Warwick
14th October 2000, 09:16
The thread on MSR/MJER etc and people's many interesting comments on the "correct" angle at which to wear a sword raised a question in my mind. I would be very interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the question below.
I think it's fair to say, after a four page thread on the subject, that some schools teach one thing, and other schools teach something else, and they are both "correct" within the confines of that ryu. (Now, I have an opinion on that previous topic, based on what I've been taught in Shinto Muso Ryu, but that specific subject has been covered pretty comprehensively I think, and I don't want to re-open it here.) What I am interested in is this.
It seems that there are quite a large number of people here who practice more than one ryu. Do those of you (us?) in that category differentiate clearly between the way things are done in one ryu and the way the same things are done in the other(s)? For example (and this is only one example; hopefully people will suggest many others) if you practice one ryu in which the sword is worn across the body, do you take that to be the "correct" position and do the same in other ryu also, or do you keep the forms distinct? Other examples might be to do with footwork, posture, the shape of cuts, timing, breathing, etc. I don't want to get into a debate about which method is correct, but about whether there is a merging or synthesis of previously distinct ryu. Or are you careful to only practice "compatible" ryu where this is not an issue?
I want to be perfectly clear from the outset that I am not thinking of any particular group or person, and I do not want to imply any critisism of any person or group. There are issues here touching on the purposes for studying a particular ryu, and people may well have different views on the subject. Hopefully we can discuss them politely, without hostility or animosity.
What do you all think?
By the way, how exactly do you include the little smiley-face icons?
Warwick Hooke
I think it's fair to say, after a four page thread on the subject, that some schools teach one thing, and other schools teach something else, and they are both "correct" within the confines of that ryu. (Now, I have an opinion on that previous topic, based on what I've been taught in Shinto Muso Ryu, but that specific subject has been covered pretty comprehensively I think, and I don't want to re-open it here.) What I am interested in is this.
It seems that there are quite a large number of people here who practice more than one ryu. Do those of you (us?) in that category differentiate clearly between the way things are done in one ryu and the way the same things are done in the other(s)? For example (and this is only one example; hopefully people will suggest many others) if you practice one ryu in which the sword is worn across the body, do you take that to be the "correct" position and do the same in other ryu also, or do you keep the forms distinct? Other examples might be to do with footwork, posture, the shape of cuts, timing, breathing, etc. I don't want to get into a debate about which method is correct, but about whether there is a merging or synthesis of previously distinct ryu. Or are you careful to only practice "compatible" ryu where this is not an issue?
I want to be perfectly clear from the outset that I am not thinking of any particular group or person, and I do not want to imply any critisism of any person or group. There are issues here touching on the purposes for studying a particular ryu, and people may well have different views on the subject. Hopefully we can discuss them politely, without hostility or animosity.
What do you all think?
By the way, how exactly do you include the little smiley-face icons?
Warwick Hooke