; power to do. 2.) talent; skill

The context of this thread was "What is yours to teach" and what I was referring to as "ability" was the first definition. I thought I was making this clear when I said:

"I'm talking about the ability to teach Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu completely and legitimately. I'm not talking about 'fighting ability' or teaching skills."

I mean 'being able' to teach Daito-ryu and having the 'power to do' so completely and legitimately. I am talking about authorization here, because authorization is key to legitimacy. It is recognition of one's skills by the headmaster that gives credibility. Proficiency or technical skill in a classical tradition or just by itself does not authorize someone to teach the tradition or even a portion of it to outsiders.

Certainly it goes without saying that technical proficiency is a result of much training and hard work, but that is not the issue here, the issue is "What is yours to teach?".

In modern martial arts I suppose people can teach whatever they want, but in the koryu the tradition is, by definition an art that flows down from a source. You have to be in the stream, in the flow, to get it. And in order to teach it you need to receive not only the knowledge of the tradition, you need to receive recognition of your ability (authorization) from the current source, or headmaster of that particular stream or branch.

I agree that ability itself is not given by the teacher, but it is aquired by receiving a transmission of knowledge from the teacher, and by following the training method established by the teacher and/or the tradition.

Ability then (being able to do & having the power to do), IMO is the result of a gift. Talent and skill then is the result of training with that gift. Therefore, ability to teach a particular koryu does not come just from shugyo either. It must be granted and received. I thought I was clear about this in my last post when I said things like:

"We should receive our ability from the source."

"They received their ability from their teachers."

"Only a few have received that kind of ability."

"You have to have reveived ability from them."

The problem is, I think we're confusing general technical skills (proficiency) and actual ability to teach or transmit the contents of a classical tradition. A koryu by definition flows from a particular source and if one's ability comes from yourself, or like I said before:

"(from) somewhere or someone else, then it is something else altogether, and is not Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, nor is it really derived from Daito-ryu."

The idea that masters only point the way and that everyone else finds their own way is indicative of modern martial arts and (post modern relative thinking) IMO, and reflects an exalted view of the self, and a diminished view or respect of the master and the knowledge contained in a tradition. Perhaps it's this kind of thinking that fosters the notion that we can recognize and authorize ourselves as masters, set our own standards for ability, and assert that we are capable and able to teach whatever we want.

I know I probably see this differently than a lot of folks, but to me this stems from my perspective wading in a small branch of the Daito-ryu stream, and it's also related to the basic differences between koryu bujutsu and gendai budo.

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 10-12-2000 at 01:47 AM]

MarkF
12th October 2000, 09:39
Hi, Brently,
I agree with you in one area, at least, and comes in the form of and old saying: "Those who can; do. Those who can't; teach." This is an oversimplification, but the meaning is clear. Having the ability to do something, says nothing of one's ability to teach the same.

But if you categorize Jeff's statements as "new-age thinking" or akin to gendai martial arts, you are wrong.

First, there is a manner of classifying anyting, which I hate to do, but perhaps an agreement should be established as to whether daito ryu is koryu or gendai. My opinion is that it is gendai, with many approaches of learning and teaching seemingly koryu, but are only that. Since most agree with the timeline of 1868 being the "cutoff" date for koryu and gendai, then it must be viewed as a gendai art.

That said, I also do not like to classify in this way because this leads to classifying people who do bugei as to class, as it has already been said many, many times, that this is different because it was taught to those whose only job was to protect a certain class of people, therefore, it is somehow on a higher plain than that of those who really did their fighting on a battlefield. Going further, many say only a select few are chosen and trained in special techniques, and only Japanese may learn it, and those, going back to the days of retainers, would never teach these arts to a commoner, or, in other words, a foreigner. This may be true and may not be, but from countless sources, it is said to be true, and only out of necessity of a lack of children, would the rights and priviledges be passed on to someone who wasn't "in the family." If this is only true of daito ryu, I can except that, even though I don't like it, but if you are going to classify certain people as "deserving" of receiving of this knowledge, then I do not agree. This is snobbery at its highest level.

Unfortunately, this is not limited to koryu martial arts, but to martial arts, period, so daito ryu is far from being "special." This is also the nature of man, something we all should attempt to correct in ourselves. If true, and it is, at least to me, then daito ryu is playing a supporting role in prolonging man's inhumanity towards man, and indeed, by many accounts, bolsters this, a seed planted, so that it does grow. Furthermore, if this is indeed the purpose of it, then writing about it in public is not only doing itself harm, but also fostering amoung MA, a feeling of superiority over another. I don't believe the koryu arts were meant to do this, just as I think those gendai arts do not.

Originally posted by Brently Keen:


"We should receive our ability from the source."

"They received their ability from their teachers."

"Only a few have received that kind of ability."

"You have to have reveived ability from them."



What exactly does the above mean? I will grant you that good instruction means good ability, but not everyone benefits in the same way. I grant that most should repay there art in kind, but some take advantage. What is happening now in daito ryu (the flavor of the month), is a result of people, whom you respect, doing exactly the opposite, in part, anyway, by an attempt at spreading the word, through books, tapes, open seminars, etc. How should this be viewed by the general public? Well, the purpose is thoroughly mixed now, to the point of the statements above, to lack any credibility. Gendai arts do not do the above? The thinking would say otherwise. Most do respect their teachers, but some quit, a great "sin" even in the modern MA, some learn and repay by teaching it to others. How, after people such as Okamoto sensei writes books "to spread the word world wide (no not an exact quote, just my interpretation of it), the old methods of grading one's training has also been tossed aside for the new, gendai way of grading one's training levels, but it is still koryu? The reasons given for this, even in the mainline daito ryu (Kondo sensei) the reason's given for this fly directly into the face of reason, by insinuating, or outfront admitting, that the "old" way of grading is too time consuming, as there are just too many who are studying this art, to go through the trouble of menkyo, menjo, "scrolls," etc., and so, we will use the gendai type of grading system. Is this not a betrayal of those things held so dear?

Well, I suppose it is or it isn't, but that is something which will be discussed until all koryu are actually gendai arts, and gendai become, in the future, koryu, betrayed by some people, as having a God-given right to teach, even though they "betray" the founders.

Well, we don't have to wait any longer, as it is happening all ready, with the proliferation of sokey-dokey gendai koryu arts and the "freedom in truth and right" teachers.

Botton line, is that your club, as is mine, is a minority, and we really have nothing to fear from these people. It is the ego which sets these people up for the fall, and while doing that, we can silence this ego by doing the very thing thought to be on the verge, as the best of them always go through a filtering process, and are attracted to the best of us. It used to anger me, just as I am sure those who purport to be the "way" for you, do the same. But now, I think, ultimately, the good will survive, with our tiny little dojo doing what they can, and those who have built a life on lies and monetary gains, will eventually disappear, or will become just a small bother, as the club remains there for the minority.

So this was not meant for you personally, or for daito ryu, or any koryu art, but for those who fear those who seem different, and hide out in the darkness. Put on your shades, Brently, the sun is shining.:wave:

Sincerely,

Mark

Joseph Svinth
12th October 2000, 11:36
This thread has me a bit confused. So, to clear matters in my own mind, two allegories.

ALLEGORY ONE

Deshi Tom studies with Master Legree for 50 years and in the process learns to walk on water, drop elephants with kiai, and other really cool stuff. Meanwhile, two years ago Deshi Sven married Master's ugly daughter, the one Master despaired of ever getting rid of, and yesterday Lena had a really cute kid. Thrilled, Master immediately rewarded Sven with the menkyo, and then phones Tom to tell him to help Sven out with the teaching, for obvious reasons.

Tom balks and so Master Legree takes his whip and flogs Deshi Tom to death.

ALLEGORY TWO

Hrolf the Ganger goes to Paris to see the Carolingian King of France. The King tells Hrolf to kiss his ring. Hrolf tells one of his men to throw the King off his throne and then tells the King to kiss a portion of Hrolf's anatomy.

Far from being drawn and quartered, Hrolf ends up Duke of Normandy.

***

Now, the point. Could someone tell me which of these stories better reflect the proper koryu understanding of the Way of the Warrior? (Feel free to substitute gendai, if it is determined that aiki-jujutsu is really gendai rather than koryu, or aiki-jujutsu, if the answer is actually aiki-jujutsu specific.) From following this thread, I can't tell for sure, but the general trend seems to be toward the Deshi Tom model.

[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 10-12-2000 at 07:42 AM]

glad2bhere
12th October 2000, 13:58
Dear Joe et al:

I need to pick my words very carefully as I am a bit of an outsider in discussing these things. The Korean tradition does not have the tradition of patri-linear succession as it is reflected among the Japanese arts. By this I mean that except from a corporate stand-point (and this a relatively new development of these last few decades) the Korean tradition does not have a history of inherited titles and succession that many of the traditional Japanese arts have. I share this because interestingly we still run into many of the same problems as one would find in situations which ostensibly had an established policy for succession. To take a broader view, consider any of the hundreds of rulers around the world and through history that have wanted to pass their title on to the next generation. My point in all of this is that no matter what the agency or organization, and whatever the provisions that are made, succession of leadership or authority is not an exact science. Despite whatever provisions are made, someone, sometimes a lot of someones will challenge the results, question the process or simply ignore the results, move next door and start their own tradition. We would like to hope that people will honor their commitments and the spirit of succession in their particular art, but when they don't there is not a helluva lot one can do about it. Sadly the same holds true for 20y/o ninja masters, over-weight, balding 12x World Champions, and anyone else who bends reality to fit their needs.

Best Wishes, ]
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Nathan Scott
12th October 2000, 19:31
Hi all,

Good discussion.

Mr. Ibarra, welcome to e-budo.

First off, if we'd like to discuss whether Daito ryu is koryu or gendai, PLEASE open a new thread. This subject will surely be very controversial, and will end up being a matter of opinion and perspective anyway.

This thread is general in topic, as is the Seminar thread, but as such it also includes the aiki arts as well. You don't have to be in an aiki art to participate in this thread, but since it was inspired by a previous discussion here I opted to post it here. I don't consider a generalized subject to be off topic of AJJ.

Brently-san, for the purposes of clarity you might consider substituting the term "authority/authorization" in place of ability, though you are technically correct. I was among the many that was thrown off by your use of the word ability! :)

There have been many good arts/traditions that have been spawned from splitting a tradition (like Aikido) under a variety of political conditions. But I am curious where people nowadays draw the line ethically. Perhaps times and attitudes are changing, and instructors need to be realistic about what they can expect when choosing students.

Personally, I still think we are compromising our access to the more classical traditions by being "liberal" in our interpretaion of what is ours to teach. I agree with Mr. Ledyard that you cannot unlearn/de-program enhanced body physics or certain learned principles. But there are still the surface considerations like naming of waza and cloning of waza.

Also, theoretically an established style of tradition is *already* a complete system, right (in theory)? So why would you want to mix principles and movment patterns from another style into yours? Is something missing in it? Some styles are brand new, and most styles are constantly refining, modifying or developing. But I would guess that most people would not advertise a new system that is widely incomplete and in need of reconstruction and/or serious mentoring.

If you have the knowledge, experience and skill to found your own system, then is it necessary to invite outside instructors to your dojo to teach seminars in their system?

Not trying to bash anyone in particular, just offering another angle to this issue from the perspective of borrowing methods from on style to use in another style of Budo already established.

Regards,


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 10-12-2000 at 01:37 PM]

miguel ibarra
13th October 2000, 00:19
to mr. mark f.

very well said. i was trying to say something like it but you did a much better job. in my 34 years of jujutsu training/study [including 18 yrs. of daito ryu under 1 main shihan instructor and 2 additional shihans in a supportive role] i have arrived at similar conclusions to yours.
miguel

MarkF
13th October 2000, 06:07
Thanks, Michael, but I was really echoing Jeff's point, although my style is decidedly more ascerbic, but even here I had to hold back some.

My point was also Joe's point, but he is decidedly more cynical.

So now what? Do we all build dojo in our backyards? Dan Harden did this, as he decided he didn't like the stench of a lowly judo dojo. But after reading the threads in sword, the "firing party" is a very neihborly thing to do.:D

The question is still out there. That there are historians who have written volumes which speak "volumes" of proof of someone drowning, with fewer and fewer people to hear his cries. Even those who write about judo, are writing of the past, when judo was just judo and not a bi-monthly meeting of offcials to see what other instruments of destruction they may use. Probably by now, there should be two schools of judo, at least, as there are certainly more schools of daito ryu, splitting off and going their own way, making public spectacles of themselves. This is not wrong, mind you, just the time to admit it and to make the announcement "every man for himself."

Mark

MarkF
13th October 2000, 06:16
BTW: Miguel:
I have thirty-seven of it and almost all of it judo. I keep plugging away, wishing everyone to "Stop children. What's that sound, everybody look what's goin' down..."

Sorry, even the children of the sixties have something to say now and then.:wave:

Mark

Dan Harden
13th October 2000, 06:38
Mark says
So now what? Do we all build dojo in our backyards? Dan Harden did this, as he decided he didn't like the stench of a lowly judo dojo.

*****************
Mark
I don't know whay you keep saying stuff like this concerning me? I am actually growing concerned about your opinion of me.
the stench of a LOWLY Judo Dojo?? LOWLY? as compared to what?
I have tried to explain to you on numerous occasions that I have high regard for good Judo. I have even stated clearly on several occasions that any of these Aiki-related arts could strengthen themselves by playing with good Judoka. Why then in the face of those posts and opinions do you persist with this stuff? Why?
I left that Judo Dojo for the simple reason that the "rent" of the commercal space was getting to high. Coupled with the onset of the UFC T.V. things and the owner placing this huuuugee
"JUJUTSU Art of the 90's as seen in the UFC!!"
yellow banner on the building(guess who the jujutsu intructor was?) I got Dojo stormed three ways from sunday.

I had more challenges in any given month then in my whole Budo life. I played at first and sort of enjoyed it, but got sick of it.(even though I got more stories to tell from those three years then I could tell)
So I left? Why is that bad Mark?
Why the beef?
I'm confused. I respect your art openly. Others I don't and say so


Mark says

But after reading the threads in sword, the "firing party" is a very neihborly thing to do.

Again
Whats up with that??
There are several people out here, who are also on this list who know me and have seen many of my forgings and have bothered me to do this for years. Roy Goldberg spent a weekend here doing this. Forging his blood into a 32,000 layer blade. I don't get it bud. Whats up? Do you think I am not neihborly enough? I extended the invitaion all the way to Florida :)

Your comments about Daito Ryu are completely unwarrented.
you wrote
"Probably by now, there should be two schools of judo, at least, as there are certainly more schools of daito ryu, splitting off and going their own way, making public spectacles of themselves. This is not wrong, mind you, just the time to admit it and to make the announcement "every man for himself."


The Legit schools are not making spectacles of themselves Mark! Most are practicing in small groups that you do not EVER hear from!........ EVER
They are completely unconcerned about recognition. Where is the hostility comming from?


Dan
"who is frankly puzzled, in Mass."



Mark writes
"Stop children. What's that sound, everybody look what's goin' down..."

Dan says
Nobody's right if everybodies wrong...

"don't get me started on old songs. I misspent my youth as the lead singer and guitarist of my own bands......

[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-13-2000 at 01:17 AM]

MarkF
13th October 2000, 10:57
Dan,
What I said about you was literal, but certainly not serious. If I were goading you, I'd have made it much more than that. My comment was only that you do have your dojo in your backyard (in a converted barn) and I think you commented once that you used to workout at a judo dojo, or something like that. Also, I followed that thread in sword because it was interesting and educational as well, and thought the invite to, what I called simply "a firing party" as a term for what you would be doing and have done. I also can say this without any sarcasm or cynicism that you truly have more knowledge in that area than I knew, and have discussed this with Joe Svinth by email, that you certainly have depth of knowledge and savvy, far more than I knew, and said so. Perhaps I should have emailed my sentiments to you myself. For that, I apologize, but again, we are at odds over the written word.

Again, I will state so here. You do respect judo and I respect your choice. As I've said before, I come here with a keen interest in what you, Cady, MarkJ, and all the others I am leaving out, do, and I have benefited from this e-relationship. I watch videos of what you do (not you personally:) ) and grasp what I can, discard what I can't use, but always retain what I didn't know before, but with an understnding eye.

Seriously, my comments were aimed at the future, what is yours to teach, as I see it, and other silly arguments as to whether aiki jj is gendai of koryu.

But I ask a rhetorical question, as to are we all going the way of the big bad schools, or are we going the way, further and further to hiding out, in other words, is it coming to that. I said Dan Harden seems to have done so, but the comment about "the stench of the lowly judo dojo" was one-hundred percent sarcasm with a purpose in humor, nothing more. I do not think less of you because of what you do or who you are. In fact, I think your opinion is the one I think of when I respond in this forum, and sometimes I think of you when I am joking. Really, that was strictly meant in the kindest of ways. It is a feeling of judo which many have, "He's only judoka." I was funning at myself with something which is a popular theme, something I can laugh about, and I can also tell you what I really thought of Olympic judo, especially with the newest rules in them. It stunk. Period. If this were taking place in the seventies or eighties, I would defend it to the hilt, but I also have to be honest with myself, and call a koka, a koka.:)

So take this, my friend, nothing which is said on these boards can be taken at full meaning. No one says every word or even carries the same meaning in person. It is not a perfect medium for the true meaning. I honestly didn't think you would take offense.

Let me give you an invitation. Email me if I say anything which you question, or think is out of line. I'll tell you, good or bad, what I meant, even if I mean it word for word. No backing down. You may call it "verbal judo," I suppose.

Anyway, I tend to think "outloud" so if it is offensive to you, let me know. Really, I am easy to get along with. Honest.

Mark

MarkIV2001@aol.com

Dan Harden
13th October 2000, 14:26
Hi Mark

get it ...got it. Yes I got the private one too. :)

As I wrote in that stainless steel post, I have been working late hours. I think I wrote that comment to you at something like two in the morning here. I just got up and re-read it. Now, I can see your point.....No big deal at all

Back to point though

It's not that anyone should hide out. If you are in an art that is slightly deep or very deep. The only way you are going to get anywhere is to train constantly. When I was teaching in the Judo dojo there were something like 12-15 guys but we went through a hundred + people who would stay for a while and then say it was too intense and leave. Most came to test jujutsu in a freestyle form anyway. All because of that T.V. stuff going on at the time. :rolleyes: Most had never seen, felt or even heard of jujutsu at the time.
Being on main street is just not MY way that's all. No right or wrong to it. One summer, on a Thursday night. I surprised everyone there. I just turned by back on it and walked away.
I suppose it comes down to personal goals. What does anyone really want in these arts? What are we truly looking for? The more definitive that decision is, the clearer your path becomes.


I am interested in refining ME. In fact, If I didn't live three and a half hours away from someone I knew I would by there and not here. This way, I get to refine over and over and over. Repetitive motion, muscle memory, experimentation and so on. Whoever happens to show up may come along for the ride. The few I have allowed in have, for some reason or another, changed, improved, and have decided to stay.
This type of "closed door" Dojo with intense training affords you the opportunity for much personal failure, sweat and eventual improvement. I suspect it has always been that way.

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-13-2000 at 08:44 AM]

Cady Goldfield
13th October 2000, 20:09
[/B][/QUOTE]
In contrast, you seem to be offering pain and misery on a dirt floor
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, Dan offers pain and misery on styrofoam mats that have squirrel crap all over them. :)

Cady

Nathan Scott
13th October 2000, 20:32
Dan-san, I think what Mark's saying is that Judoka are to Budo what drummers are to rock bands!! Any musicians out there will get this one! (just kidding in any event - I started off in Judo)

Personally, I've found myself over the last few yeasr moving more and more towards a conservative approach in my own dojo. I managed to find a nice, affordable, clean non-commercial building off of a park. The class has widdled down to 5-6 serious students right now, turn over is rare, and most new students have come through word of mouth recently. However, setting up this type of enviornment was no picnic. It was very hard to find a good space that was not commercial, not too expensive or in a crappy area.

I don't make my living at teaching (and have chosen to leave any profits gained from dues in the dojo account for dojo expenses) and can afford to run the dojo with only 3-4 students without going in the negative. This is very important, because it gives you the freedom to be selective in who you would like to accept as students.

In regards to this thread, I mention this because I've felt things becoming increasingly commercial and public (free-information) as a result of the prevailing attitude of "everything is open game" these days. If this is how things are to be, I've got nothing bad to say. But I think for me I'd prefer to stay out of this modernization trend, as I fear it will bite us as well as Budo hard in the arse in the future!

There used to be no comparison between a koryu dojo, a workout gym and an aerobics class. But martial arts largely have and will continue to progress into a homogeneous looking/feeling art form, that *will* have many things in common with both the aforementioned activities. There are many dojo that already have incorporated elements of these other atmospheres, and it will become more so in the future.

This trend is simply a matter of appealing to the masses in order to be successful by most modern standards.

What is your motivation in martial arts? How much concern do you have with propogating the tradition that has been passed to you as opposed to building a successful business through martial arts instuction?

When bowing in to shomen or a kamiza before and after class, does the sweat and pain of others that suffered to continue these arts before us ever come to mind? What would they think of how the arts are being transmitted now, and the free adopting of (in some cases) family traditions by those not authorized or technically qualified?

I don't mean for this post to upset readers or sound like I'm talking down to anyone, but these are the kinds of things that cross through my mind when making decisions regarding Budo.

Take it as a sample of the mentallity of someone from the conservative side of the tracks, I guess. :D

Other viewpoints welcome.

**

This thread is getting quite long, so if there is still much to discuss, we might want to open a "part two". What do ya think?

Regards,





[Edited by Nathan Scott on 10-13-2000 at 04:46 PM]

Dan Harden
14th October 2000, 19:55
Dan-san, I think what Mark's saying is that Judoka are to Budo what drummers are to rock bands!! Any musicians out there will get this one! (just kidding in any event - I started off in Judo)

Another Musician....? this is wierd. There are so many of us in the arts

****************************
Nathan writes

Personally, I've found myself over the last few yeasr moving more and more towards a conservative approach in my own dojo. I managed to find a nice, affordable, clean non-commercial building off of a park. The class has widdled down to 5-6 serious students right now, turn over is rare, and most new students have come through word of mouth recently.

me
Diddo for me except I don't have to pay anyone anything

************************************
Nathan writes

In regards to this thread, I mention this because I've felt things becoming increasingly commercial and public (free-information) as a result of the prevailing attitude of "everything is open game" these days. If this is how things are to be, I've got nothing bad to say.

me
I have very few "positive" things to say, so I rarely talk about this topic anymore.

For the most part I think that Budo has become an embarrasement. *Percentagewise* I suspect there are VERY few people who recognize the "beauty" of efficiency in technique that can kill you. Fewer still who have the wherewithall to be able to handle a committed attack with anything close to a semblance of an "art" in motion. Much of what is out there is "empty" motion then can be walked through, controlled or taken apart. There are probably 10% or less of active participants with the means to do serious damage through controlled attacks or defense. And that is probably generous. We will never know.

***********************

But I think for me I'd prefer to stay out of this modernization trend, as I fear it will bite us as well as Budo hard in the arse in the future!

me
It already has but the majority won't see it. I had a Danzan ryu guy of the highest level say to me once "Were going to do a demo to make some coin. You guys should too."
Much of it has already turned. VERY few have the will to polish technique anymore in private.

*************************************
Nathan
There used to be no comparison between a koryu dojo, a workout gym and an aerobics class. But martial arts largely have and will continue to progress into a homogeneous looking/feeling art form, that *will* have many things in common with both the aforementioned activities. There are many dojo that already have incorporated elements of these other atmospheres, and it will become more so in the future.

This trend is simply a matter of appealing to the masses in order to be successful by most modern standards.

me
Hmmmm.......Appealing to the masses for what? Why do people want to show their technique to strangers in the first place? They make a "side show" of not only themselves but the poor art they supposedly represent. Maybe to other artists on occasion to let them know whats out there. But to "pursue" students seems antithetical to good Budo to me.

(and YES I know that is only one man's opinion. It is not about right and wrong, it is a viewpoint for discussion. So don't get your panties in a bunch if you teach for a living):)

**********************
Nathan

What is your motivation in martial arts? How much concern do you have with propogating the tradition that has been passed to you as opposed to building a successful business through martial arts instuction?
Take it as a sample of the mentallity of someone from the conservative side of the tracks, I guess.


me
There are many far more conservative then us Nathan. They are so far on the conservative side they cannot even SEE the tracks anymore.

My main motivation is exploring the deeper principles of two certian arts I know. Further, I am interested in controlling the opponent to the point that I could end his life or extend control to an arrest technique. I am uninterested in fluff, aiki-bunny techniques, or the self dellusioned. The same goes for technique with weapons or without.
It is a worthwhile study to take Kata and make it work against modern attacks in a QCC method. It is my long held belief that this can, and will, lead to an even more heightened sense of piece, self control, and well being in the participants then many of the more "love, peace, make your own sandals." type of arts. Or the Budo as "gentleway" mentality.
Several, of the most able and decidedly edgy men I have known were quintessential gentleman on or off the mat. Mercy has always been the property of the victor and always will be. Learning to be able to handle yourself against committed attacks by men with the intent to see you undone and who have the means at their disposal to do so is not fun. It is a crucible. It is hard work, and leads to much failure and sometimes, injuries. But it is and was the cornerstone of Budo in the first place.
To do this, AND to embrace the study of weapons,inclusive of both the manufacture of weapons and the use of them along with the use of modern weapons is more difficult still. It takes much time and committment. More so then most have to spend.

For many of us in these arts; We are the holders of cursury knowledge, gained through casual pursuit. It is as far as we will ever go and it is as far as we may want to go. What that "casual pursuit" has done to water down the arts has been going on for years.
Most people(not all of course) don't know what a serious artist can do to their technique, and they really don't care either. Why should they? or anyone for that matter? They see rank, or placement in an established orginazation as fun. It gives them another vehicle with which to define themselves to others, or improve their coordination, and in general, it makes them happy. There is absolutly nothing wrong with that, and nothing to say about it.
In the end the martial arts wil forever be defined by the general populace who casually pursue these arts.

It is like the case of the King and the poison well.
The well was poisoning his whole city.
The people went mad.
The King refused to drink from it for he could see what was happening.
They all said "Look, our king is the one who is mad. We must kill him."
The king pondered this.
He went and drank from the well.
The people rejoiced for the king had regained his senses!

The only way out I think. Is to practice in small groups away from the maddening crowd. It is pointless to swim against an overwhelming tide or try to explain anything.
It may also be the only way to prevent contamination of Koryu by popular arts "So people will still want to learn it" as seen in several Koryu already.

Dan
Who was among those doing Jujutsu for years before anyone saw it on the tee vee, and who was asked more than once "that's some form of Koratee right?"


[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-14-2000 at 02:11 PM]

Cady Goldfield
15th October 2000, 03:15
>Dan, Who was among those doing Jujutsu for years before anyone saw it on the tee vee, and who was asked more than once "that's some form of Koratee right?"<

Even sadder, it seems that the largest group making that sort of remark nowadays is Japanese. Most of my Japanese-born colleagues, knowing that I train in "some martial arts," have never heard of jujutsu, nor kenjutsu. A few were familiar with kendo because they remember it was offered at a healthclub near where they lived. One asked me whether "jujutsu comes from judo?" He'd heard of judo.

Japanese martial arts seem fated to be deconstructed, reconstructed and adapted to fit cultures far afield from their place of origin, while dwindling to all but a handful of deeply-invested followers within Japan. Who knows, maybe in return, baseball will undergo a rebirth and become a greater sport in Japan than it is in the US...

Cady

Mike Collins
15th October 2000, 07:13
Dan,

I am an Aikido person, not an Aikijujutsuka. Having just read your most recent post, I was actually deeply moved. I will probably keep studying Aikido because its' what I do, but I'll probably have a different mindset from this point forward.

I honestly wish there were a lot more people who approached the arts as you do. You've done the inner work that matters. The attitude and frame of reference you've just so eloquently articulated is where I want to get to, and I think it is where Morehei Ueshiba operated from, especially at an early age.

Thanks

[Edited by Mike Collins on 10-15-2000 at 01:15 AM]

MarkF
15th October 2000, 11:34
OK, Nathan, the analogy fits. I play trumpet, piano, and tenor sax, and Cady even gets paid to play the piano, at least she did BC (before crash).:smash:

I have no problems with most of the statements regarding the future of MA. My answer would only be that I decided, or found, would be a better verb, so much more to judo that "switching" or adding another, would starve me from finding what else there was to find.

I think we all can agree on the "small dojo" way of thinking, as mine is no bigger most of the year. The difference is that I like to take a conservationist view point and let those who have talent filter out of the school of the masses, and then, hopefully, find me. I don't interview students, except in the most basic way.

I do use weapons, those which are in the syllabus and some, or a couple, anyway, which are not. There are more ways to kuzushi than pulling on one who pushes, as a short, compact strike to the brachial nerve in the arm, drops the weapon (bottle, stick, knife, gun, etc) very well, and allows for finishing. The only difference is in my needs and those of my students.

(Oh, Yeah, Dan. I've been known to put in hours alone doing uchi komi. These days, I am playing with a cane instead, or just a stick.:D )

Yes, I had heard of jujutsu before doing judo (1963), but only that it was similar. I trained with a man who was a direct student of Kano, in something in which he preferred the name jujutsu, but it was all in the Kodokan syllabus, but that which was being dropped from so many programs. I also made an attempt at kito ryu, but felt constrained by it. Here also, it was in the judo syllabus, the "ura" of judo no one wants to admit.

Anyway, I thought it better to relearn and learn what I didn't know even after twenty odd years of practice. This wasn't easy, but I am more confident than I was. Starting again was fine, but why not restart in something in which I knew.

So tell me, Cady, how do you get squirrel crap off black hakama or do you wear white?

Mark, "who is silencing egos by his example, " Feigenbaum

Cady Goldfield
15th October 2000, 14:52
So tell me, Cady, how do you get squirrel crap off black hakama or do you wear white?


Squirrel crap is dark. You don't notice it so much on blue or black hakama. It's when a light-skinned person does a face plant into it that it is particularly noticeable.

glad2bhere
15th October 2000, 23:11
Dear Dan et al:

Please don’t expect me to come across all Sage with some Betty Crocker solution to the circumstances you folks have uncovered. This string started out asking about what is really yours to teach, and has neatly come around to the very nature of teaching rather than what is taught and who teaches it.

What is taught and who teaches it are questions for organizations and individuals who are invested in organizational things. However, why we teach and how we teach what we teach are questions for our Persons. What is taught and who teaches it are most often decided by factors from the past and maybe even the present. But why we teach and how we teach are definitely defined solely by the future.

In my case, Midwest Hapkido became a reality when I discovered, time and again, that most of what was being foisted on students was not an art but rather a venue for someone to sport themselves or what they believed in. In and of itself, maybe this is not so bad, ‘cause some of those people probably had something to say. Problem was that they could give a damn less about the nature and circumstances of their audiances (students). Commercial success, public adulation, and prestige and a lot of other crap pretty much eclipsed what teaching an art was really about.

So what IS it about? Survival, plain and simple. Not survival in the NHB, or “street fighting sense.” I’m talking about survival in the sense that the values and beliefs embodied in these ancient, and outdated practices are still valid even if the comabt and weapons have been passed up by times and technology. Dan, those people who left your study group did not leave because your training was too hard. Those people left because they didn’t have the skills to face that part of themselves where they were lacking the courage to face deficits in themselves. Now the question is, were they well served by you as a teacher or instructor?

The job of a teacher is to help a student learn how to face down their demons. Maybe we do that job by using Judo, or Ken-jitsu, US History, Math or Dance but the job of teaching is the same. And the reason we do it is because something in what we have to impart will in some way increase the probability of our students (and the belief system’s) survival. You can use any venue you like. I started years ago with private instruction, then moved to Park Districts, College-level instruction, and have published a line of books. I routinely get challlenged by young beginners, old entrenched organizations and most people in between. Even on good days I wonder at what I am doing. I don’t even talk about the bad days.

I am sharing all this because in reading this string I suspect that most of us are leading similar lives, often wondering if what we are doing is valid for our culture. Rather than face down that demon I hear a lot of us (me included) wanting to pull off to the side and let the culture pass by, when what we need to do is redouble our efforts to let people know that we are here and there is something to say (just like you did on the “stainless steel” string).. If we were a beginners our challenges might be learning to fall. As MA leaders, as are many reading these words right now, so our challenges have changed. I know I can’t hide from the responsibility of being such a leader just because it doesn’t feel comfortable.

Now, there is a lot of time spent talking about who is qualified to do what and to whom. Like the man said, though, “life is what happens while you are making plans.” If you wait until every single person you know or have met, or are likely to know or meet is content with what you are doing, I think I can pretty much guarentee that your art will die with you. Which, I guess is OK if thats what you really intended the first day you started training. On the other hand there was a lot of stuff about some people on the East Coast (Roppokai?) who evidently had their qualifications questioned. I don’t know if they are qualified or not, but apparently they are contiuing to train and pass on their truthes as they know them.

Just some thoughts on a Sunday afternoon.

Best Wishes,
Bruce

Brently Keen
17th October 2000, 02:14
Bruce wrote:

"The job of a teacher is to help a student learn how to face down their demons."


Certainly there are many reasons why different people study martial arts, and possibly as many reasons why people teach martial arts, but I must respectfully disagree with the above statement.

If this is your motivation for teaching, I'm not sure it's a healthy one.

I would say that the job of a teacher is to just to teach. It is to transfer or pass on knowledge and skills from the teacher's possesion to the student. In martial arts, this is preferrably done by example. The good teacher provides an environment and context in which experience is gained, and excellence is modelled with or without explanations.

A student may well have to face his or her own demons/fears in the process of martial arts training, but it's not the teacher's job to "help" them. The teacher's job is to instruct, it's more technical. While there are certainly mental and emotional (psychological) aspects of martial arts training, the teacher's job is only to educate the student(s) about those aspects and to instruct them in the use of those techniques. The teacher is not responsible for helping students confront their demons.

IMO, there is tremendous potential for harm when martial arts instructors assume the responsibilities that more properly belong to religious or psychiatric counselors.

The problem of 'what is yours to teach' is exacerbated if martial arts teachers begin (or continue) to delve into areas outside of their legitimate and authorized ability. For example, into the fields of religion and psychiatry.

There is still a huge question about an instructors qualifications for teaching, not to mention meddling in the private lives and psyche's of their students. Then there is another question about the deceit of those who do so without the proper qualifications.

Brently Keen

Cady Goldfield
17th October 2000, 03:38
Interesting perceptions, Bruce. I taught a traditional martial art for some years, before pitching it all to become a fulltime student again (not that teaching is not also being a student at a new level of experience; rather, I mean I pitched my former art and took up as a beginner in two new ones). As a teacher, my main concern was the correct transmittal of the system's principles, techniques and strategic/tactical stragies, in addition to the customs, history and cultural origins of the art.

I was not involved with molding the student into a new form of being or helping him challenge demons, only in teaching the art. You figure that the individual who sticks it out will be forged by his own self-discipline and the rigors and requirements of the art itself. It is not the teacher's responsibility to impart those things, only to serve as a guide. This doesn't mean there's no personal interaction. I did have students who were my age or close to it, and we became friends outside of teaching. In that aspect of the relationship, I could offer opinions (if asked) and advice (if asked) to which my experience gave some weight and value. If I managed to "mold" any of those individuals as people as a result, that would be a wonderful legacy, but at the time I was simply enjoying the friendships for their own sake because, well, it was nice to have some good friends.

Don't buy into the romantic myth of the wise and kindly old wood sprite (sometimes called "Mr. Miyagi Sydrome"). :) Most so-called "wise teachers" I know are just cranky old guys who think you're NEVER gonna have a clue. What makes them stand above the rest is only that they have some patience, plus hope that their efforts will not be wasted on you after all the stuff they've shown you and worked on with you. That's the extent of the "molding" you're gonna get.

Among pedagogues and "students of teaching," the art and methodologies of teaching take on greater importance than the subjects being transmitted. There is an entire field of academic research dedicated to pedagogy. That's where there are teachers who teach new teachers how to teach. This is not a part of traditional Eastern training. I don't care what you saw Master Po do on them old "Kung Fu" shows.

Instead of looking for entire methodologies, look at individuals and their personalities. I used to have a teacher who treated his senior students like family. He was like a kindly old uncle type who would invite the blackbelts to his home for dinner, his wife would cook for us, he'd sit around and drink beer and yak with us, and give advice to the younger guys who asked for it. He would single out troubled young men and give them a chance to change their lives, take them under his wing. He would tailor the training assignments he gave them specifically to help them "face their demons." Not because it was his job as a teacher, but because it was his personality.

Another teacher I trained with for many years would also single out individuals who needed help in one way or another, whether it was "facing demons" on the mats or dealing with their personal lives. He would invite students who had nowhere to go on the holidays, into his home for dinner, and gave them someone to talk to if they were lonely and had no friends. He considered it part of his obligation to the students, in his Korean tradition. When I broke my leg a couple of winters back, more than a year after I had stopped training with him, he was the only person at all to call and see whether I was okay alone, and whether I needed anything!

Then again, I had still another teacher who kept his distance from the students, did not socialize with them or offer any kind of advice or friendship or do anything more than teach his system of martial arts. You came and worked out, got some corrections, got some new things to work on, you went home until next time.

So again, it's what the individual decides he or she is capable of giving as a teacher -- and often this is not a conscious decision.




[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-16-2000 at 09:43 PM]

glad2bhere
17th October 2000, 14:59
Dear Brently:

I know what you and Cady are talking about and I have to admit the path I have chosen is fraught with more than a few truck-size potholes. Still, I have come to believe that in a world where sheets of paper and the coins we use all have two sides, so the MA I train in must have two aspects. The first is the bio-mechanic or technique and the second is the value system that allows for the techniques' management. Setting aside the responsibility for propagating our arts, let me just focus on this one piece. (I single this out b/c of Cadys' comment about values being the responsibility of religion.)

Not speaking for anyone else, I know that I cannot teach a student or myself to execute a lethal or debilitating technique without also knowing that I must provide some guidance for determining when that technique might be used. As a therapist I have worked with a number of vets who have done extraordinary albeit heroic violence. They come to me not because of what they have done, but rather their difficulty in dealing with what they have done. Breaking a mans' wrist, or spine, or knee, and pretending that it does not effect you is the luxury of youth. With age comes reflection and an appreciation of consequences. This simple fact has kept me pretty busy for quite a few years. Perhaps, had the military or society done a different job with its vets, I would not be writing of this experience. But, I honestly believe that whether that is true or not, the need for instilling values by which a person guides their deportment remains, and foisting it off on another agency such as churches or schools, or parents does not relieve we MA teachers of our responsibilities.

I want to take a moment before I close to thank both you and Cady for your comments. I will say again that being a MA teacher the way I define it is dicey business sometimes. Cady mentioned the "Miyagi Syndrome" and I have known a few MA teachers whose intrusion into my head and value system were both uninvited and unpleasant. On the other hand, there are some pretty dedicated people on this string and I have come to believe that the future of our respective arts lies not with the large commercial entities but the small private classes that change the world --- one student at a time.

Thanks again,
Bruce

Cady Goldfield
23rd October 2000, 17:09
Originally posted by glad2bhere
Dear Brently:

I know what you and Cady are talking about and I have to admit the path I have chosen is fraught with more than a few truck-size potholes. Still, I have come to believe that in a world where sheets of paper and the coins we use all have two sides, so the MA I train in must have two aspects. The first is the bio-mechanic or technique and the second is the value system that allows for the techniques' management. Setting aside the responsibility for propagating our arts, let me just focus on this one piece. (I single this out b/c of Cadys' comment about values being the responsibility of religion.)
[QUOTE]

Bruce, I appreciate what you have said here, regarding the two aspects, and I don't disagree with you. Again, I believe that it is the individual's personality and cultural upbringing that dictate the degree of responsibility and involvement he takes in the lives of his students. Cultural and religious-faith upbringings do, of course, influence how the person will think and feel regarding obligation and responsibility, but I don't believe that it is an inherent part of any martial arts system.

In their original sense (which is how some of us continue to practice them for "authenticity's sake"), MAs are a tool, just as a gun is, to accomplish a certain task: complete domination and control of another human being, perhaps to the point of taking his life. In the hands of a person who has not been brought up to feel a sense of societal and moral obligation, or human compassion, MAs and guns are a misplaced and deadly weapon which can reap much abuse. A person who is selling guns or teaching a potentially-lethal martial art has (according to your and my moral upbringings) an obligation to both screen out the dangerous individuals who show no hope of redemption, and to rein in and temper those who are basically "good sorts" but who need to be refined so as not to be a danger to others and to themselves. In this latter case, I'm talking about relatively minor personality or attitude adjustments, though. NOT major issues. There is NO PLACE AT ALL for a truly dangerous or dysfunctional person in any dojo where lethal skills are taught.

That said, it is up to an individual teacher's own temperament and inclination to help a student with those adjustments. It's not part of any formal teaching methodology from any given MA. Anyway, I agree with you that it can certainly be a Good Thing(tm). Often, the teacher him/herself has similar personal quirks, and seeing them in the students, while it can be particularly aggravating, is a good way to help the instructor recognize his/her own need for change! It can be a mutually instructive "personal growth" opportunity. :)

[QUOTE]
Not speaking for anyone else, I know that I cannot teach a student or myself to execute a lethal or debilitating technique without also knowing that I must provide some guidance for determining when that technique might be used.

Of course we agree on this. But please consider what I've said above, regarding initial screening of students to determine their character BEFORE you start teaching such technique. Small personality quirks (most are ego-driven, as most of us can attest) are not the same thing as major character flaws, sociopathy or psychosis. It's a huge responsibility on the shoulders of the instructor to assess and make determinations on a potential student's stability before starting to teach that person dangerous technique.



As a therapist I have worked with a number of vets who have done extraordinary albeit heroic violence. They come to me not because of what they have done, but rather their difficulty in dealing with what they have done. Breaking a mans' wrist, or spine, or knee, and pretending that it does not effect you is the luxury of youth. With age comes reflection and an appreciation of consequences. This simple fact has kept me pretty busy for quite a few years. Perhaps, had the military or society done a different job with its vets, I would not be writing of this experience. But, I honestly believe that whether that is true or not, the need for instilling values by which a person guides their deportment remains, and foisting it off on another agency such as churches or schools, or parents does not relieve we MA teachers of our responsibilities.


While I can appreciate (and laud) the work you've done with troubled people, again I'd have to say that it is not the general responsibility of a martial arts instructor to serve as therapist for those he/she instructs. No more so than it is a piano teacher's obligation to be a therapist or to pass on good values. Again -- at best, they serve as guides who say: "Here are the screwups I made, in my training, in my life. Learn from my mistakes and I'll show you around the potholes and spare you some of the ones I stepped in."

In the best of all possible worlds, of course, we come across mature, giving, wise individuals who not only can teach the art they love, but also are capable of giving of themselves as a complete package. This is the rarest of the rare, though. Especially in the martial arts, at least the old-style, non-sport ones. After all, the real hardcore martial artists are by nature self-centered, self-focused.
Some are also hardcore artists who are focused on the further refinement of their own skills, not on refining their teaching methodology. They're happy to teach you the art (if for no other reason than to have someone to train with!), but that may be the extent of their involvement. Some of them are even still working to tackle their own personal demons -- the ones that make them so attracted to killing techniques in the first place. They are learning how to control their own worst nature. The students that do best with them are those who either are just fascinated with the art for its own sake, or who are like the teacher -- struggling to overcome certain aspects to their nature. They can use the teacher's progress in "taming himself" as a model for their own development. However, the work is entirely theirs to do.

You are a professional therapist who also happens to be a martial arts instructor. So, your training and your very nature guide your inclinations in the dojo. That's great! In turn, I was brought up by two very ethical parents, one a hardworking selfmade craftsman, the other a psychologist. So, as you might imagine, my approach to teaching was/is compassionate and involved while also being pragmatic. That's my nature. Then again, I have had instructors who were from dysfunctional homes and were themselves dysfunctional people. They could teach their martial art, but in no way were they in a position to pass along good values. Nor did they make good friends or compassionate mentors; they were too needy themselves.

You are what you eat. :)



I want to take a moment before I close to thank both you and Cady for your comments. I will say again that being a MA teacher the way I define it is dicey business sometimes. Cady mentioned the "Miyagi Syndrome" and I have known a few MA teachers whose intrusion into my head and value system were both uninvited and unpleasant. On the other hand, there are some pretty dedicated people on this string and I have come to believe that the future of our respective arts lies not with the large commercial entities but the small private classes that change the world --- one student at a time.


Agreed! But then, this has always been so. Look at today's public school classroom, with 40 kids vs. 1 teacher. What kind of influence can one man or woman have on 40 kids, all of whom would benefit from 1-on-1 instruction? The best they can do, we can do, is be the kind of role model we look up to ourselves, and hope that those with whom we associate in daily life -- whether in the dojo or in society -- are receptive enough to latch on to a bit of what we have to offer.

But again, in the dojo, where we are dealing with fear, pain, injury and potential lethality, there is no room at all for "hope so." I believe deeply in compassion and mutual understanding between student and teacher as a key to building trust, confidence and safety, but the people coming through the door to train (and to teach!) must already have those basic qualities and good character.

By the way, character scrutiny goes both ways. If I believe that an instructor does not care about me and my wellbeing, I will not want to train with him or her. After all, the teacher is in a position to seriously injure, permanently debilitate or even kill a student. In the past, when I have gotten seriously injured by an instructor, or by another student under that instructor's watch, sometimes I have had to deeply question where I stand at that dojang or dojo, based on that individual's behavior and concern, or seeming lack thereof. Can I trust that person -- those people -- to look out for me as I must do for them? Or will I be abandoned and forgotten when I can no longer limp my way back to the dojo? (Or will they just dispose of my body in some bushes and pretend they never knew me?! :D )Trust and caring must be mutual. The character scrutiny of a teacher by a potential student must be just as probing as that of the instructor assessing the potential student.

Cady




[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-23-2000 at 06:01 PM]

Rob
24th October 2000, 16:16
Cady

As ever you make some excellent points. Personally as a Jiu Jitsu instructor at a non profit club I see my role as to teach and pass on Jiu Jitsu.

I truly believe that in order to progress in the art one has to push oneself and that that process can have a beneficial effect on your character. I agree with you though that it's not my position as an instructor to take it upon myself to 'improve' someones nature.

Hell I'm not completely happy with my own charachter so I I'm certainly not going to try and change someone elses.

However I do think that it behoves all instructors and sempai to be aware that as much as you don't see yourself as a role model, your students may well do.

I teach in a university environment so most of my students are younger than me and still studying for their degrees. Over the years my students have asked my advice on all sorts of things, mostly becuase as a graduate with a nice job, nice house, nice car etc and a shodan in Jiu Jitsu I'm kind of where a lot of them see themselves in a few years.

As much as I don't see myself as Mr Miyagi and do my best to discourage that kind of thinking students continue to try and put you on a pedastal (actually mostly new students - my seniors are more than aware of my many faults !)

Just a thought

Cady Goldfield
24th October 2000, 16:41
Rob,

You make an excellent point, and one which is universally true in every discipline and art.

The only thing I would add, though, is that the situation is different when student and instructor are peers -- in age, accomplishments in life, experience and character. IMO, in that case the instructor shouldn't expect or feel the need to be a role model. Nor should he/she try to "act teacherly" toward a mature adult off the mats. I'd find that kind of pretentious! In such a situation, off the mats it would be more natural for peers-in-life to be on an equal par, even friends if shared interests and values make them so inclined. This happens plenty in the martial arts world and in other disciplines.

Most dojo/dojang I've seen, though, are structured more like yours, with an older teacher overseeing youngsters or young adults. I certainly agree with you that the way the teacher carries him/herself makes a big impact on such students.

Cady

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-24-2000 at 10:43 AM]