Robert Reinberger
16th January 2001, 09:56
There already were some discussions regarding the subject. I don't want to start it all over, but to hear some comments concerning certain points, as well as I have some questions:
Before I start, something about myself: I'm a practioner of what is called Iaijutsu in our style. I have my own views of why I practice it, and my opinions regarding Budo seem to differ from those of such (undoubtly fine martial artists, in my opinion), like Dan H. and others. Therefore, while the historical relevance as well as "practical usefulness" (in lack of a better term) certainly are not uninteresting for me, they are only of secondary nature regarding my objectives.
If we believe the stories regarding the founder of what is called Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, the school, created in pre-Tokugawa times, was not meant to serve as a battlefield art.
On the other hand, another, older school, the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, also contains Batto techniques (I just use the example off the well known TSKSR, but also know of other pre-Edo time schools that contain methods of Batto).
Isn't it possible, that the pre-Edo warriors saw such techniques as completion of their training, not (only) to serve on the battlefield, but also to provide techniques for 'every-day' self-defence (again: in lack of a better term)?
Some more questions: It is said, that Hasegawa Eishin had revised the techniques of MJER, originally devised for the Tachi, to be executed with a Katana.
Does anybody know, if a similar change took place in the affected Kata of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, and if, who was responsible for those changes in that school? And of course, when and why were such an art actually incorporated in TSKSR?
Regards,
Robert
[Edited by Robert Reinberger on 01-16-2001 at 06:47 AM]
Before I start, something about myself: I'm a practioner of what is called Iaijutsu in our style. I have my own views of why I practice it, and my opinions regarding Budo seem to differ from those of such (undoubtly fine martial artists, in my opinion), like Dan H. and others. Therefore, while the historical relevance as well as "practical usefulness" (in lack of a better term) certainly are not uninteresting for me, they are only of secondary nature regarding my objectives.
If we believe the stories regarding the founder of what is called Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, the school, created in pre-Tokugawa times, was not meant to serve as a battlefield art.
On the other hand, another, older school, the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, also contains Batto techniques (I just use the example off the well known TSKSR, but also know of other pre-Edo time schools that contain methods of Batto).
Isn't it possible, that the pre-Edo warriors saw such techniques as completion of their training, not (only) to serve on the battlefield, but also to provide techniques for 'every-day' self-defence (again: in lack of a better term)?
Some more questions: It is said, that Hasegawa Eishin had revised the techniques of MJER, originally devised for the Tachi, to be executed with a Katana.
Does anybody know, if a similar change took place in the affected Kata of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, and if, who was responsible for those changes in that school? And of course, when and why were such an art actually incorporated in TSKSR?
Regards,
Robert
[Edited by Robert Reinberger on 01-16-2001 at 06:47 AM]