PDA

View Full Version : Lack of faith



ulvulv
28th August 2003, 19:50
I was quite surprised to pass a grading in jodo this summer after many years in semi-retirement, and in my present state of euforia, joy and happiness, I will squeeze in kihon and seiteijo in my schedule this year. ;)

Some thoughts:
Regarding the "catch" in kiritsuke: It is quite obvious that in kata we do want our partner to last, but when applying jodo techniques in a more threatening situation, I would want to end his misery before he ends mine. I would definetly not care if i hit his fingers as I go for the "kiritsuke-catch", actually, I would like to injure his fingers to destroy his grip and make him more vulnerable for attack.
Has this ever been a thought in the history of jodo?

Another: My own poor jodo abilities set aside: The first catch in Ranai where you actually turn your back to the enemy, then turn and face him while you block his sword to his stomach.
If I guy really wants to hurt me with a piece of wood, I really want to see him all the time.
I am not convinced that it is an efficient defence. You have to move a lot, the swordsman has only to alter the angle of the cut a little bit, and you would be history. Just like doing an aikido-tenkan-movement against a fast kendo-attack, the kendoguy would cover the body with hits before the other guy was halfway trough his movement.
I have by no means the competence to do an authoritative judgement on the efficience of this technique, but from my present state of ignorance, I think this seems to be the weakest and strangest part of Ranai.

Hopefully my lack of faith will pass, and I will return to my usual state of serenty and bliss.

:smilejapa

Jack B
29th August 2003, 19:46
Congratulations on your grading.

I've thought about the strike to the hands in kuritsuke, and I'm not the most advanced thinker out there. So I'm sure many more fit for the job have thought deeply about it. Some branches of SMR teach that catch as an explicit wrist break. The best target is always the one you can hit.

Ranai wa... you do hit him in the face before you turn, don't you? The turn gets more and more efficient, bordering on very. I was taught to bring my feet exactly together when I turn. Keep at it.

I do kind of consider Ranai as a "screw-up" kata, where everything you do doesn't work and you have to take heroic measures to recover from oyur failures. That may help you (at least it has helped me) to understand what is going on. Sensei's answer to this and similar questions was "keep practicing and you will understand".

HTH

SEAN CHEN
2nd September 2003, 08:03
Dear Ulvulv

With regards to the application of the kuritsuke technique, I have been asking several senior Jodo people on the actual application of the technique. From what I gather, there is / are realistic means of executing it. I was further advised to wait a little longer to learn the advanced form of it as i progressed through the syllabus. However, as a dangling carrot I was told that the first advanced way of doing it takes place in the Kage Kata where in Tsukizue, the jo is intercepted ie thrusted almost into the swordsman's face and he is forced to block with his tsuka. The conventional kuritsuke technique is then applied as a take down. Another senior teacher did mention that there is another interpretation that would be very painful and dangerous if executed. However as he is half a world away, I would have to wait and train with him personally so that I could experience it.

I did experiment with the finger hitting method. But if you consider carefully, it is a very dangerous way. The swordsman comes cutting down very fast. There is no way (unless you move into his cut) That you will get his Tsuka like in practice. Chances are you will get the monouchi of his sword or if you really go into his cut the wrist. Therefore the moral of the story is that the technique is educative (from kihon to ranai).

As for Ranai. In reality, the first point of the jo saki into the swordsman's face when you avoid the cut is considered a knock out blow into his face. That is by itself a killing move and not just any one move in the kata. When you turn and face him, at no time should you have your back or your sight away from him. The jo and your sight should always be focused on the sword to ensure that it is kept away from doing any damage. My sensei has demonstrated with me the rights and wrong and it is possible to keep the sword controlled in the execution of the technique. The technique itself may or may not have a combatative use, but as an educative move, it teaches you body flexibility.

Ranai as a kata trains the spirit and teaches the jo man to push the swordsman continuously with aggression. The jo man;s aim is to demolish all in sight. We normally do 10 hikiotoshis before the kata and another 10 after it....this goes on for 3 to 4 cycles under the hot tropical sun.

The Ranai also teaches the jo man to progress into the kage kata. Kage is done with the consideration (or one of the considerations) that the jo man is totally exhausted and hence he performes the kage set slow but with deadly explosive accuracy hits to specific targets. If one was not truly dead beat after doing Ranai, it is my personal belief he can appreciate kage.

Well just another voice in the opinion pool. Cheers!

Sean Chen

S Tipton
9th September 2003, 17:11
With humbleness, I must take issue with the forum titled "Lack of faith" where the writer makes mention of turning of shidachi's back during the first strike "reverse kiritsuke" in Ranai. In our dojo we practice with committed attacks on the part of both shidachi and uchidachi. Uchi's attack is committed and his intent cannot change, i.e. "tracking" shidachi. Shidachi does not even move from his kamae until the bokken has been raised from hasso and is virtually on the start of it's way toward a men strike. Should uchidachi cut from hasso with a ko-kesa strike we again access his intent before moving. Shidachi will then immediately thrust the leading end of the jo towards uchi's uto point (my interpretation is that, in combat, this would be an actual strike), then perform kiritsuke. One of our students has demonstrated an interesting solution to the ko-kesa cut ... he practices by moving well off the line of attack while thrusting the jo at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees from centerline towards uchi's uto then pivoting and performing his reverse kiritsuke.
As for striking the fingers while performing kiritsuke, I am in complete agreement.

rupert
15th September 2003, 14:00
I don't do Jodo but have tried a sword technique where you turn your back on your opponent momentarily by spinning etc. The rationale is, I was taught, to move away slightly as you turn and to lure the enemy on - turing your back ought certainly lure him on of course - although to be honest, I am not entirely convinced it is a sensible strategy except, maybe, when under pressure and needing to turn away and make space to regain one's pace.

Rupert Atkinson

Meik Skoss
15th September 2003, 16:56
This "problem" stems from a lack of understanding of the movement in Ran-ai. There are many techniques that are implied, or understood, in any koryu that are simply not performed during the kata. They're what might be called oyo-henka, applied variations. In some cases there is a deliberate lack of information about the possibilities inherent in this or that technique. Sometimes one is told about them after having trained for a longer period of time and/or reached a certain point in the curriculum. Other times, it's left for the individual to figure out for himself. And, in the case of Shinto Muso-ryu, there're one or two techniques where -- perhaps -- the actual meaning/application has been lost. Or wasn't completely transmitted.

In any event, not understanding what a particular movement "really" is may be due to any of a number of reasons. I doubt very much that a lot gets taught to people who are only training in the Seiteigata. In the line of Shinto Muso-ryu I study, that sequence is used only as a preliminary step for beginners or a filtering device. Not everybody's a viable candidate for the koryu. Some people study other things and only want to do a little bit of the jo, as much for the opportunity to work with certain people as for the art itself. It's case by case.

Hope this helps.

will
15th September 2003, 22:22
Originally posted by Meik Skoss
And, in the case of Shinto Muso-ryu, there're one or two techniques where -- perhaps -- the actual meaning/application has been lost. Or wasn't completely transmitted.
Once lost, do you think the meaning/application can ever be recovered? Should it?


In the line of Shinto Muso-ryu I study, that sequence is used only as a preliminary step for beginners or a filtering device. Not everybody's a viable candidate for the koryu.
Yeah, but some of us slip through the cracks anyway.

ulvulv
15th September 2003, 23:15
Originally posted by Meik Skoss
This "problem" stems from a lack of understanding of the movement in Ran-ai. .... And, in the case of Shinto Muso-ryu, there're one or two techniques where -- perhaps -- the actual meaning/application has been lost. Or wasn't completely transmitted.

In any event, not understanding what a particular movement "really" is may be due to any of a number of reasons. I doubt very much that a lot gets taught to people who are only training in the Seiteigata. In the line of Shinto Muso-ryu I study, that sequence is used only as a preliminary step for beginners or a filtering device. Not everybody's a viable candidate for the koryu. Some people study other things and only want to do a little bit of the jo, as much for the opportunity to work with certain people as for the art itself. It's case by case.

Hope this helps.

I have worked on the seiteforms, and done shoden, chuden, some kage, tanjo and the kenjutsu-forms, so I am not totally seitei-mized, seitei as a filtering device has not stopped my study, although it has focused my practise in a way I have not always appreciated, giving too little time for koryu.

You can of course speculate in "a number of reasons" regarding me as " the doer". As I have known myself for a number of years, I am more interested in reflections on the technique itself.

I appreciate the nice and lenghty answers that has been written.
Sadly, I guess it is true that in the seitei-context, there is a lot of knowledge you will never receive without doing "the full monty", working trough the levels of smr under a qualified instructor. Sticking rigidly to seitei for year after year seems like an oddity, and it is bad if people are discouraged by teachers who dont know any more, or keep their knowledge for themselves, or practise in an organization with a general policy that limits your practise and development to 12 kata, like znkr usually is criticised for..

But, znkr also get some undeserved bashings for being a mono-seitei-istic cult. I have practised with several teachers in the znkr-umbrella who practise and teach smr. The jodo-world is too small for uneccessary polarization and broad generalisations. The general policy of an organization does not reflect or dictate totally the activities of the people that belongs to it.


With all respect.

:nw:

Meik Skoss
16th September 2003, 15:10
R. Ulvestad's comment that doing to the seiteigata "year after year seems like an oddity" mirrors my thoughts exactly. There is a value to doing seiteigata for kendo, iaido, and jodo as adjunct training if one's primary interest is, say, kendo or unarmed arts such as judo or karatedo. If one's focus is classical weapons training, though, it is my belief that concentrating on one or another of the koryu. There is a lot more breadth and depth to the classical systems than there is to any of the standardized forms that were created by committee. (I also think, though, that the Kendo Kata bears a *lot* of study; it is probably the exception to the rule.)

The crucial factor is, as Mr. Ulvestad has stated, that "there is a lot of knowledge you'll never receive without doing 'the Full Monty,' working through the levels of [SMR] under a qualified instructor." An art is a lot more than the physical techniques, which is why trying to "learn" from a book or videotape is no substitute for *qualified* instruction. What makes a person qualified? Well, presumably, that'd be formal licensure from a teacher who is authorized to issue menkyo of the older sort. A mere dan-i from a federation does not carry the same sort of authority in the eyes of koryu exponents.

Iaido and jodo are sort of odd propositions in this regard, though, in that most iai isn't taught as a koryu anymore and the increase in the numbers of jodo exponents has led to a dearth of people who are truly qualified to teach. Outside Japan, for example, the only Shinto Muso-ryu menkyo kaiden are Phil Relnick in the U.S. and Pascal Krieger in Europe. There're other people with menkyo and mokuroku, of course, but they are not *fully* qualified to teach.

The same is true of Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu. A kot of good exponents who know the complete curriculum. A number of nanadan and even more rokudan. But how many of these people have the Kongo no maki?

Other iai ryu and other arts art different. There's a guy in the U.S. who's been authorized to teach Tamiya-ryu. There's another fellow who can teach Heki-ryu Sekka-ha kyujutsu. A Tenjin Shinyo-ryu menkyo in Australia, and a second man in England. A kyoshi menkyo in Katori Shinto-ryu in the U.K. and one in the U.S. Case by case.

The numbers are growing, but there still aren't a lot of people. And, in any case, the important thing is to find a good teacher and train with him regularly.

Just a couple of thoughts, waiting to see if Isabel will force us to cancel a Chicks With Sticks seminar. Hope this helps.

SEAN CHEN
17th September 2003, 02:30
Dear Mr Skoss

Based on your posting, it says that only Menkyo Kaidens in Shindo Muso Ryu are qualified to teach. I am in full agreement that this was and is the traditional and most auenthic way the art is passed down. However something boggles me all the time:

How then are member groups say from Australia and certain parts of Asia who are members or followers of the International Jodo Federation credible in spreading the art if their teachers hold a IJF teaching grade ie Shoden, Chuden etc and are not licensed under the Menkyo system. I believe not long ago Messers Relnick and Kreiger were although very senior not Menkyo Kaiden and this did not stop them from passing on quality instruction. How then would these groups who are fortunate enough to train Shindo Muso Ryu via teachers taught by the late Draeger sensei but unfortunate enough not to be able to receive "offcial" credibility if their teachers are not Menkyo kaidens? Tricky issue no?

charlesl
17th September 2003, 03:04
Sean,

Meik Skoss wrote:
There're other people with menkyo and mokuroku, of course, but they are not *fully* qualified to teach.

MS didn't write "but they are not qualified to teach," but instead wrote "but they are not *fully* qualified to teach." The *fully* changes the meaning. Or at least I'm guessing it was intended to change the meaning.

-Charles

Tim Atkinson
17th September 2003, 05:09
Sean,

SMR Jojutsu started here when Paul Maloney returned from Japan after training with both Shimizu Sensei and Donn Dreager. Both Dreager and Shimizu Sensei asked Paul to start teaching others on his return.

We have Nishioka Sensei out to Australia at least once a year. We have also had Relnick Sensei out here twice over the past two years. So we get exposure to a high standard of Jo.

Members also travel to Japan or the States to get further exposure. The general comments about technique can be applied to us all.

There is a strong following here in Australia, with active groups in most states, but predominantly Sydney and Brisbane areas.

I look forward to Meik's take on the situation though. I believe that he is in a similar situation of not being co-located with Relnick Sensei, though they do live in the same country!

SEAN CHEN
17th September 2003, 05:41
Hi Guys

Thanks for your replies.

I think the issue is what equates to being "fully qualified" and "not fully qualified" to teach.

I agree that only Menkyo kaidens are the only ones who know and can teach the whole ryu including the last set of kata ie the Muso no jo.

But the issue here is if a dojo is following the IJF technical guidiance and the instructors are only certified by the IJF certification ie not under the traditonal system, does that mean they cant teach the syllabus (excl the muso no jo kata). T

Of course these dojos may visit or invite Menkyo Kaidens to lecture and instruct but as they are not formally the students of these esteemed teachers, where whould these "groups" of instructors and their students be classified under?

Tim Atkinson
17th September 2003, 23:55
Sean,

In Australia we are a mixed bunch. We have people who have been issued certificates from Shimizu, Relnick and Krieger Sensei.

At least one student has asked and been accepted as a student Relnick Sensei and I believe that the same is true with Krieger Sensei.