PDA

View Full Version : Are you an asset or liability to JSA?



Nathan Scott
9th March 2001, 22:33
Hello all,

This is a subject that is being hashed around on the JSA forum of swordforum right now (and others off and on), in respect to the concept of learning JSA through self-training.

Many eager, prospective sword students are not fortunate enough to have qualified sword instruction in their immediate area, and are not able or willing to make deeper sacrifices to seek it out. It would seem that these people are (often times) convinced that they can teach themselves JSA accurately and effectively based primarily on the logic that many fuedal era bushi had done this with varying amounts of success.

So the question I'd like to pose is:

1) If you try to teach yourself "Japanese Swordsmanship" without formal qualified instruction/guidance (using books, internet and video), do you think it is possible to reach a comparable level to those that have trained formally?

2) If your passion to learn, study and perhaps demonstrate or teach, and be apart of the continuing legacy of JSA is so strong, how would you view this kind of contribution to the arts? In regards to safety and accurate transmission of the arts, would you be aiding in the preservation and continuation of an important "cultural asset", or would you, for lack of a better term, become "part of the problem?"

Following are excerpts from three of my posts copied from swordforum/jsa:




First of all, historians consider what is known about Musashi to be sketchy at best. While there may be some truth to what is written about Musashi, such as that he existed, I wouldn't believe everything you read about this legend as if it were the gospel truth.

Secondly, learning swordsmanship in feudal Japan by yourself is totally different than trying to learn Japanese swordsmanship in the modern western world - or modern Japan, for that matter. They are very very different times, and simply cannot be compared, so please resist using historical Samurai as examples of how JSA can be learned independent of a ryu-ha or qualified instructor in the present day. It is an irrelevant and inaccurate analogy.

If there are those that are determined to believe they can learn JSA without the help of qualified instruction, in spite of the strong opposing opinions of quite a few experienced kenshi, then so be it. It is not a subject that can be proven on paper, and frankly, those that already have strong opinions about how to learn something are most often not teachable anyway.

It would be easy to simply say, "to each his own - have fun". But the problem is that people that try to teach themselves JSA are literally a liability to the JSA world, IMHO.

Yes this is a strong statement, but I am not trying to offend anyone or come across "elitist".

Anyone who is going to train themselves is surely going to seek a training partner at some point, and *probably* train around other people eventually, in front of an audience, teach what they've learned to someone else (either physically or verbally) to some degree, and/or these days, likely get a shinken and practice techniques and cutting.

As a result, the likelihood of accidents is greatly increased, as well as the percentage of misinformation that will be disseminated to others.

Accidents in JSA affect all of us who train and/or teach JSA, both in the reputation of the arts we study, as well as opportunities and facilities to demonstrate and teach. Many places, like the Long Beach Convention Center in CA, no longer allow "Japanese type swords" on the facility. There were so many accidents at the Ed Parker Invitationals with unqualified Karate and Tae Kwon Do people using sword wallhangers in competition or in cutting stunts that they now consider it too much of a liability. Some entire countries have banned or severely restricted the ownership of Japanese style swords because of their use in domestic and sometimes absurd assaults.

Knowledge without correct experience to give the knowledge perspective and depth is most often superficial, and sometimes incorrect. Academic knowledge in an art requires proper experience to firmly identify and establish the information. Likewise, physical practice must also be combined with "academic" analysis to clarify the principles being taught in order to eventually reach one's potential. The two go hand in hand.

If you have a passion and love for JSA, you might consider how training informally will affect the JSA you love as a whole.

I'm sure I'll get blasted by some for my view on this, but my guess is that most serious students of JSA will agree. Take that for what it's worth. If qualified instruction is not available, and travel to qualified instruction is not possible or convenient enough, then I would recommend pursuing the academic part of JSA for now and training in another martial art for the time being. That would show respect for the sword and it's history more than trying to teach yourself.

For the record, I respect the strong desire to learn JSA often expressed on this list and others, but there are simply certain realities that must be acknowledged. Some may have to sacrifice more than others to follow their desire or passion, and that is just life.

**


There is one big problem with historical reconstruction: there is no way to test it accurately to verify the effectiveness of the reconstruction as it was once used historically.

What kind of weapons and techniques would the art be used against? On what kind of terrain and weather conditions? Which techniques were effective against which type of opponent and weapon? How much of what was recorded in each country was untainted by patriotism or politics? Were there any fighting formalities or taboo (like those found in Kamakura jidai battles in Japan, for example) that may be widely unknown? How did the culture of the country at that time affect battles?

And most importantly,

What subtleties and intangibles are missing that can't be gleaned from limited records?

Now, someone will be quick to state that this applies to all extant combat arts that use obsolete weapons today, which is a valid point. But in *theory*, there is one major difference.

In most cases there is an unbroken line of direct transmission of the art (or at least the techniques and principles, directly or indirectly) that can be traced back to those that lived and used the techniques/systems in combat. There is of course no guarantee that these arts have survived or been adapted accurately, since as I mentioned, there is no way to conclusively test them now. But, there is a reasonable chance that anywhere from some to most of these arts curriculums have retained critical subtleties and principles that are often transmitted directly, orally, to future inheritors.

It is this potential for direct transmission and oral teachings that separates reconstruction from (at least many) surviving ryu-ha and JSA.

FWIW, I actually think historical reconstruction is a worthwhile endeavor in the absence of a continuously transmitted art. The process and results can still be very telling and significant. But I would hasten to put absolute authority in the methods being reconstructed since even the best records will have gaps and inaccuracies.

No guarantee's all around, but with historical recreation you can be pretty confident that significant elements and factors (historically at least) have been missed.

**


It has been my experience that those who have gained substantial experience in JSA under qualified instruction agree that it is not possible to reach the same level of expertise or knowledge they have without the guidance of a qualified instructor, and the benefit of centuries of trial and error transmitted through their art (whether technically a koryu art or not). Their opinion may have been different before undertaking formal instruction, but after years of formal instruction, in retrospect, they concur that there are many important things they were previously unaware of that could only have been learned through direct transmission.

I've met several people who are exclusively or primarily self taught (a couple are well known names), and they all have certain bad habits in common. They are the same bad habits that the majority of beginners in the dojo share as well, including myself when I first started.

While it may be possible to learn to fight with a sword if given enough time to experiment with one, there are two important factors to consider:

1) the self-taught student will suffer considerably more injuries than one who is being supervised by a qualified instructor. In an art that uses three foot razors, this is a BIG consideration.

2) the self taught student cannot reach the same level as a student who has studied formally and attained a reasonable level of proficiency. This is because the formal student has the benefit of their instructors knowledge and experience, as well as the practical R&D that has been transmitted through the tradition line. Much of this is oral, and only taught to direct disciples.

In a day where most people do not *need* to learn swordsmanship for purposes of combat or self defense, it does not make sense to me to undertake the significant risks (for the students as well as anyone they practice around or with) of injuries and accidents from self study. If swordsmanship is not available in your area, and the prospective student is not willing or able to make larger sacrifices to train formally, then it seems to me that Karate or another locally taught art would be the most logical compromise.


From these excerpts I suppose it is clear what my position is. However, I'd be interested to hear the comments and opinons of others.

This has proven to be a volatile subject, so I would ask that we all try to contribute to a polite discussion.

Respectfully,

10th March 2001, 00:24
Nathan,

I'll have to second your opinion here and offer my thanks for posing this serious question on the discussion board. In the past, accusations of elitism have been bandied about concerning this with elitism being defined more like snobbery. At times there can be a fine line defining elitism & snobbery... and some JSA practitioners are snobbish but thats not really the subject here is it. What we are really discussing here is whether qualified, safe and responsable instruction is demanded to produce talented, safe and responsable practitioners. Practitioners who accurately reflect the talent and ideals traditionally associated with the highest level of JSA.

I say move to a qualified teacher if you can't find one near by. If you are really serious this is no big deal. People do it all the time. If you can't or won't move, wait to start training until you can. If you never move to find instruction you shouldn't begin to start with. I know that sounds harsh to some but.....hey.......this isn't basket weaving. You can really screw yourself or someone else up swinging a razor sharp sword around like you're Errol Flynn or Toshiro Mifune. That's just plain nuts!

I wanted to learn photography, so I went to the Brooks Institute and moved to Santa Barbara. It cost me fortune. Why should sword work be any different. If you want something, move to the source. Don't fake it.

(Sorry if I insulted any basket weavers. All the basket weavers out there, please forgive my slight.)

Tobs

George Kohler
10th March 2001, 00:44
Hi Nathan,

Sorry for intruding but can you tell us what JSA stands for and what it is?

George Kohler
10th March 2001, 00:57
I thought it was some type of Association :)

Nathan Scott
10th March 2001, 01:47
Another option is to host a seminar with a qualified sword instructor. If there is no qualified instruction in your area, I reckon that you can go to it or you can bring it to your own area. Occaisonal training is still beneficial.

Takeda Sokaku from Daito ryu managed to produce (at least) several highly skilled Budo-ka through travelling around teaching in a seminar fashion the majority of his life. Not easy learning, but it can be done if the student is trains seriously enough.

**

Mr. Kohler, sorry about that! JSA (Japanese Sword Arts) has been tossed around a bit over the last couple of years, and I thought maybe it had become a common abbreviation - but I don't think it has yet! (knew I should have spelled it out at least once!)

Thanks for the responses so far,

Eric Montes
10th March 2001, 06:40
Nathan,

I must agree with you and Toby on this subject. (I would include other other weapons as well, but that is for another day.)

What scares me most in this type of situation is students who, in their earnest pursuit of JSA mastery, begin teaching others after only a few chances to learn a technique themselves.

But to answer Nathans questions directly:

1) No, students with formal training will generally have a greater understanding of the system in question. A gifted athlete is just that, a sensei (coach in athletic situations) be able to assist that athlete to greater achievements.

2) Without all the cultural baggage (both good and bad) that accompanies formal JSA study, I feel that it would impossible to claim any sort of "Japanese Cultural Asset" status. A self taught person (even if fluent in Japanese) may not have the correct context to place the sword arts in the modern world. None of the teachers that I met in Japan made claims of being a modern day samurai, but the arts of the bushi were a part of their lives nonetheless.



Hope this made sense.

Eric

Howard Quick
10th March 2001, 11:43
Hi Everyone,
I totally agree with everything being said here. Although I have only been involved in JSA for a short time, I have been involved in Jujutsu for a much longer period.
It shows how serious a student/instructor is by the sacrifices they are willing to make in order to gain the appropriate instruction.
I don't expect everybody to make the sorts of sacrifices I do but I don't think they will achieve the same level of understanding in thier chosen field if they sit back and wait for the instruction to come to them.
Two years in a row I travelled to Europe to attain instruction from a man I regard as the best, most highly qualified Jujutsu instructor alive today. This cost me about $30,000. Thats Aussie dollars(about $19.95 US).
Now as the Australian representative of the International Shinkendo Federation I will be travelling to the US at least once a year(yep!...sorry Nathan).
I reckon I could buy a pretty good car for that sort of money. As I said I don't expect everyone to do the same, but an hours drive to a respectable dojo is too much for some.
I also believe that the trips to Europe put my Jujutsu ahead of my peers by about 10-15 years. You could not do that from self study(books, video's etc...)They are a great training aid but that is all.
Great subject Nathan..et Al
Best wishes
Howard Quick

Robert Reinberger
10th March 2001, 13:33
Mr Scott,

my answers to your questions first:

1. No
2. b.) (You will become "part of the problem", if you stay with it)

That means, I agree with what you've said.

Now about what I've experienced:

I already had about a decade of Budo training, when my interest in Japanese sword arts has reached a level, that prompted me to do something. As I didn't know about a place for proper instruction (and I knew a lot of what was around, in my area), I started self-training, mainly with ZNKR Seitei Iai, because of the amount of informations and material that was available, regarding this subject.

So I trained using books and videos, and even had the opportunity to train some Aikiken and Iaido at mixed seminars, and did this for about 5-7 years. On my club's website I still have some photos showing me in that stage of my training (I think I shouldn't hide them, because this was a part of my personal development and way). I finally found a place, and commenced formal Iaijutsu training (not ZNKR Iaido) in 1989. Therefore I can give my personally experienced impressions regarding the differences.

In 1989, I had a certain advantage compared with other beginners, regarding the knowledge of theory, concepts, history, technical terms etc. I even had advantages regarding patterns of certain Kata.

However, what I've learnt where patterns of movements, without proper basics. That is, even on the seminars where I encountered ZNKR Seitei Iai, only pattern where taught, as opposed to proper suburi and other "Kihon - knowledge". The important details of forms, rythm, as well as "how to swing a sword properly" and other important parts weren't disclosed to me prior to the formal training, even if I knew some of them in theory. And even with proper instruction I still needed more than a year, to begin making correct Tenouchi, for example.

But anyway, I wouldn't go so far to say: "I'm an asset to JSA", nowadays. :look:

I think you can learn something through self-training in this arts. But it isn't very much.

Regards,
Robert

pgsmith
10th March 2001, 17:22
Hi all,
I don't post much here because I learn more from the more experienced folks that graciously share their knowledge on e-budo. That being said, I have to chime in on this one as it is one of my personal hot button topics. Our school is affiliated with the Parks and Rec. department and we are listed in their catalogue. Because of that, we get alot of people that sign up to be 'The Highlander' or become an 'Instant Samurai' (just add water! ;) ). Often times these people have read many books on the subject and will show up with their sharpened stainless steel 'gin-yu-wine sam-oo-rye' swords and swing them around to show us what they have taught themselves. When this happens it scares me to death! They usually tend to argue with what we are teaching (that's not what it said to do in this book!), and get upset with the slow pace of learning the basics of the Japanese sword. While there have been a couple that have stuck with it and become good students, most of them drop out after a short time because it takes a long time and lots of repetition in order to learn proper basics. In every case I have had of individuals that were self taught, they had things that they were doing wrong, and had been for a while. They had to not only learn the proper way, but unlearn what they had already made into a habit. I have heard the most prevalent argument (Musashi taught himself) many times, to which I always ask them how many sword fights they have engaged in to test what they are teaching themselves. In conclusion (finally!) I have to state my strong opinion that unless you are truly a fantastically gifted individual, you should not try to teach yourself the Japanese sword.
Sorry about the long and rambling rant folks, I told ya'll that it was one of my hot buttons! :)

Cheers,

GaryH
11th March 2001, 06:05
Granted I am basically just repeating everything everyone else said again, the fact that both Mr. Picorelli and myself tried to use Musashi as an example for why it CAN be done makes me think that this little explaination could be usefull to others that are trying to explain it all to people like me. ;)
-Begin Quote-
Well, I have to completely agree with what Mr. Kleinert said at the end of his opinion, that it could be possible for someone to learn Kenjutsu alone however, it would be _highly_ unlikely. I used to think in the same way you are thinking, that if I had enough time I could sit in my backyard doing nothing but thinking about strategy night and day until I had created an art. You want to test whether you are able to do this or not? Ok, here is what you do: Go learn the very basic rules of chess, only the basics so that you can play a game. Now, go find a man named Bobby Fischer. Challenge him to a match of chess, and if you beat him on your first or second try, I would say you are a natural at strategy as Musashi must have been, and I would support your endeavor to learn Kenjutsu by yourself.

What I am trying to say is that if you aren't a natural strategist you probably will not be able to accomplish the things Musashi did (assuming he existed and accomplished what the legends say he did) and I suggest you go about learning Kenjutsu the way everyone else does.

On another point, the reason I believe Musashi is accounted as such a great man is because he was able to use his fighting style with such flexibility. (Remember Im saying things that may go way over my head, so take this as my thoughts, and as my humble opinion) Anyone who was intelligent enough to _create_ his own sword art and have it tested as flawless time and time again must also remember exactly why he performs each and every little itty bitty action. In Shinkendo, (Im sure it is this way in any JSA) when we end a kata, we step backwards with our left foot first. Why? Oh, it must just be a Japanese traditional thing.. right? Wrong. You step back with your left leg so that if your enemy happens to still be alive, you are in a position to draw your sword... whereas if you stepped with your right leg first, you couldn't draw without cutting your leg or stepping back another time. It is just the little things that some people don't see that would get you killed on a battlefield.

So, granted it would be nice to be able to create your own sword art, seeing as you would know why you were doing each and every thing. It would also be almost impossible for anyone without a natural affinity to strategy.
-End Quote-

I hope someone can use this.

--Gary Hill

BTW, if it wasn't obvious, I have since withdrawn my "Musashi argument" and I agree with Nathan. :)

I also have to say that I am very lucky to have found these online message boards before I tried to teach myself. My friend bought his own katana and his "JSA" is the extent of the Battoho Cardboard Boxgiri ;) which is funny and disturbing at the same time. I suppose someday I will might have to tell him that hes doing it wrong and that he needs to go see a Sensei.

I suppose this topic could be placed in the "anime influenced" box of topics along with the sakaba.

rbrown
11th March 2001, 19:00
Mr. Scott & friends,

I would have to ask one question. How can anyone who is "self-taught" actually be practicing any sword art? I guess I'm thinking out loud here, but I can teach myself to throw and catch a ball, but I'm not playing baseball until there are others participating with me.
The mere act of picking up a katana and swinging it around--even if I'm copying something I read in a book or saw on a video-- wouldn't actually be a JSA, would it?
I think too many times people (even well meaning individuals with a true desire to learn something) forget the true nature of doing any martial art, or anything for that matter, requires some type of study other than self study. Can you be a watch-maker without studying the art under some one. Sure you can get the pieces and put them together and "make a watch" but does that act make you a "watch-maker". I can fix my toilet, but no one in their right mind would call me a plumber!!
Sure someone with an ability to learn visually, and with decent body control can copy something they see on a video but no one would, or should, think that they are participating in a martial art. I think about a line from a movie I saw where one of the characters said something like--"I sing in my underwear but it doesn't make me Madonna".
One last reference to the Musashi story--I totally agree with Mr. Scott, first of all we don't really know the fact from the fiction and secondly at that time in Japan it would be hard to believe that he didn't learn at least the basics of some martial art, as the story has it that he was a footsoldier in an army. Very different from someone in America where there is no "culture of the sword" deciding that he/she can pick up a sword and is actually doing an art.
Richard

David A. Hall
23rd March 2001, 04:59
You are facing several difficulties here.

1. If you want to learn "traditional Japanese swordsmanship", you need to start with a
highly qualified teacher of a "traditional" school. There are a now a few (underline the
term "few") of these outside Japan...but they are still as scarce as hen's teeth.

2. If you are lucky enough to train with one of those individuals, you'll be coached through
the physical and mental disciplines that are preserved today by the koryu in Japan. If you
work at it enough years, you may even attain some proficiency.

3. However, to really get the flavor of classical sword training in Japan, you'll have to
eventually spend some time there. The traditional Japanese schools (koryu) are just that; they
are JAPANESE. You'll have to learn the language, eat the food, and work at understanding AND accepting
both the modern and traditional culture. In fact, you'll spend a lot of time there eventually
if you really want to commit yourself to one of those traditions. [Yeah, expect to lose out on
the fast track of career and employment in your home country because you'll be spending a lot of
time as an expat in Japan.]

4. Does this make you proficient in the techniques of your chosen ryu? Hopefully so if you've
trained hard.

5. Does this make you ready to take over the headmastership of the ryu? No. 99.999% of the time
the Japanese would never consider a non-Japanese for that...especially in Japan. (The other
0.001% of the time is when the current headmaster was drunk and made a mistake when he said that.)

You might, however, pick up a mokuroku or menkyo after a number of years of hard training.

6. Are you ready for the battlefield? Probably not. Even in Japan its the rare sensei who
can go beyond the "preservation" mode that most of the koryu are in and really delve into
the combative application of their curriculum. They're definitely there, they just aren't the
easiest ones to find...or join up with.

7. Is it worth it? ...Yeah.

Nathan Scott
23rd March 2001, 17:24
Welcome to e-budo Mr. Hall. Nice to see you here contributing.

[damn spell-check!]

Regards,

Mance Thompson
27th March 2001, 08:24
This is a very interesting thread and since its pure conjecture, here are some thoughts. Oh and I know a basket weaver from South Carolina who makes baskets in the Gullah tradition that sell for tens of thousands of dollars.


1) Perhaps

2) Depending on the results of 1, such a person's contribution could be vital.

I think too many assumptions were made with how one looks at self training as compared to training under "qualified instruction(which again is scarce, how many practicing JSA are actually training under a qualified instructor-and how do you quantify and qualify this, in other words qualified to what)." Examining the myths surrounding the traditional Japanese martial arts(or arts of other countries for that matter), are we to believe that Gods or tengu spoke to select men and showed them the theories or techniques that over the generations, formed the foundation of their ryu? Though there may have been those who perpetuated such myths because they didn't want to give credit to their real teacers, there also had to have been men with little or no training in sword or other arts that through trial and error, managed to create the arts that are now venerated. It's almost like the chicken and egg question but who came first, the teacher or the inventor? We also read of bushi who were taught a little and then told to go out into the world and make the knowledge that they had been exposed to theirs. Again, self training. Nathan makes a good argument for why not to uncritically believe all the tales about Musashi, but at the same time, could not this same argument be used to discredit the scrolls handed down in koryu?

Even with the knowledge of the past(and knowing that at some point, these arts changed greatly as fashion, function, and culture adapted to the societal changes brought about over time), why would we assume that the modern Japanese exponent knows any more about the combat applicability of any of the traditions that they expose than the self taught exponent? Clearly, such a sensei would undoubtedly know how his/her particular system viewed the sword, but considering all the variations in technique, strategy, etc. that one sees in the koryu, wholly buying into one system as having all the answers is a tad myopic.

Even being fortunate enough to study with a master of a sword art doesn't guarantee that the pupil will ever achieve a similar skill level. Language and physical ability, drive, dedication, and so many other factors would have to be analysed to properly discuss this issue. These are the qualities one knows that the lone practicioner may possess if they are willing to sacrifice so much to try and recreate for themselves what the other student has easy access to.

I would take exception with assuming that the person training alone is automatically going to be doing so in an unsafe, non-methodical method. Though there are those who do. Also, for anyone who was self-taught in any endeavor, it stands to reason that you would have a different perspective on learning and would not rest on your laurels since you know that any skill and knowledge will only come through hard work, creativity, and perhaps lucky encounters with someone who could share what they know with you. A far more difficult task than sitting at the foot of the master and being handfed the information. Though we know their journey would be more treacherous, we also have seen from experience how few of those who study with truly great instructors reach a respectable level of skill. If someone had the drive and passion to develop their ability and were lucky and talented enough to reach a level of skill in Japanese swordsmanship, then how could we think that their contribution to the art would be anything short of amazing and important.

David A. Hall
27th March 2001, 14:49
The original concerns were:

1) If you try to teach yourself "Japanese Swordsmanship" without formal qualified instruction/guidance…do you think it is possible to reach a comparable level to those that have trained formally?
2) would you be aiding in the preservation and continuation of an important "cultural asset"


My assumption here is that "Japanese Swordsmanship" refers to sword-oriented combative systems that were created and evolved in the era in which the sword was a primary battlefield weapon. That era ended in 1873. Consequently, systems that have been created more than a generation after that time have had little or no "field experience" in their curriculum.

In this traditional view, one would have to become a student of a traditional ryu in order to become proficient in the curriculum of that ryu. Becoming a member of a traditional ryu in Japan takes a good deal of effort-even for the Japanese. A ryu in Japan is as much a social system as it is vehicle for the preservation and practice of "ancient fighting techniques." All of those social interactions-oral transmissions, trips to shrines, watching seniors and juniors of varying abilities, history and legends privy to the ryu-all of that nexus creates the environment in which the student trains. Without that, I don't see how one would be able to faithfully reproduce, for example, the okuden of Maniwa Nen Ryu. Yes, you might be able to watch a video and approximately imitate the movements; they might even be more or less effective. But are you performing Maniwa Nen Ryu oku technique? No.

What you would be doing is creating the new Joe Blow system, based on watching a single (or several) performances of Maniwa Nen Ryu on video. Is it "effective"? Maybe, maybe not. You haven't tried it in battle. (But I assume that's not your purpose anyway.) Do you fully understand the implications of the techniques you are imitating? No.

Are you "aiding in the preservation and continuation of an important 'cultural asset'"? That depends on how culturally important the new Joe Blow system is! As for "preserving and continuing" Maniwa Nen Ryu (or whichever ryu you are imitating)-Baloney!

Mance Thompson
27th March 2001, 19:32
David,

Why would you assume such a date range for examining this question? Would you argue that arts like Toyama ryu, albeit a newer art(based to some extent on older arts), have no contribution to make to Japanese swordsmanship? You also stated that such arts have little or no field experience in their curriculum. However, unlike other arts, Toyama ryu was created for the battlefields of the early 20th century-which makes it perhaps the most field tested(in modern times) sword art around.

The time period during which the sword was a "primary" battlefield weapon was over long before the 1800s(again the primacy of the sword in battlefield encounters is a matter that continues to be debated). Koryu are based on traditions and techniques that were passed down through the generations(not exactly ancient) as Japanese culture and need for proficiency in the combative arts changed, a factor that shouldn't be dismissed when hedging your bets on a particular art's martial effectiveness. This topic is primary speculation since very few people currently use swords when fighting.

Clearly, the koryu are made up of more than just traditions of fighting and as you described in your post, the social factors are perhaps as or more important than the purely functional. Undoubtedly dedicated study with much feedback from a "qualified instructor" is required to become proficient in a koryu. However, Nathan's question was asked specifically about Japanese swordsmanship, not about particular ryu. Thus, even arts like kendo could be considered as fair domain for consideration of the worth of studying under a teacher of a certain tradition as opposed to learning on your own.

Again, it is a great leap of faith to assume that even with years of training under the top instructors of a style
in Japan, you will understand all the implications of said style's strategy, movement, and kata. I would posit that even with the blessing of being able to learn an art in Japan under one of its top instructors, one should still carry out self training(cutting, analysing kata, researching other sword arts[including those of other countries], perhaps even sparring against other styles, looking at videos, going to seminars and embu, etc) to deepen your knowledge and ability.

JSA needs people who are willing to take the necessary steps to further the understanding and knowledge of the Japanese sword. If there are people out there who are trying to help it evolve through non-traditional manners(as long as they are not misrepresenting what they are doing as being a Japanese art form), then they are making an important contribution to the preservation of the pursuit of knowledge through martial arts. If the Japanese sword arts are no more than repositories of past values and outdated traditions without being something more, then perhaps it is best to let the librarians and archeologists do the preservation of these cultural assets.

W.Bodiford
30th March 2001, 08:15
Originally posted by rbrown
Mr. Scott & friends,

I would have to ask one question. How can anyone who is "self-taught" actually be practicing any sword art? I guess I'm thinking out loud here, but I can teach myself to throw and catch a ball, but I'm not playing baseball until there are others participating with me.

Richard

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Martial arts consist of learning how to interact with other people in a skillful way. Ultimately they consist of learning how to love one another. Once my teacher told me that when one has learned how to hold a sword properly, then will be able to more easily comfort a crying baby by cradling it one's arms. The more comfortable the baby felt and the more quickly it breathed calmly, the more progress one had made in swordsmanship. Try learning that from a book or video.

David A. Hall
30th March 2001, 15:17
[I posted this once just before the system went down. If it shows up double, my apologies.]

The original concerns were:

1) If you try to teach yourself "Japanese Swordsmanship" without formal qualified instruction/guidance…do you think it is possible to reach a comparable level to those that have trained formally?
2) would you be aiding in the preservation and continuation of an important "cultural asset"


My assumption here is that “Japanese Swordsmanship” refers to sword-oriented combative systems that were created and evolved in the era in which the sword was a primary battlefield weapon. That era ended in 1873. Consequently, systems that have been created more than a generation after that time have had little or no “field experience” in their curriculum.

In this traditional view, one would have to become a student of a traditional ryu in order to become proficient in the curriculum of that ryu. Becoming a member of a traditional ryu in Japan takes a good deal of effort–even for the Japanese. A ryu in Japan is as much a social system as it is a group of people preserving and practicing “ancient fighting techniques.” All of those social interactions–oral transmissions, trips to shrines, watching seniors and juniors of varying abilities, history and legends privy to the ryu–all of that nexus creates the environment in which the student trains. Without that, I don’t see how one would be able to faithfully reproduce, for example, the okuden of Maniwa Nen Ryu. Yes, you might be able to watch a video and approximately imitate the movements; they might even be more or less effective. But are you performing Maniwa Nen Ryu oku technique? No.

What you would be doing is creating the new Joe Blow system, based on watching a single (or several) performances of Maniwa Nen Ryu on video. Is it “effective”? Maybe, maybe not. You haven’t tried it in battle. (But I assume that’s not your purpose anyway.) Do you fully understand the implications of the techniques you are imitating? No.

Are you “aiding in the preservation and continuation of an important ‘cultural asset’”? That depends on how culturally important the new Joe Blow system is! As for “preserving and continuing” Maniwa Nen Ryu (or whichever ryu you are imitating)–Baloney!

30th March 2001, 21:15
Mance,

The subject of this thread is "Are you an asset or a liability to JSA"

Sincerely trying not to open a hornets nest here but .... this kind of statement makes me REALLY nervous.

You posted:

" However, unlike other arts, Toyama ryu was created for the battlefields of the early 20th century-which makes it perhaps the most field tested(in modern times) sword art around."

Yeeeeooow. I'm trying to side step this because I have many good friends that study Toyama ryu but I can't let this one go by unchallenged. You seem to imply that Toyama ryu was conceived as 20th century "swordsmanship"and that those who founded Toyama ryu figured the students they taught were going out to fight Chinese, British, Austrailian and American swordsman on a 20th century battlefield. Sorry, but the words "field tested' sort of bring Nanking more to my mind. Not exactly fighting with swords or an asset to the philosophical ideals associated with the Japanese Sword Art maxim of "Satsujinken, Katsujinken".

Toyama ryu survives today as a much more positive manifestation of Japanese swordsmanship than it was conceived to be 75-80 years ago. I'm not criticising the technical aspects of the art remember, but pointing out that the founders of Toyama ryu were not exactly interested in Katsujinken. That modern practitioners have taken this art into a future where participants from many nationalities come together in mutual friendship helps wash away the stain of its original purpose but to tout its 20th century employment as "swordsmanship" is IMHO a liability to the "Japanese Sword Arts"

Toby Threadgill

Nathan Scott
30th March 2001, 23:42
I agree completely with Toby-san's last post, though I would have to point out that - for better or for worse - the methods of using a real sword, as focused on in Toyama ryu gunto soho, were more deeply researched (in modern times) than most of what is currently out there today. Nakayama Hakudo (co-developer) had significant cutting experience, as I believe did Takayama Masayoshi (co-developer). Nakamura Taizaburo Sensei obviously does , as well as having experience testing swords for purposes of evaluating performance. Though cutting and performance are only one element of swordsmanship, they areas that had become weak in many other traditions still extant. That may be one of the hardest jobs for koryu (or any tradition using obsolete weapons in a historical context) to undertake - ensuring the methods they are passing down are accurate dispite the fact that they can no longer be properly tested.

Conversely, to believe that what you would learn by studying Toyama ryu would be comparable to that of the swordsmanship of koryu kenjutsu would be a mistake. The (single) sword used in Toyama ryu was developed to be worn with different clothing, without armor, and in modern warfare applications. While alot of elements are shared, many are not and are missing from the curriculum.

Toyama ryu gunto soho was never intended to be an independent ryu-ha of swordsmanship.

**

In regards to the topic at hand:

It is not logical to assume that one can teach themselves to be as proficient in Japanese swordsmanship (both practically and in regards to matters of historical application of technique) in modern times as those who study under qualified instructors of respected traditions. There are far too many nuances, subtleties and "trial and error" experiences that could not be learned or discovered in one lifetime - especially in post-Meiji times, and especially outside the culture of Japan (which is becoming increasingly removed from traditional culture).

Swordsmanship is an art, but it is also a craft. Often times, even now, those that wish to pursue a full education in a craft (or art) will pursue an apprenticeship under a respected "master" (qualified instructor). This is a repeating pattern seen and practiced throughout history, and is difficult to argue against. The term "uchi-deshi" is often translated as a live-in apprentice.

So, it can be said that apprenticing or studying seriously under a qualified instructor is a requirement for those that wish to be considered an asset (and not a liability) to the traditions and cultural history that goes with Japanese swordsmanship.

In consideration of this, many who have a love, passion and respect for JSA and its history will opt to either refrain from self instruction, or pursue the art in a "non-selfish" manner by findind and gaining acceptance as a student under a qualified instructor in an art that suits their own interest.

I would encourage those that find this position hard to accept to consider a few very important variables with regards to present day JSA dissemination before contesting:

1) We, including native Japanese, currently live in modern times. The pre-modern Japanese culture and atmosphere is largely non-existent, outside of the extant/extinct geido (traditional arts) . What important variables would be misinterpreted or overlooked during the reconstruction of an obsolete military art or method (swordsmanship)?

2) Being a craft, how much can be learned without the benefit of a qualified, seasoned guide in that field? In bugei, JSA reaches into matters of etiquette and manner, which means it affected all areas of the exponent's life. What details and intangibles would be missed without the presence of someone for whom you can study as an example?

3) Since the chances of causing accidents is largely compounded through the pursuit of self-instruction, how liable would you be (legally and morally) for the avoidable accidents you would cause to yourself and others? Would these avoidable accidents be an "asset or liability" to JSA and those that try to spread it in a dignified light?

Good discussion,

David A. Hall
31st March 2001, 00:08
Mance,

Statement: "Why would you assume such a date range for examining this question?"

Actually, I would make the date range to coincide with that of the dominance of the classical bushi; that is c. 9th or 10th century-generally around the time of Taira Masakado's rebellion-through the official ending of the bushi class in 1873. That's just before Saigo Takamori's rebellion (1877) in which the Satsuma boys used the sword as a main battle weapon (unsuccessfully) against imperial troops armed with firearms. Perhaps I should change my date to 1877?

As Toyama ryu falls outside this era, I was not considering it. Whether or not the techniques of Toyama ryu swordsmanship are effective in battle or not is yet to be determined…and will probably never be determined considering current battlefield weaponry. They may very well be effective, but who would implement them today? Whether or not the combative psyche developed by Toyama ryu trainees is effective in battle…to tell the truth, I don't know. I haven't seen any studies on that.

Statement: "Would you argue that arts like Toyama ryu, albeit a newer art (based to some extent on older arts), have no contribution to make to Japanese swordsmanship?"

Not in particular. As I said, I wasn't considering Toyama ryu…or any other modern system…in my statement. To tell the truth I've always found the 20th century systems much less interesting than the koryu. That's my own bias and consequently the 20th century systems fall, more or less, outside my area of interest and expertise.

Statement: "You also stated that such arts have little or no field experience in their curriculum. However, unlike other arts, Toyama ryu was created for the battlefields of the early 20th century-which makes it perhaps the most field tested (in modern times) sword art around. "

I stand by that statement. As you note, "The time period during which the sword was a "primary" battlefield weapon was over long before the 1800s…" Except for Saigo Takamori's rebellion in 1877, there were few opportunities for most bushi to use their art in battle after the fall of Osaka castle in the early 1600s. However, when those cases arose the bushi seemed to be able to make their training work. You must remember, the psychological training is as important as the actual technique. Many of the koryu were able to preserve both.

Consequently, which battlefields of the early 20th century are you referring to? The primary Japanese weapon in the Sino-Japanese war was a rifle. The same for World War II….(no, I wont even get into Nanking.) My brother-in-law was in battle as a Marine in World War II. He was attacked by a sword-wielding soldier on Okinawa and promptly cut the swordsman in two with a blast from a BAR.

My point here is that the battle-effectiveness of a sword school would have to be tested in battle against a similarly armed foe. Then you would start getting some idea of whether or not the system is effective against the system, which it faces. In the end, of course, it's the warrior…his physical technique and mental dominance of the opponent…who makes the difference. Matches that don't take place in a life/death situation can only approximate battle. You don't know how you'll react in battle until you're there.

In any case, more than a generation (20 years) has passed since anyone has had experience in battle using a Japanese sword system (including followers of Toyama ryu). Everyone's battlefield efficacy is a toss-up at this point.

However, I digress…. I excluded 20th century systems and non-battlefield systems (such as kendo) from my statement because I intentionally limited my definition of Japanese Sword Arts. (By the way, I was unfamiliar with the term-JSA-until I started reading this forum!


Statement: "Nathan's question was asked specifically about Japanese swordsmanship, not about particular ryu. Thus, even arts like kendo could be considered as fair domain for consideration of the worth of studying under a teacher of a certain tradition as opposed to learning on your own. "

I was only using Maniwa Nen ryu as an example from the classical period. If you lump everyone wielding a sword-or mock sword- and every system in Japan into "Japanese Sword Arts", you will have such a heterogeneous hodge-podge that anything goes. I prefer to be more concise.


Statement: "…it is a great leap of faith to assume that even with years of training under the top instructors of a style in Japan, you will understand all the implications of said style's strategy, movement, and kata."

I'm not asking for faith. I was simply stating that it takes a lot of effort, even for those who train under the best teachers in Japan, to gain a decent level of proficiency. Without that exposure, it is even more difficult.

Statement: "I would posit that even with the blessing of being able to learn an art in Japan under one of its top instructors, one should still carry out self training (cutting, analyzing kata…"

This is correct, and good teachers encourage this after a certain level of expertise is gained.

"…researching other sword arts [including those of other countries], perhaps even sparring against other styles, looking at videos, going to seminars and embu, etc) to deepen your knowledge and ability. "

This would increase your knowledge…but is not directly related to preserving a specific Japanese system. In fact, to "preserve" you have to be careful here to not drift away from the tradition you are trying to preserve. You'll end up with the Joe Blow system I mentioned earlier if you extensively modify the system.

Statement: "If the Japanese sword arts are no more than repositories of past values and outdated traditions without being something more, then perhaps it is best to let the librarians and archeologists do the preservation of these cultural assets."

The sword itself is outdated as a battlefield weapon. The psychological training you can derive from those traditional systems is as valid today as it was centuries ago.

If that's all they are, I would agree with you. However, traditional Japanese sword systems (see my year range above) ARE repositories of values and traditions from the past. They are given life by the dedicated men and women who practice them and pierce their mysteries. That's why several of these systems have been designated cultural treasures by the Japanese government.

David A. Hall
2nd April 2001, 13:54
Nathan,

Just to round-out the issue, here's a recent blurb from Japan. If we include this under "JSA", how many readers would like to preserve this system?

----------

Bandits net 1.4 mil. yen in Tokyo pub heist

Mainichi Shimbun

Three bandits, one wielding a Japanese sword and the other two disguised by gorilla masks, bound three female pub employees and stole 1.4 million yen in cash from a Tokyo pub, police said.

----------

rbrown
3rd April 2001, 06:28
Hello again,

Have watched this discussion go in interesting ways but it still comes back to the original question. Asset or liability...
Professor Bodiford brought up some very good points about martial arts as a whole and specifically how you need others to practice.
Moving on to asset --- a useful thing or quality--- hmmm what is useful about being able to swing a sword in the air without any instruction?? A useful skill perhaps but an asset to JSA???? That is the question at hand and I still firmly believe the answer is no.
Practicing alone is admirable, necessarry to improve but proper instruction is still the basis for learning. I would use the ananolgy of being in the military. Would going out by yourself dressed in BDU's shooting an M-16 make you an asset to the military?? Don't think so... Being part of the army requires being able to take orders, carry out assignments, work as part of a team and many other things that don't necessarily have anything to do with the ability to shoot.
And let's be totally honest don't we have enough self-taught, self-promoting, self-indulgent personalities throughout the martial arts already?? The other problem with self-taught people is when they move on to teach others (as they inevitably do) they have no experience as a student, nor have they been able to observe someone teach and learn how to pass on lessons.
So I say one last time that proper instruction is a key to being an asset in the JSA.

Richard Brown

Nathan Scott
4th April 2001, 00:38
So I say one last time that proper instruction is a key to being an asset in the JSA.

Yep.

Here's a bit of a twist on the topic - What about part time or periodic qualified instruction combined with self study? Not "self teaching", but rather repetitive drills after having been taught proper grip, kamae, swing etc.

When I say "study under qualified instruction" and "can't teach yourself JSA", that does not necessarily mean (to me at least) that you have to have an instructor over your shoulder all the time. Full time practice under the guidance of a qualified instructor is preferable, but I think there is also alot that can be developed through un-monitored practice as well. Especially at lower levels. However, the success of this and frequency of instruction needed would be subject to the teaching skills of the instructor and the learning skills of the student.

There have been many accounts of famous Budo-ka that have trained part time or periodically under an instructor and still progressed correctly through in their training.

Direct, full time qualified instruction is preferred, but part time instruction can be acceptable as well if necessary.

Any thoughts on this?

Cody A. Savoie
7th July 2001, 05:28
Ok ok. I'm new and im not staying here either. To tell you the truth, Im only 15 years old and I have read many articles and online kenjutsu lessons just to get started. I also watched a little too many Rurouni Kenshin episodes. All these got me started on learning Kenjutsu myself

I live in Baton Rouge, LA (no not los angeles you dolt... louisiana)
and I can tell you right now... there are NO schools that teach kenjutsu around here.

So I started referencing from online dojo's and practicing with bokkens i made out of oak branches. I do not think it is possible to teach yourself kenjutsu... but to apply it is another thing...

In conclusion I state that I have no real time experience in kenjutsu training, yet reguardless of what everyone says i apply the skills i learned from other recources into my training routines...


so NO! you can't train yourself!
but YES! you can apply what you learned. however it is pointless in a way... you'd become sort of a ronin... since you never belonged to a real school and never had a master...

alex johns
12th July 2001, 14:08
for everyone that thinks that they can just out of nowhere think up a new great martial art because other people have done it un true : take bruce lee he was already a master in many arts when he had the idea to take the best of many arts to make a more efficient art the same goes for miyamoto i dont think that he took a bokken or a katana just swung it around 3 times in 3 different directions and called himself a master and started teaching classes, no obviously he had preivious jsa expierience with a qualified teacher and after years and years of training he was good enough to take that ma and put in things to make it better based on what he learned and what he thought could make it better and then he took everything put it together and then practiced day and night and then he didn't say it was his art he said it was just more efficient than what he was taught so that was what he used.

so if you go out and buy a ken jutsu video swing the sword around like they did it in the video and say your well trained and go out back swing it different than they did in the video and calll it your own art think again go find a good scjool learn correctly train for 30- 35 years than talk about adding your own thing to an art , think when your going to school they dont let you move to the next grade unless you have learned what they taught you don't go from kindergarden to getting your masters it just doesnt work that way i.




I may not be a qualified swords man (just found a school) but i'm a third degree black belt in tae kwon do and i've seen kids come by the pick up a book learn a few stances kicks punches and the most basic form call them selves a black belt and try a new kick and think its a new art and sometimes i try to explain things to them but they either dont believe me or dont want to believe me.



alex johns

stevemcgee99
11th November 2001, 00:57
I'd hope the lessons would be humble in their agenda. Like one technique, two to three days to practice under expert supervision. Then, perhaps, the student would have a grasp on the technique to go off on hi/her own to practice. Books or videos (to stimulate the visual learner) should be able to provide depth or insight to the origional lesson. But I think that, at least in our culture, seminars would need to be "comprehensive" to enroll students, thus there would be no discipline in the techniques, no corrections to the initial misunderstandings.

I have found the "immersion/seminar followed by months of pratice" style of education to work for me in intellectual pursuits, as well as climbing (which involved using my body correctly AND using equipment properly, too). I'd guess it could work O.K. for sword arts. I have taken woodworking seminars, not always with quality instruction, and this has advanced my skills. Only making mistakes has provided me with experience, though. I would live a long apprenticeship in woodworking, as well as iaido/kenjutsu, because I think it is a more efficient way to learn. But I became interested in woodworking for myself, and forty years of bumbling about in my shop is acceptable- it'll be the journey.

But it seems that situation is distinct from word arts. Whereas woodworking might be like running, I'd just go and do it, would technique matter? With craft, one can see the "end" as a justification for any "improper" technique- hey, if it works!
With running, how can i tell anyone else how to run?
With Japanese Sword Arts, there is proper technique. To do the Sei Tei Gata, you need to do it right, or you're doing it wrong. The "end" result of finishing, staning with the sword in saya, won't matter if your grip is wrong. And if YOU are wrong, how can you correct yourself? I would say you'd need help.

Those who haven't taught something, or especially those who haven't really learned something, to mastery, that is, migght not understand this. So, instead of preaching to the choir or talking to a rock, I'll finish sharing my opinion- which is all this thread is about. Besides, I can't control what others I don't even know do, let alone anyone. If they chop off a kid's head at a shopping mall demo and swords are outlawed in the US? :nin:

At least I can control my attitude.:idea:


Steve McGee

Kit LeBlanc
11th November 2001, 14:53
I think Cody's post hits on some key points....

1) Though not typical at E-budo, the provenance of his training as laid out in his post is very commonly seen if you have the eyes to see on other websites, even well established sites which DO have some "legit" practitioners. Many folks, (and not trying to slight Cody) and I mean adults WELL over 15 years of age, pontificate on swordsmanship and sword arts (oh yeah, and "combat application." Sheesh).

Much of their historical, technical, and "traditional" (i.e. referring to the ryu) OBVIOUSLY come from anime, role playing games, computer games, and fanstasy. (The role playing games in turn getting their "history and culture" from anime....) They then pick up a bokken or shinai, ask for online sources for kata, and train themselves. Seems some folks pick up a long and short shinai, play with a buddy, and then go online and discuss their insights into "their school," Niten Ichi-ryu.

To me it seems pretty obvious when folks like this post, and I have only a little "legit" instruction in JSA. For people with more experience I am sure it is far more obvious. The problem is with the others with NO experience who read these accounts and believe they come from people with legitimate skills.

2) These folks then "apply" their skills. What application of what skills? Like I am sure a lot of other people interested in JSA did, I grew up going into the creek behind our elementary school, cutting down sticks, and playing "sword" with my friends. We would have out and out duels and fight almost full contact! Some people got pretty good at it. Embarassingly, we were still doing this through junior high school!!!

Is this in ANY way indicative of real skill in fighting, let alone in a complex art such as that of the sword? NO! Is laser tag or paintball REAL close combat tactics? I betcha many folks are doing the same things and think that due to their earnest effort it is. Just because there is a superficial resemblance to something does not mean there is a basis for comparison.

When I had the opportunity to take regular instruction in Japanese sword I learned I knew nothing. I learned that even after a long time of practice, being regularly supervised by a teacher, that I was making mistakes in posture, how I manipulated the blade, ma-ai etc THAT I WAS SOMETIMES NOT EVEN AWARE OF. These came out when training kata and doing basics with my training partner, and came out even more so when doing kata and training with the teacher, because it was going against real skill. Whacking back and forth with your buddy based on some anime and pictures in a swordsmanship book will not give you this.


3) Lastly is the "Musashi" and "learned from Tengu" comments, and that the "pioneers" of self study of the sword are walking this same path. This only demonstrates further a lack of background knowledge in what they profess to be studying.

Dr. Hall or Bodiford please correct me if I am off base, but it seems to me that much of what has been learned RE: early swordsmanship is that the founders of the earliest schools trained in family or shrine-based systems which were probably not fully codified into formal ryu at the time, but were indeed formalized instruction. Skills passed from father to son and local warrior to local warrior over generations, were then regularly tested in battle, and then re-analyzed and shored up with additional instruction and experience in other weapons and combative forms and psyhco-religious disciplines. In the early days it may not have been XYZ-ryu, but there certainly was instruction. As time went on these early founders codified their insights from varied legitimate instructional sources and combat experience to found the first actual ryu.

And the whole learned from a tengu/learned from a kami/had a divine insight thing is completely different from the idea of people today making up a sword system and claiming it came from some guy named Musashi Kojiro no Yoshitsune. You'd hafta know the cultural background behind it to understand it. And that background ain't gonna come from anime or a role playing game.


Kit

Paburo
11th November 2001, 19:18
After reading this thread, I want to say this specialy to NATHAN.

I've done something really bad for the culture i love and i feel very shamefull.
Honestly i thought by keeping what i do inhouse for my self was at least good for my interest but now i know. My apologies to everyone who dadicate their live and their pattience to their teachers.

with a heart broken spirit, Pablo Rosado
independent sword.:(

stevemcgee99
11th November 2001, 21:52
Paburo, what really bas "something" have you done? Appreciate Japanese culture? Engage in the practice of sword arts to the best of your ability? Attempt to understand the philosophy of budo, and live according to what attracts you as a desirable way?
Or are you setting up websites to promote youself as Soke or Secret Ninja Master? Or teaching friends how to dodge as you swing at them? Or representing yourself as anything more or other than you really are? Or blowing out the flame of other's inspirations in the attempt at safeguarding your ego?

Steve McGee

Paburo
12th November 2001, 23:03
Not really i just practice lots of suburi, meditation, and some kata from books and theire respected video i do not buy a book for practice unless it as a video according to it and for two years i still i the very early of all the training i do not want to go further untill i find someone so at least i have a sense on where i'm going. still i keep encountering erors after error and i fix them a little. but still what i read made me feel stupid and i know that as much i tried i don't see myself going to a dojo out of puerto rico to learn, for me is expensive, and preatty hard i know that people say if you want something you'll hgave to work hard to get it but i want to take atvantage of my age right now seens life is short and the "WAY" is long and really want to see my children at least learning this way of life cause it teach you hoe precious is to live in balance with the "nature of the universe".
but i think it's just a dream right? or a BAD BUDO?:confused:
Oh well!! Soon enough, soon enough..............

Nathan Scott
21st October 2002, 01:20
By the way, in case anyone still thinks that there is nothing wrong with teaching yourself swordsmanship, I've been compiling a list of public sword accidents. The incidents listed on this list are there because they all could have been avoided through the experience and judgement developed through proper qualified instruction:

http://www.tsuki-kage.com/darwin.html

If you've read this before, you might want to have another look. I've added a few new incidents and corrected some of the typo's/spelling errors!

Regards,

renfield_kuroda
21st October 2002, 02:09
I think there's a clear distinction between teaching yourself JSA and practicing JSA by yourself.
In Mugairyu Iaihyodo here in Japan, even though it's a small country we don't have dojo all over the place. So we have a "Correspondence Course": videos and instructional booklets for the basic moves and kata, and several times a year sensei travel to the farthest reaches of Japan to hold seminars and do promotions.
SO, if the student is motivated, then what the teacher passes on in a full day of seminar instruction can be practiced on one's own for a couple of months until the next seminar, verifying movements with the videos/texts.
However, the untangible/subtle elements of JSA simply cannot be transmitted from teacher to student without direct instruction: zanshin and other such elements of focus, concentration, intention, the subconcious flicker of the eyes, the tension in the shoulders...there's just no way these things can be learned on one's own without spending HUGE amounts of time.

Regards,

renfield kuroda

Nathan Scott
21st October 2002, 04:00
Mr. Kuroda,

You have to admit that this approach to instruction is pretty unique - especially for a koryu (is your line considered such?).

There are modern ways of instructing that many people consider, including our group (Shinkendo), but the fact remains that important intangilbles like the Isshin Denshin connection between student and teacher, are missing when a student is encouraged to develop through an indirect medium. Not to say that self-study is not important, but in the beginning - the watch, copy and repeat stage - it is important for students to be able to absorb as much of the instructors way of moving, thinking and approach to the art as possible. The relationship between teacher and student, and the student and their classmates are important in a tradition. There is no opportunity to immerse yourself into the art under the atmosphere of the Honbu dojo and head instructor. Also, learning how to teach is hard to pick up without regular training under a qualified teacher. The instructor cannot comment on the atmosphere in the dojo or the way things are taught as they come up if they are not there to supervise training, and that can introduce some unsafe habits.

I know I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know, and I'm not trying to critisize your group, but my point is that there are important elements of the art that cannot be imparted indirectly. As mentioned previously, distance learning is possible and preferable to not training at all, but it is a very different experience than training regularly under a teacher. A regular student of a tradition will have a very different interpretation of the art (all around) than a distance student learning from videos.

ALso, my experience has been that people that rely heavily on video taping seminars and keiko tend to not train as hard as those that are forced to memorize it on the spot through repetition. They figure once it is on tape they can always get it later, but again, there is no opportunity to make corrections that way until habits are already set.

PS. I just re-read your post and it sounds like we are basically saying the same thing, so my post may be redundant.
Regards,

renfield_kuroda
25th October 2002, 06:13
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
Mr. Kuroda,

You have to admit that this approach to instruction is pretty unique - especially for a koryu (is your line considered such?).

There are modern ways of instructing that many people consider, including our group (Shinkendo), but the fact remains that important intangilbles like the Isshin Denshin connection between student and teacher, are missing when a student is encouraged to develop through an indirect medium...[snip]...I just re-read your post and it sounds like we are basically saying the same thing, so my post may be redundant.
Regards,

Yup, I think we do agree.
We provide the Correspondence Course as an alternative to doing nothing, but a key piece of the course is the fact that sensei and students travel to seminars on a regular basis, to get that all important live instruction.
i think we find that in general the students who are part of the correspondence course give up/don't try very hard after a couple months, or are absolutely motivated and train daily and take every chance they have to join seminars and travel to a city with a dojo.

I hope someday there's a dojo for something in every city (Japan is pretty close!) but until that time, nothing can replace good old motivation!

Regards,

renfield kuroda

P.S. I guess Mugairyu Iaihyodo is a koryu -- it's been around for 300 years and has a clearly established lineage traceable back to the founder, Gettan.

Gene Gabel
1st November 2002, 09:27
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nathan Scott
[B]Mr. Kuroda,

You have to admit that this approach to instruction is pretty unique - especially for a koryu (is your line considered such?).
.............................................................

Yes, it (Mugai Ryu)is considered a Ryu as Ren has stated.
I have been to a MGR seminar in the US given by the Shiokawa Soke(15th Grandmaster)of MGR and found it a great help. I am also a correspondence student with his dojo. Even though it is very hard to learn from the video tapes and pamphlets furnished to us it is still better than waiting for a trip to Japan or a seminar in the US.
I tend to practice as much as if I was going to classes. I will attend more seminars when they come to the US and am looking forward one this spring.
Ren is the english translator for the system and has been a great help to me in my studies. (answering questions and such,not to mention a great guy).
My main style, Kuniba Ryu Iaido, was developed from MGR.So the crossover isn't as hard as if I had no training at all..
I will totally agree that is crazy and probably dangerous to try to learn a system from video or books but a combination of all three couldn't hurt. I had never heard of correspondence Iaido before I started it myself....
Hope this answers any questions you have.

Gene Gabel

Usagi
2nd November 2002, 17:54
I learned AiKiDo via seminars, after having studied under the guidance of an 1kyu who learned from a poor AiKiDo sensei :rolleyes:

From what i saw in the US and Argentin, my present AiKiDo is as good as most aikidoka with as much "mileage" as i have.

But i wouldn't recommend this venue to no one.

Too risk, too slow and too depressing.

When you mention:

[q/b]There have been many accounts of famous Budo-ka that have trained part time or periodically under an instructor and still progressed correctly through in their training.
[q/b]

Correct me if i am wrong, but most of those virtuosos had already some experience in the kind of training (Ueshiba Morihei had quite an extensive background on jujutsu techniques of JuDo and some other arts).

On the other hand, background on "similar" arts may have an unpleasent consequence.

There is a brazilian training under at least three highly qualified masters of their respective koryu (he trains four, as far as i've been told).

He was authorized to start "study groups".

What he is doing is "teach" four koryu amalgamated (Hyoho NiTen Ichi Ryu, SuiO Ryu, ShinTo Muso Ryu and Muso ShinDen Ryu) with KenDo and then send his direct students to form "study groups" all over the country.

Apparently, he sees no reason not to use such techniques in a interchangeble manner (but still presents his teaching the originals taught under the authorization of the masters of those arts).

I believe a clear distinction should be made:
- Self teach a JSA X Self Train in wielding a katana.

Katana is a saber, meant for cutting (not much about it).

No big secrete in learning how to cut, as long as the person has some commom sense to be carefoul in dealing with such a bladed weapon (same for balisong knifes, chinese swords, rapiers, broadswords, etc...)

A japanese sword art is far beyond merely cutting with a saber.

It is about exploring its potential fully (some Ryu more than others), based on the insights of someone who dedicated his entire life to sword encounters.

It is about cultural heritage, about philosophy and etiquete.

Althrought some of this things might be learned in an indirectly manner, it is highly unlikely that they would merge in a coherent method.

To learn throught seminars and videos...from my experience, it is far to dangerous (for both the individual and the art itself).

Risk of injuries and of self dellusion are in the sidetracks.

M Shook
4th November 2002, 22:38
Having been in both situations. First having a dojo with a good instructor and than moving to a place with out instruction. There is no real progression with out a teacher. Tapes and books are great for your education, curiosity or entertainment. Without a teacher, I don’t care if I (or you) practice every morning and every night, it’s only exercise. No better for your chosen art than a sit-up or push-up. Although it’s a given that exercise with an iaito or bokken is easer to stick with than jogging. So for you long distance learners make the trip. If find an instructor who will make time for you and your situation. Grab it and don’t blow it. A qualified teacher makes the difference of a marital artist and a person who has strange exercise habits. Just my two cents.

renfield_kuroda
5th November 2002, 01:54
Gene, thanks for the plug!
I think the progress of the student depends almost entirely on the student. I practice 20-25 time a month, and am often in classes and seminars with fellow students who practice 5-10 times a month. Needless to say, my progress faster-paced. I'm not saying I'm "better" (I'm actually miserably bad and can't even remember forms w/o doing them hundreds of times, thus my high attendence) but repetition is the first step to learning techniques.
In Mugairyu Iaihyodo, first rote repetition is used to learn the physical moves. Then we focus on doing the moves correctly and accurately, considering distance, timing, focus, pacing, etc. Finally we seek, through the physical techniques, the touchy-feely spiritual development: strength of character, awareness, relaxed concentration, patience, respect, etc.
So, while I agree that quality instruction is absolutely critical, a dedicated practitioner can definitely advance by practicing alone/at home/with videos. The flipside is, a casual/non-dedicated practitioner simply won't get better just by doing techniques in the same room as a good sensei. In a sense, even in a dojo with a sensei watching and correcting, YOU still have to take and heed the advice, concentrate on your movements and correct/adjust to progress.
As I am often told: "kuse-o naosu, kose-o ikasu. michi-o ayumu no-wa omaeda. sensei-wa annai-gakari-ni suginai." = "Fix bad habits, develop your character. YOU must walk the path yourself; sensei is nothing more than a guide."

Regards,
renfield kuroda

Usagi
9th November 2002, 03:43
After this topic i did a little research on EJMAS and found Friday SenSei's article "On teaching".
http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_friday_0202.htm

I believe his article hits the nail.

The point to be seem is whether we have a "utilitarian" view (cut people down with a japanese sword) or we have a educational view (learn "something" throught the JSA).

To learn how to wield a sword throught self training in modern times is very unlikely, as most modern societies don't engage in sword fights (the only place to acquire sword skills).

To learn how to wield a sword throught self training in ancient times was EXTREMELY unlikely, as any mistake would lead one to get crippled or dead ("trial and error" not being a wise choice of learning tool).

And in modern times the mere pursuit of "sword skills" for the sake of combat seems very unpratical, those rendering its goal unlogical.

The second approach (studying A JSA as a tool to build virtues and values throught the pratice) appears to be more profitable.

In that sense, without a SenSei able to realize which experience is more likely to teach which value, it is unlikely to have a linear process towards some end (one may stumble on experiencies, but be unable to cope with it or to know where to go from there).

To the advocates of "MuSaShi self training", he appears to have had some form of guidance from his father (as an infant) and from a monk (as an adult) as well as other masters (not necesssary of sword arts) that gave him "hints" on the "Way"(which permeates all pratices).

My personal conclusion is that without someone more experienced in the quest for "sagehood" or "enlightenment" it is almost impossible to give to sword arts a deeper meaning than waving a sharp piece of steel.

And waving a sharp piece of metal without deeper considerations would be a meaningless pratice.

My two reals

Nsherrard
13th November 2002, 09:42
I'm a liability, baby! Bigtime! The CEO of JSA himself told me so just the other day. "Son," he said, "you used to be an asset to JSA. But lately your work has been sub-par. You've been getting lazy. In fact, you've become a liablity to this organization. Your attitude is beginning to affect our entire staff." Believe me, I was as shocked as you all are. But there it is, straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. Nathan Sherrard, former asset, now a liability. Look out, JSA, cause I'm bringing you down from the inside! HAHAHAHAHA!

Nathan Sherrard

P.S. Hey, here's an even more fun idea for a thread; Who do you think is an asset, and who do you think is a liability to JSA? Personally, I vote for Reginald Waller, Jr. as the biggest liability. I'm not just slinging mud out of nowhere, I mean, take a look at this link (http://www.jewelerssecurity.org/). See what I mean?

Charlie Kondek
13th November 2002, 14:45
:laugh:

Nathan Scott
13th November 2002, 18:53
Gee, maybe it's time to lock this thread off.

The most enjoyable thing I've gotten from this thread recently is the emails from e-budo that my browser reads as:

Reply to post 'Are you an ass...

No offense intended...

Aiki-Kohai
24th April 2003, 05:42
What about someone with experience in AikiKen...AikiBatto...Jyodo and such....would the same thing apply to them not teaching themselves...even though they have had formal training with how to hold and swing a bokken, basic kamae...ect? Not to mention a general dedication to budo?



John

Nathan Scott
24th April 2003, 20:27
Hello Mr. Winter,

There is no black and white answer to that kind of question, because the answer relies more on the experience and teaching ability of the teacher rather than what art you are picking up techniques from. There is a huge variance in the quality of aiki ken between the various teachers and branches, for example.

But I would say that you would really need to train in an art that specializes in swordsmanship and reach a certain level of experience before you could train yourself with any reasonable expectation of success.
Aiki weapons were said to have been included in the curriculum to enhance the students understanding of Aikido, not the other way around. The methods used pretty clearly reflect this as well.

If you really want something like this, your going to have to make certain sacrifices and put forth a lot of effort to get it. Resist looking for the easiest way to reaching your goal!

Regards,

Aiki-Kohai
25th April 2003, 06:32
Mr. Scott,

Thank you for your reply...I appreciate your insight to the discussion. It was something that I thought I'd toss out there and get an opinion on. I figured training with a bokken at least and having some insight to handling it was better than some fool who saw a Highlander movie...and found out that there truly is only "ONE" of their finger or arms or legs left after they were done...or worse...an innocent.

For future reference...John is more than adequate....:D


Regards
John

Disclaimer: Any attempt or implied attempt at humor is purely coincidental....:D