PDA

View Full Version : Koryu: Tradition vs. Application



Kit LeBlanc
15th June 2000, 00:57
Hullo.

I am reading with interest the other posts regarding koryu, tradition, and effectiveness. I have been thinking about how this applies in my own practice, and absorbing how it applies in others'. Some thoughts I hope will generate responses:

Toby Threadgill seems to have a position which is very close to my own. When I read the Takamura article in Aikido Journal, it was like someone with the words and the ideas I could not put together put them together, with authority, for me. I think (Toby?) that the Takamura-ha considers themselves a gendai application of koryu concepts and principles. I think many may not consider this"koryu" in the strictest sense of the term.

Takamura said he changed the Shindo Yoshin ryu to better adapt to the realities of modern violence. In that most koryu are documented as changing and adapting to different circumstances from Sengoku, after and thru the Edo period and to the modern era, why does change and adaptation seem to signal a loss of koryu status for many people?

Earl Hartman seems to state that koryu and practical application, (as he or someone else put it succinctly "koryu= ass-kicking" ) no longer go together, and that to claim koryu status by erroneously thinking that what you do with a sword is effective, or to try to give what you do the aura of being effective by claiming koryu, is missing the boat entirely. Indeed many of the koryu pioneers (Diane Skoss, Dave Lowry, etc.) either plainly write or imply that training for combative application is no longer the purpose of such training, instead there are many other (more important?) benefits to be had.

My question is this: Are we not in some way betraying the traditions that the founders fought, spilled their own and other's blood, and killed and died for if we reject that these traditions need to be effective? No one argues that koryu were first and foremost created to give each particular ryuha the edge on the battlefield. Practical effectiveness was what they were all about, as well as psychological strategies for dealing with combat/survival stress (the all important mindset that we talk about). I am sure there were many ryu that were founded and then turned out almost immediately to be miserable failures because the first generation could not fight and died trying.

We talk about the koryu being anti-competition. Gekken? Taryu shiai jujutsu? the old mixed weapons matches that were fought? These were all koryu schools that only later turned gendai combat sports. When battle lacked, they sought to test their skills against other ryu in "less lethal" duels. Karl Friday writes of his own teacher Seki as being made to go to other schools for matches before earning licenses. We seem to applaud the martial vigor of such action, and read with delight the accounts of the old jujutsu masters challenge matches, but then decry such competition as being injurious to the koryu tradition. Perhaps the LACK of competitive spirit and testing ones skills against others in matches (or even in real confrontations in the proper forum (military, etc.) is injurious to the continuing vitality of the koryu tradition?

I understand that weapons, etc. are different today. But I mean in terms of intent and combative spirit. Earl has implied what would happed if the police he trained in kendo with in Japan might had to apply their "totally unrealistic vis-a-vis real swordsmanship sport" in a real fight, even if it was just body mechanics, combative intent, "impact" etc. I don't think most train koryu that way. If we train with the idea that these are cultural traditions with little but social , maybe spiritual relevance today, are we not betraying the intent of these arts?

Rambling , I know, but I would love to hear the opinions of others on this.

Kit

Earl Hartman
15th June 2000, 01:38
Kit:

Good post. Since you have mentioned my name specifically, I will try to clarify my positions.

I think that you have misunderstood me. I believe that koryu have great application to the modern-day world, at least in their mind-set and approach to combat and their approach to human relations. What I don't believe is that learning the TECHNIQUE of how to use a Japanese sword is going to help a person who is jumped in an alley, for example. No one is armed with a sword nowadays. If one is interested in learning how to defend oneself on the street and is looking for specific instruction on techniques for this, then I think that koryu is probably not the best thing to study. Somehow, I get the impression that some people think that koryu people believe that koryu is best for everything just because its old. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't believe that, at least not at this point in my training (I defer to my senpais on this). I just like old weapons. If I wanted to be practical from a modern self-defense point of view, I would learn some hand-to-hand stuff, about which I know next to nothing.

However, I do believe that the SPIRIT of learning how to use a Japanese sword (reaction time, instestinal fortitude, timing, distance, decisiveness, and plain old awareness, etc.) is very valuable, and can be applied to anything.

The question then becomes, can these things be learned in some other way than koryu? Of course they can. For instance, it is the job of the army, police, security forces, and related organizations, to teach people how to deal with the violence one might be expected to meet either in a domestic situation or on a modern battlefield. It seems to me that if that is what one wants one should learn that. Pesonally, I hate guns and have no interest in learning how to use one. I like swords and bows. However, I think it can be said that these things are the rough modern equivalent of koryu (and I say this advisedly, expecting to be corrected) if only in the sense that they teach practical strategies and tactics for dealing with the confrontations one might expect to face today.

As far as the riot squad cops are concerned, I think that they would do very well indeed in a fight with any number of modern exponents of koryu for one simple reason: they are inured to violence and are not afraid of getting hit, and they are used to the spontaneous rough-and-tumble of free sparring. I am sure that they would be cut to pieces if they were suddenly transported back to a medieval battlefield, but I learned more about what a fight is really all about practicing with them than I learned doing koryu iai, and for a very simple reason: we hit each other, a lot, and pretty hard. If you couldn't take it, you had to leave. I only lasted there because they calibrated the punishment they gave me, so it was just as much as I could handle but no more. Just learning how to bear that was a real education, coming as I did from a decidedly non-jock background.

It seems to me from Toby's letters that his teacher had a very specific approach that is well suited to adapting his art to the modern world. It seems to me that this would work well with something like jujutsu, which is, after all, a tyoe of unarmed or lightly armed grappling, which has an obvious and universal application. A lot of the techniques I learned in Nagao Ryu Taijutsu could probably be adapted in the same way. However, I am not exactly sure how the technique (not the spirit) of kusarigama, kyujutsu, or sojutsu, for instance, could be adpated for "the street".

Personally, I think that the "budo mind", so to speak, is universal and is not the property of any one school, art, country, or nationality. Based on my admittedly meager experience, it seems to me that if you pay attention to the spirit behind the techniques in koryu, you can learn a great deal that has universal application to all spheres of life. It is for this reason that I practice them.

Earl


Earl

Diane Skoss
15th June 2000, 04:07
Hi Kit,

Can I restate (and by the way, Dave and I are definitely not pioneers--we may be writers, but we're definitely second generation)? I don't think that effectiveness is not important in the koryu; I do believe that combat efficiency is only one of the parts of the definition or description of a koryu, and without the others (like its history), it doesn't matter how effective it is, it isn't a Japanese koryu bujutsu. Thus, when I write I tend to focus on those issues (also, it is bloody hard to explain effectiveness; I know, even without firsthand experience, that what you do works--I've seen it. How am I going to convince anyone else of that? It is much easier to write about the transmission and lineage and cultural context of the koryu--they are much less subjective).

I do believe that some koryu do a great job, when one trains properly under proper supervision, in inculcating some of the intangibles of combat. But the combat efficiency of the koryu must be considered in its historical context (in my opinion), not in a modern Western one.

I also think that evolution is not a bad thing--but if all koryu follow that path and begin to focus on relevance to a modern Western society, we'll have lost something precious. Why can't one take the lessons of the koryu and recast them for modern times? I believe you can (and that's perhaps where Takamura Sensei was headed)--but I'd argue that it isn't koryu any longer. There's nothing wrong with that. It isn't what I personally want to do, but who, besides myself, should care about that? (I honestly don't know what to say about ryuha, like Araki-ryu, in which the evolution is built into the system. In such a case, since the original tenets of the ryu are being followed, I'd say it's still koryu. The current headmaster of any ryu has every right to modernize. It has happened before; it will happen again. But the old context is gone, and I just can't feel comfortable classifying the modernized version as the same old animal. Again, that's just me.)

You ask:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>My question is this: Are we not in some way betraying the traditions that the founders fought, spilled their own and other's blood, and killed and died for if we reject that these traditions need to be effective?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rather than reject, let's say no longer insist that the first and foremost function is effectiveness. Being realistic, how on earth can we judge effectiveness of naginata technique in modern New Jersey (or for that matter, even modern Tokyo)? The context for the arts no longer exists. I'd be arrested if I walked down the street carrying a naginata; or perhaps shot if challenged by less savory types. I do know that under certain circumstances my technique can be pretty effective--but those circumstances exist very much within a specially created environment designed to reflect to the best of our ability situations long gone.

On the other hand, I know that my training has imparted benefits of direct consequence. On my second riding lesson I stopped a bolting horse without hesitation. I'm quite sure that happened as a result of my training. That's a useful side effect. And Lt. Col. Bristol in his introduction to the first book has a few relevant remarks regarding the spirit of the koryu and its value in combat.

So, to stop being so long-winded--it isn't that effectiveness isn't important; it is that using it as a single or even first defining criterion confuses people, many of whom don't have the background to judge the combat efficiency of a 15th century Japanese tradition (I do sound like a snob, but it has been my experience). (not to mention the fact that many ryuha did indeed lose connection to combat efficiency in the Edo period, long before we round-eyes got our hands on it).

I'm pretty sure all of this only muddied things further, but you did ask! http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif Hi to Ellis and Brett!



------------------
Diane Skoss
Koryu.com (http://Koryu.com)

Kit LeBlanc
15th June 2000, 07:53
Earl and Diane,

Thanks for the replies. I am glad that effectiveness is still in the mix, so to speak. I am coming from the perspective of a novice in koryu, but one who is trying to assimilate the teaching into a modern professional combative perspective and environment, while being true to the traditional underpinnings.

I agree that learning naginata, or yari, or chigiriki say is not going to be directly applicable in a modern day sense, but for expanding one's mental resourcefulness, and probably most importantly developing an instant sense of changes in ma-ai (which I am starting to discover is often a lot more important than the technique itself!)

I do feel it is the mental focus, the inuring to armed aggression, etc. that Earl mentions, and the intangibles that Diane talks about (such as I guess kiai-jutsu, for example) which is I think what the koryu can offer the modern combatant.

I admit I do tend to have "jujutsu (torite?) myopia" when posting things like the above. It is what I train, and what I have found is most applicable from my studies. I realize not all koryu methods have the same level of crossover.

I am judging the methods I have seen by a modern standard (tho' I don't think just modern Western, most state of the art armed (firearm and edged weapons) close quarters combat tactics are taught industrial-world-wide) instead of the 15th c, Japanese one., which I am frankly not qualified to make. But for me the modern standard is as important.

Perhaps I am biting off more than I can chew, but I want to train in a way that will teach me how to effectively handle combative situations with modern weapons, as well as the classical weapons. For me, the purpose of learning about the bushi mindset, which was geard to, as Hunter Armstrong once wrote "living life in danger," is to apply it to my own modern reality. Maj Bristol, the IHS, and those military and other groups that occasionally seek to learn limited koryu methods seem to feel the same way.

I hope that this can be done without trampling on the tradition, which has value in its own right. My fear is that we can lose sight of the "professional warrior" -ism for the "professional koryu"-ism. Does that make sense?

Diane- Thanks for the hello's, I'll pass them on. Same to Meik.

Oh, almost forgot. Diane, good point about how can you rate effectiveness. We have seen from the Old E-budo Aikijujutsu threads that people have very different ideas, based on their own personal experiences, about what is and is not effective. The only way we could test it is old fashioned, bone-splitting dojo storming, I guess. Or fight in koryu like the Dog Brothers do in kali.... No, I won't go there.

Kit LeBlanc



[This message has been edited by Kit LeBlanc (edited 06-15-2000).]

MarkF
15th June 2000, 12:28
Kit,
Very well written and thought out. I could not agree more concerning koryu. I have stated recently that "koryu isn't dying. It is dead." I think your post explains how I really feel about the subject. I have been slammed more than a few times, in particular, in those discussions in the aiki threads a few months ago, but I fought for the right to consider judo as valid as a fighting art and sport as anything out there. I have also said much of what you say concerning the sport within koryu, even if only randori or using a stick to practice instead of a sword. I could pull out the stops and go right to the sword section of Kodokan Judo, but even I will not go so far as to say it is practiced today. It may be a shame, but it just isn't (BTW: It is the biggest sword I've ever seen). I also believe, as Earl and Diane pointed out, the reasons and even the advantages of learining a koryu fighting art, even if only for the spirit of the founders, or understanding how koryu does relate today. I like old things as well, and that doesn't go unnoticed by me. If you picked out the average judoka he/she may say "judo doesn't utilize striking technique (sounding as snobbish as possible) and would be wrong. The gokyo no waza is there as well as ajj, albeit a very different state of affairs, but you wouldn't know it. Everything you stated, particularly in your first post, I must agree. Koryu indeed has a place, as long as people recognize its values and doesn't misplace it by the "kickass" theory. We all know it is there, but it is tested, even in a sporting avenue, as you explained, but some refuse to admit any sporting manner of the koryu arts. it must be there because there is no other avenue to test it. There may be some additional hospital beds filled, a few dead bodies, if it weren't.

I will also say that what I do has certainly changed, even in its rather short history, as J. Kano himself decried as much before his death. The main cause, he said, was because of a lack of qualified instructors, not to mention the rigity, or "hard" style of "contest judo." He bemoaned the lack of softness, and had to re-explain what it was that he meant when he first opened the Kodokan. As he was a koryu practitioner, he hoped to save "his beloved jujutsu" from certain death by giving new reason to fight, and that he did.

Anyway, These are my thoughts for the moment. Someone will surely show me again, that koryu is dead and I will agree, but as for your thoughts, and those of Earl and Diane, you are dead on.

Sincerely,

------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

Mark Jakabcsin
15th June 2000, 21:27
Diane wrote: "I also think that evolution is not a bad thing--but if all koryu follow that path and begin to focus on relevance to a modern Western society, we'll have lost something precious. Why can't one take the lessons of the koryu and recast them for modern times? I believe you can (and that's perhaps where Takamura Sensei was headed)--but I'd argue that it isn't koryu any longer. "

Diane,

To state that something is not koryu is to imply that something exsists that truely is koryu. Since koryu arts are a part of history and the culture of that time I am not sure that anything could be considered real koryu. The culture that koryu is based on is long since dead and gone. Japan today has about as much in common with koryu Japan as the United States has with colonial America and probably less. Training with the real possibility of using the skills in a life or death situation is vastly different than training with.....??..the desire to keep a tradition alive? I don't know why you decided to train in a koryu so I am guessing. Do you feel that your decision to train koryu is anything close to that of someone from centuries past?

Wasn't a large part of koryu the constant improvement and evolution of the art so that each practioner would have the greatest chance of surviving on the battle field? I believe this is why secrecy was such a factor in training. Why give your best moves away to your enemy to use against you or learn how to defeat you. If one believes, as I do, that a large part of the spirit of koryu is the constant need for change, learning and developement, then it is very hard to agree with your point above that once something changes it is no longer koryu. The constant need for improvement on the battlefield dictated the need for change. It seems that once a koryu art stops changing then the spirit of koryu has been lost and it stops being a koryu. Perhaps once the need for change is gone koryu arts stop being koryu.

mark

ps. This post probably will come off harsh but I don't know how to change it and keep my meaning true. Sorry in advance. I do not mean this post as a flame only a different point of view. I welcome those with a differing point of view to respond.

[This message has been edited by Mark Jakabcsin (edited 06-15-2000).]

Kit LeBlanc
15th June 2000, 21:56
Mark F,

Thanks. I applaud you for your teaching stance with Judo. It is the art I wish I had started with and stuck with over the years. If practiced in its totality, it seems to me to be among the best all-around approaches to self defense and combat sport out there. I wish more teachers could be found practicing in the Kano manner rather than the sport-only manner. I think the combination is what makes it strong. Is it a surprise that some koryu schools require Judo dan rank, or at least training, for prospective students? It is maybe a great crossover art as well, practiced traditionally.

I still love that quote that I saw in a Shudokan MAA newsletter, where Kano said that Judo is art "with which you can kill if you wish to kill, injure if you wish to injure, and restrain if you wish to restrain" or something like that.

Kit LeBlanc

Diane Skoss
15th June 2000, 22:59
Hi Mark Jakabcsin,

It's obvious that we're not working with the same definition of koryu, and I'm not sure I understand the one you are using. I base my discussions of koryu on the very basic description at http://koryu.com/koryu.html . I didn't make it up--it is a definition (generally) common to the headmasters, head instructors, and exponents of the koryu in Japan. How do you define it? The koryu bujutsu are very specific Japanese groups focused on specific martial traditions. They exist. Members are not trying to recreate a long lost milieau (this isn't the SCA!) but to preserve, learn, and grow. The extent to which knowing how to slay an enemy with an archaic battlefield weapon is useful in one's own life is up to the individual, and their own training. The content is there (in the arts I train in, at least).

Take a house. It's a house. Suppose someone comes along and turns it into a store or an office--tearing down vast sections of it, enlarging it, and generally redesigning it to suit its new purpose. It may have aspects of houseness remaining, but I personally would call it a store or an office. The koryu in Japan have a general commonality (very very general) akin to the general commonalities conjured up by the image of house. These houses have indeed been remodeled some (in many different ways) over the years, but they are still recognizably houses. To me, "evolved koryu" are like the house-turned-office; perfectly useful and significant, but not a house.

I do hope this helps!

------------------
Diane Skoss
Koryu.com (http://Koryu.com)

Earl Hartman
16th June 2000, 03:09
Diane's analogy of the remodelled house got me to thinking about this, and I thought perhaps the following analogy might help:

Everyone knows that there are three main streams of Judaism in the modern age: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Anyone who knows anything about them will know that there are significant doctrinal differences between the streams. The argument between the "sects" of Judaism is very similar to the differing opinions over what is and is not koryu and whether it even matters.

I offer the following analogy, and I am quite serious about it. I hope no one will find it blasphemous.

Orthodox Jews feel about their religion in almost exactly the same way that committed koryu people feel about their budo. For Orthodox Jews, Judaism corresponds very closely to to the nature of a ryu. It is a revealed teaching, vouchsafed to the founder (Moses) by the Deity of Heaven. The teachings, and the proper method of interpreting and understanding them (oral tradition) were passed on to Moses' disciple Joshua (the 2nd lineal headmaster), and from him to the other disciples, who in every generation have the duty and the obligation to interpret the teachings for the people. However, only a properly ordained rabbi or judge (the rough equivalent of a a menkyo kaiden holder) has the authority to interpret the Law and its proper application (the physical techniques of the ryu). This rabbi must have received his certification from the proper authorities, other rabbis who have been properly certified in the proper line of tradition. Once a rabbi has been properly certified, he has the ability and the authority to teach the laws and their proper application to all situations of life to his community (the students of his dojo, so to speak).

Since it is a revealed teaching, there are certain things that are basic and cannot be touched, such as Sabbath observance, keeping kosher, and various other commandments, and for the Orthodox, a person who does not keep these commandments has obviously left the tradition (is no loger practicng koryu, soi to speak).

To many people, the Orthodox seem hopelessly medieval, stuck in the rut of an outdated and unbending tradition, too foolish to see that times have changed and that they must adapt their tradition to the modern world for it to be relevant. The Orthodox see it otherwise, and view their adherence to tradition as the only way to preserve the true teachings of the ryu, which are embodied in very specific physical actions (observing the Sabbath and abstaining from non-kosher food, among other things) which by their very nature must embody the true spirit of the tradition, and through the practice of which the spirit of the tradition can be understood. It must be pointed out that Orthodox ritual observance is actually quite flexible and has changed significantly over the years and in verious parts of the world and in different communities. There is, however, one constant: the changes can only be instituted by undisputed masters of the tradition and are never made in response to pressures from the outside world that are deemed to be inimical to the fundamental truths of the tradition. This accomplishes something very important: one becomes an autonomous agent who can resist the onslaught of poerful external forces, rather than being swept away by them. It seems to me that this is precisely the attitude of those koryu budo practitioners who feel it is their duty to protect the tradition from unnecessary meddling.

The Reform, on the other hand, made a conscious decision to deliberately jettison those parts of the tradition that they deemed to be archaic out of step with the modern world. This has led to the wholesale abandonment of traditional identifiable Jewish practices. That is, they felt they were discarding incosequential trappings while remaining true to what they saw as the important parts of the tradition. In this sense, I think their attitude is quite similar to the point of view of many of the budo modernizers. Kyudo, for instance, was deliberately recast after WWII for a very specific reason: to make it suitable for the modern world, to save it from extinction and to make sure it continued to influence Japanese society in a positive way.

Whether this is the right approach depends on what one believes to be important. The Orthodox, or the "koryu snobs", if you will, believe that it is the job of the practitoner to adapt him or herself to the demands of a tradition and that by diligently practicing the tradition as it has been handed down they will eventually arrive at a proper understanding of its real meaning. This is, in a way, a kind of faith. The modernizer, on the other hand, feels confident in his ability to discern what is important and what is not based on his own set of values, and will make changes accordingly.

While it is hard to say which approach is "correct", since I think that the goals of each are different, it is easier to define the differences between the two. Koryu has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. However, it can only be changed by those with the authority to do so, those to whom the traditon has been properly passed on. Only in this way can we be sure that the changes are according to the true teachings of the ryu.

I will agree that this analogy does not cover the "isn't koryu supposed to be effective" argument. If the koryu are seen as evolving military systems, the first duty of which is to effective on the battlefield, then it is possible to make the argument that the koryu as we know them today are no longer "relevant", however one views that term. As a matter of fact, that argument was settled when Oda Nobunaga massacred the Takeda cavalry with muskets. However, the koryu still have much of value, as do more modern cognate systems. They just fill different roles, and each person will choose what he thinks best.

Earl

Kolschey
16th June 2000, 03:58
Earl,
Very nice writing! I am very much impressed with your analogy, as I believe that you have effectively addressed the primary division that exists in this discussion. I have to say that this is one of the most intelligent, articulate, and interesting threads that I have seen.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

Kit LeBlanc
16th June 2000, 06:38
Oh, Man, what have I started...

Actually Earl, that is a good analogy. I've a friend who is a Congregational Minister and budoka who often points out how similar the martial arts world is to the religious world.

Kit

16th June 2000, 15:56
Kit,

You asked:

"I think (Toby?) that the Takamura-ha considers themselves a gendai application of koryu concepts and principles. I think many may not consider this"koryu" in the strictest sense of the term.'

The answer to both is yes. Takamura Sensei was very adamant about the fact that the Takamura ryuha is not a koryu. Interestingly he would not consider anything founded after the early 1800’s to be koryu, including mainline Shindo Yoshin ryu and even arts like Daito ryu. The Takamura ryuha is directly descended by menkyo kaiden holders to koryu and taught thru traditional methodology and in a traditional dojo environment. This ryuha maintains deep respect for its roots by embracing its time honored principles of physical and mental combat. In Takamura Sensei’s opinion these ARE the ryu. Takamura Sensei chose to adapt and supplement aspects of the technical curriculum so that the art more effectively addressed conflict in a modern civil environment. Relevancy in the a modern environment were to him the best way to ensure the this particular ryu’s survival. This has unfortunately been somewhat confirmed as the mainline Shindo Yoshin ryu tradition in Japan now appears to be virtually lost. All that survives is the Shindo Yoshin ryu Domonkai under the leadership of Dr Ryozo Fujiwara, a historical research organization evidently without any currently operating dojo’s or actively training disciples.

Takamura Sensei had great respect for both the gendai budo and koryu establishment in Japan but was occasionally saddened to see that some ryu had lost what he considered their martial soul. The forging of the spirit through shugyo and conflict have been lost in many koryu but fortunately maintained in others. Koryu traditions like Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu have been properly maintained throughout the years. Lets hope that they and others like them continue to be as well maintained into the future.

The reason I post on this board is that the topics discussed here seem to have more in common with our ryuha than those discussed on the gendai budo boards even though we are technically a gendai tradition.

BTW. Earl, Great doggone post! History of religion has been a passion of mine for over 25 years. I appreciated your analogy and found it keenly accurate. Thanks for the great discussion, all of you.

Toby Threadgill
Soryushin Dojo / Dallas

MarkF
16th June 2000, 21:53
Mark K,
I took no offense in what you wrote, and I must agree with what you said. I think you and Kit have a good handle on the thing itself, and If more koryu practitioners could see that, I wouldn't be responding as I have. NO worries here, Bud.

Kit,
The lack of truly qualified teachers is sad, and Kano spoke of this before he died. He said that "contest judo" was basically missing the boat, as they were not applying it wisely. He belived in the so-called soft approach, and he didn't like what he was seeing. The reason I have continued on in a sport which I love, to a combative style new to most judoka, and most koryu people, because it is all there, as it was meant to be practiced as koryu jujutsu in many ways. when age catches up, and the muscle withers after leaving the shiai circuit, the little secrets you heard of judo became obvious, and they are there for the asking. It is too bad that today, Kano ryu is going the way of everything. I will always love the sport though I believe many mistakes have been made to continue judo at the international level, so I had tried to incorporate what I study, and include as much atemiwaza, kata ate, even goshin jutsu which was only added to the judo curriclum in 1958. Here is a quote by Kano you may like, and this applies to all things in your life: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You may not live long enough to make them all yourself." That is one of many practical suggestions Kano made in his life time.

Thank you for the kind words, Kit, and be careful. There are still a lot of us hippy types out ther driving their VW wagons and getting them to start in the morning;)

Brent Easton
17th June 2000, 06:17
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I believe most of what all of you are saying is correct. However, my thoughts on Koryu is that we honor the forefathers by continuing their traditions and their styles. For the most part, in the period that the koryus were founded, it was purely trial by combat. The styles (i.e. techniques) that could not conquer their opponents either changed (adapted to their enviroment) by incorporting different techniques or have been lost to history. Those that changed (adapted) continued to change until the era of "trial by combat" ended.
At this time, the koryu came to a crossroads, there was no longer a need to change because of live or death necessity. Those that continued did so because honor and "giri" (a term that there is really no true English definition or interpretation that does the actual meaning and intent justice).
This in no way is meant to say that koryus are ancient and inadequate. Quite the contrary. The principles (both martial and spiritual, as Westeners we tend to ignore the effect of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism) in which the koryus adhered to are alive today just as they were before. The body mechanics, precision and conditioning are just as important today as they were before.

Just my thoughts on this matter...

Brent Easton