Adapting Koryu

[Hissho]

In the Free Practice in Koryu (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47543) thread Pg Smith asked a pertinent question that I would personally like to explore further.




While it is entirely possible to transfer that training to modern weaponry and tactics, I don't think that you could then still call the resultant training koryu.



Can you adapt koryu? Make "gen-ryu?" or "ima-ryu" or gendai bujutsu while staying true to its principles and essence as a ryu?

I cut my teeth in koryu with Ellis Amdur, who has written and taught extensively on this, so I am predisposed to believe that this is the case.

I also think that historically this is exactly what happened: ryu were created by men who trained in one or more traditions, integrated their training and experience, and then started their own ryu, and the process just kept going.

Many kept their old teachings but added new ones in new sections of the curriculum to deal with new realities.

Today, you see headmasters re-defining, revivifying, changing and altering kata as their understanding changes or grows with their own practice.

Does ko-ryu necessarily mean "no more changing, adapting, progressing, or entertaining new applications for timeless principles?"

Is it the actual weapon type(s) that makes it ko-ryu?

Can you faithfully, and with integrity, still call something XYZ ryu if you change that weapon to a modern one?

For example: say I practice a jujutsu ryu: specializing in a short blade - say some 12 inches long.

But being interested in adapting it to modern application, I use a modern combat knife, and I do it wearing modern military kit, and I not only do my "old" kata but I work variations of those forms and principles in things I might likely encounter.

Am I still "doing" that ryu? Or do I have to be doing it in a hakama, with period weapons or facsimile, and in period situations?

Or is what I am doing based on that ryu but must be called something else? How much of the latter can I do before I have moved on from the ryu and started doing something else?

What if I do it wearing street clothes and with my Emerson CQC-7 tactical folder? Ryu or not the ryu?

How far can I diverge from the actual techniques in the kata, while still maintaining the principles, and still be doing the ryu?

[Ellis Amdur]

Hey Chris - we cross-posted. I'll move my post here, as we overlap so much.


Originally Posted by pgsmith
While it is entirely possible to transfer that training to modern weaponry and tactics, I don't think that you could then still call the resultant training koryu.

I emphatically disagree with that statement (sort of).;) It is certainly true that most koryu - define themselves that way. But not necessarily so.
The tension of koryu-budo (the bujutsu/budo dichotomy is, in fact, a non-issue in Japan - only in Europe and America, thanks to Donn Draeger's over-compartmentalizing) - (koryu should mean "something with old roots that is a current into the present") is that one maintains that <old> practice, with <old>weapons and possibly brings it into the present as well, with some contemporary practices. I am not suggesting that one make, for example, an "Araki-ryu gunfighting system." There already are fully complete gunfighting training systems, so that would be silly. (However, it is conceivable that one's Araki-ryu practice could contribute to one's practice with firearms, and firearm practice could - no, DOES contribute to Araki-ryu.

Beyond that, there is absolutely nothing within various ryuha ethics that precludes further research into its OWN parameters into modern times. For example, my Araki-ryu group in Greece trains in a BJJ school three times a week before their own practice. Within Araki-ryu practice, they train archaic torite and kogusoku kata, and then they BREAK the kata into randori - freestyle grappling with weapons, and every time they do so, it is different. They do not plan their waza, like they do in kata - but sometimes kata waza spontaneously emerge. So to others they learned in BJJ - some of which work, taking the blade(s) into account, and some would get them killed (that info is filed away). What they learn within BJJ -and also in their once a week open-mat, where they experiment against people from other disciplines in controlled freestyle as well - makes their koryu living.
They are not ready to do so yet, but in my young days in Japan, I did the same with bokken (both within dojo and against men from other ryu).
I've been working with a cane and a short stick and a flashlight - Araki-ryu parameters all the way. Some years ago, I was asked to participate in the development of using improvised weapons in the cabin of airplanes, and found several Araki-ryu techniques were "one-size, fits all" for whatever the flight attendant could hold in his or her hand. (the legal division of the airline decided the techniques were too violent).
Many years ago, I presented at a large martial art demo - other ryu-ha were there, and we did a very dynamic set of Araki-ryu kata - semi-live (breaking the kata right there, with sparring rhythms and steps. An outraged person in the audience blurted out, "that's not koryu." Chuck Clark, who's been around forever both in budo and on the battlefield, turned around and said, "no, it's just that's the first time you really saw koryu."
Anyway, come to think of it, I personally do not CARE if what I do is called koryu. That's a generic term, and ryuha are NOT generic. So, whether it's koryu is irrelevant. It's Araki-ryu. (I know I flipped on you from the beginning of this post - but not really . . .).
Best
Ellis Amdur

[Hissho]

Ellis

Thanks for the response.

I'd love to hear your current thinking on an aspect of this that I think is very relevant to this approach:

Legitimacy:

I believe that what has been called "the whole legitimacy thing" is somewhat important. In order to investigate an operating system that stems from a particular tradition and its approach, it is important to know that what is being transmitted is an authentic teaching. I do think that it is knowledge that gets transmitted, not skill. But with that knowledge, the kernels of truth that are deep within the ryu's DNA, as you might say, are testable and knowable, and it is not something that was devised from whole cloth out of an attempt to be "like" a koryu.

That is, built on a solid foundation versus one made of sand.

Fakery is getting to the point that it is highly polished these days. I am of the belief that the lessons that a genuine tradition may hold in its principles and strategies - descended from a professional, armed, warrior class - will be of a different order, if perhaps more subtle and less obvious, than you can get from a Fox in Tiger's Clothes such as a "faux-ryu" might be.

So in order to be adapting or embodying a ryu's principles in modern times it should first be based in a legitimate transmission of the ryu. That assumes a connection somewhere with Japan, through a teacher, etc.

This I do not question.


Experience in Japan:

What is a question is whether experience in the modern,very safe, Japanese culture is a necessary component to understand the ways of a ryuha that was borne and bred in a very different society.

Linguistically - as far as reading documents, understanding terminology etc. I get it, that of course makes perfect sense. One would necessarily need a background in Chinese, Japanese and maybe even Sanskrit studies, Shingon, Taoist and Zen terminology and ideas of mental concepts, etc.

But is, for instance, enculturation (if that's a word...) in what has been said is actually a modern "soke" system really the equivalent to how these arts were practiced traditionally? I know its not so with Araki ryu, but others?

Granted that is what many have become....but is that reflective of the "then" versus the "now?"

Is that just the way it is, and in order to get to the Good Stuff you have to go through that process despite how removed it may be?

This is not an attempt to "get around" what I believe many think is an absolute requirement to understand koryu - lots of time in Japan within the Japanese cultural milieu.

Is that not a requirement to understand how koryu is conducted as a modern Japanese approach to its classical warrior tradition...not necessarily how its warrior tradition was actually conducted in its own time?

[Ellis Amdur]

What is a question is whether experience in the modern,very safe, Japanese culture is a necessary component to understand the ways of a ryuha that was borne and bred in a very different society.

Two parts to the question: I managed to find the unsafe Japan, and I had a teacher who, as Meik Skoss put it, ". . .a man who must surely be one of the most interesting and unique people teaching and training nowadays--as close to a modern bushi as I've ever met or seen." It is probably fair to think of him as simultaneously with one-foot in early Meiji and one in modern times (and if it's possible, sometimes stepping back into Sengoku times). This flickering back-and-forth is what one could expect with an "authentic" koryu practitioner - similar to Kunii Zen'ya, Uchida Ryohei and Toyama Mitsuru of earlier times. So that, personally, is part of the DNA i inherited, and try to pass on.

However, the dislocation of Japanese culture and trying to understand it's rules may be a vital component. As a teacher, I've made some pretty florid mistakes - usually assuming that something was obvious, but my students simply have no idea. My mistake in each case was to try to convey information in a Japanese manner. These days, when someone does something wrong, I clearly explain it - but then expect it will never come up again. But I'm explicit.

The larger question of enculturation is huge. I think the question is if the ryu actually has its own culture, or if they ARE just koryu. The latter, far more common these days, would have only minimal interest to one like yourself. They are the equivalent of a museum that preserved some interesting stuffed animals. What they have is better than nothing, if the animals in question are extinct - we can learn <something> from them, but not the living beast. I can think of several ryu, and more particularly, several people, whom I would study from, to this day. I can think of far more - most - that I wouldn't study with - ever.


This is not an attempt to "get around" what I believe many think is an absolute requirement to understand koryu - lots of time in Japan within the Japanese cultural milieu. Is that not a requirement to understand how koryu is conducted as a modern Japanese approach to its classical warrior tradition...not necessarily how its warrior tradition was actually conducted in its own time?

There is no doubt that we go to learn the modern Japanese approach, not the original - but that's not all, if the lineage is alive. I have a sense of - not communicating with Araki Muninsai - but rather, embodying him, and each of his successors, like a multi-leveled overlay. Each generation distorts/overlays/improves the original - but with the intact ryu, we can still get a sense of the founder. To some degree, I know internally what it felt like to be him.

So what happens next, so to speak? The enculturation is person to person, in large part, not based on living in the country One of my Greek Toda-ha Buko-ryu students moved to Japan, started training in the Japanese dojo - and I hear good things about him from the shihan there. He may still be learning aspects of Japanese culture or language, but he got Toda-ha Buko-ryu culture - and the language there is how well you cut and thrust with the weapon within the ryu's parameters.

I've never been big on the LARP aspect of koryu training (which is huge). I refused to buy a kimono, dressing at embu in just my practice uniform. I think it is conceivable that I may have a successor or two who never go to Japan. They may learn Araki-ryu culture without being versed in Japanese culture. I would expect that over some generations, it will change, but as long as they keep the basic operating system, they are doing Araki-ryu or Toda-ha Buko-ryu.
Best
Ellis

[Hissho]

Ellis

Thanks - very good stuff to chew on.

Perhaps it is destined to pretty much be an individual pursuit for people that want to go that far, rather than a group practice thing.

[pgsmith]

Thanks for starting a new thread Kit.

I feel like I need to clarify my thoughts in making my original statement. It was made in response to one by Johan about modern combatants, LEOs, military, etc ... While I agree whole-heartedly with Ellis that the koryu should be living entities, they cannot remove themselves entirely from the past and still be considered koryu.

Koryu, by their very definition, are based in the past. In order to still be koryu, they have to remain true to the weaponry and ideals of that past. If you were to utilize the teaching methods and ideals promulgated by your particular koryu, but purely in a modern format with modern weaponry, it could no longer be considered a koryu art as far as I can figure. While I can easily see how the methods and strategy of a koryu could be transferred to the utilization of modern weaponry, I feel that you would first have to learn the methods and strategy of the school through the traditional weaponry that they were created for. I don't see how it would be possible to transmit the essence of the school strictly using modern weaponry.


Perhaps it is destined to pretty much be an individual pursuit for people that want to go that far, rather than a group practice thing.
I think that's exactly true, and why the koryu are still as small as they are. There just aren't that many people willing to put in the effort required to learn it properly.

Those are my thoughts on it, for what they're worth. I readily acknowledge that I don't have nearly the koryu experience that Ellis does, nor the writing skills that both of you have shown to clearly share my thoughts and ideas, so I hope I haven't muddled them too badly. :)

[Ellis Amdur]

Paul - you are right, and/but:

1. By definition, a koryu has to have originated before the Meiji period - that's all.
2. Essentially speaking, I agree with you.
3. But - let's say I have some students who do modern military combatives and I teach them Araki-ryu or Toda-ha Buko-ryu from alpha to omega. They learn it all and understand it as well or better than I do. And then, they say, "we aren't going to use archaic weapons any more. We are going to use a modern knife, a trenching tool and fire arms, and we see a way to do all of that with x-ryu in every fiber of our actions. If they did that before receiving menkyo, I'd tell them to change the name. If they'd received menkyo, they would have full rights to call what they did Araki-ryu or Toda-ha Buko-ryu, if they so chose. By definition, whether one aesthetically likes it or not, they are continuing that particular ryu.

Ellis Amdur

[Hissho]

Paul - thanks for jumping back in, the contrast in perspectives is valuable.

But it calls to mind some things - IF that is true, WHY was there any idea at all that LE and military were more suited as koryu students in terms of Draeger's writing, or was that another Draeger overstatement, for lack of a better word.

Clearly that idea did not continue from the bulk of koryu students today.

And how does it remain "living" in the sense of preserving what it was (which was actually present-focussed) versus having become something different? Or is that living defined by the change from a combative and ethics discipline to a primarily historical and cultural one?

[pgsmith]

Ellis,
I see your point, but I don't have to like it! :) But by the same token, would it be possible for these students to be able to pass on the essence of Araki ryu or Toda-ha Buko ryu without the use of the archaic weapons that the training was developed around? Wouldn't that involve having to create totally new kata using modern weaponry and abandoning the old kata and the archaic weaponry?

Kit,
I agree with Mr. Draeger that those martially involved for a living make better koryu students because they don't have to imagine or simulate the stress of armed confrontation, as those not so involved would have to. As to keeping the koryu as 'living' entities, I believe that has to do more with how they are taught, rather than anything inherent in the koryu themselves. As I understand it, it is possible to use the underlying ideas and movements of the school no matter what the weapon in your hand is. As weapons change, additional movements and ideas may need to be added periodically. Those koryu (and I've encountered some) that are rote repetition of what was taught are merely museum pieces now. The underlying movement and methods have been lost, or insufficiently learned to be passed on, and they are now simply a preservation of what was originally conceived. While there is some value in that, I don't consider those 'living' koryu.

[Ellis Amdur]

Paul, you crack me up.:p

You write to me:

I see your point, but I don't have to like it!

And then to Kit

As to keeping the koryu as 'living' entities, I believe that has to do more with how they are taught, rather than anything inherent in the koryu themselves. As I understand it, it is possible to use the underlying ideas and movements of the school no matter what the weapon in your hand is. As weapons change, additional movements and ideas may need to be added periodically.

And you ask me:

But by the same token, would it be possible for these students to be able to pass on the essence of Araki ryu or Toda-ha Buko ryu without the use of the archaic weapons that the training was developed around? Wouldn't that involve having to create totally new kata using modern weaponry and abandoning the old kata and the archaic weaponry?

So here's the answer:
It depends on the ryu. It'd be a lot harder with Toda-ha Buko-ryu, to say the least. BUT still possible. AND - I see kata as simply "pattern practice." Maybe a certain modern weapon wouldn't require the kind of pattern practice we refer to as kata, anyway. These days, in Araki-ryu grappling, I have my guys do the torite kata one or two times (that's the general pattern) and then breaking the kata, do freestyle - still with ryu parameters. We do something similar with sword, actually - a "semi-freestyle, in which you start in one kata, and then you have three or four options, any one of which the other person has to be able to respond.

Could one do that with gun retention, for example? I couldn't - because I don't have the knowledge of firearms. But let's say Kit got back in the ryu, for example. Once he learned the ryu parameters on a bone-marrow level, could he? Of course.

Now, to be quite clear - I WANT to retain the archaic weapons, for a myriad of reasons. But that doesn't mean that one cannot a) add new training methods b) drop or add whole areas. See, here's the thing. If one is a warfighter, then one wants to do the very best one can, in training, for survival of self and team. If that is not a question - even philosophically - then you hear, "well, the people 600 years ago went to war, and I never fought with a nagamaki, so I won't change anything in this kata, because what can I possibly know?" As if, in that 600 year period, there are no changes.

Take TSKSR, that oh-so-unchanged and classical school. I can see discernible differences between Otake, father and son. Sugino and Otake did things differently, and in some ways, Otake's teacher, Hayashi, looks more like Sugino than he does like Otake. So multiply that through centuries. Maybe an occasional reboot is necessary. I've observed koryu, in person, for almost 40 years (quite aside from the ryu I've trained in) and I can see significant changes in other ryu, from the last generation to this.

Final point - maybe that reboot is necessary on a spiritual level. Rather than the smug - we, unlike you, do something <<<old>>>, and therefore we are special, or our ryu was tested in combat 570 years ago and so we are for real - maybe a question, from top to bottom, is in order, if only to keep oneself as honest as possible.

[Hissho]

Very interesting back and forth, gentlemen.

Ellis, FWIW most firearms practice is basically ONLY kata training - or kata and target shooting. Most firearms competition is actually kata competition, much in the same way tameshigiri competitions are judged and conducted, except with a time competitive element added.

One of the problems, in fact, with how firearms training is conducted is this fact, but that is a complicated discussion.

It does not lessen how critical kata is - patterning is exactly the right word -to ingrained firearms handling, especially as the stress goes up.

But handling a weapon well and handling a weapon well while in a combative situation while simultaneously having to make tactical decisions, deal with an opponents actions, and manage uncertainty are of another order altogether.

[Hissho]

A thought:

How much of this might be conditioned by the view of the ryu you do? (say that five times fast...)

A kogusoku system may naturally have more of a modern application simply because it involved parameters that still happen in the modern day.

Less so a sword or naginata system, as that kind of combat just doesn't happen. There is more of a remove because the things that are applicable in the latter are more in terms of principle and strategy. Teaching modern soldiers or SWAT cops naginata forms is along the lines of that mismatch I noted previously, at least for men running M-4s rather than contact weapons.

The former may stay more connected to the essence of practical application, and therefore more amenable to it, the latter may tend more toward historical preservation?

[Ellis Amdur]

Chris - I definitely agree with that. Couple that with the fact that group tactics in even police academy training is superior to that in almost any koryu, the link would be pretty tenuous

What I mean is that in the police academy, let's say you have two trainees practicing keeping their firearms both aimed at a potential aggressor while seeking cover and moving around. They are communicating with each other as to position, as to cover, as to any incoming individuals, and ensuring that they aren't standing in front of the other's weapon. There's nothing like that kind of practice in koryu, which trains almost exclusively in individualized combat - in other words, most koryu trains for duels rather than combat.

It is fair to say (and I know both military and police who would agree) that as individuals, they have benefited from koryu training in naginata, sword, or the like - but the benefits are, for the most part, mindset.

One can take an extreme position and assert, correctly, that a ryu, by definition, can innovate as they will, realistically speaking, I think you are correct. Those already practicing methodology that are analogous to combative requirements today (kogosoku or tantojutsu, for example) can (and should, I think) innovate, at least in training methodology. But it would be pretty silly for Morishige-ryu hojutsu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHH7lbfk9rA&feature=related) to be shifting to, for example, the M2HB 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine-gun, with a recent upgrade to the M2A1 standard.

So there is an interesting tension with innovation in koryu bujutsu, from the obvious to the edgy to the absurd.
1. Obvious - in Toda-ha Buko-ryu, there was a particular thrust with the ishizuki of the weapon. It was done in such a way that one could, if incautious, slide the blade right through one's hands. In discussions with Nitta sensei, we agreed that "incautious" is exactly what one would be in combat, and the way we were doing things compromised practice as well - (we were mannered rather than all out, to avoid cutting our hands). We made a simple adjustment in the grip - just as powerful, spacing the same, and no risk of (hypothetical) injury.
2. Edgy - My instructor in the "last" generation, and I in this generation, have, as I've already written, changed training methods in Araki-ryu, bringing back randori type training, and also breaking apart and reworking kata, so that they are, unquestionably more powerful.
3. Silly - Reinventing the wheel (adding information that can already be accessed elsewhere - why work on an absolutely "unarmed" style of grappling, when there is already judo, BJJ, wrestling and the like?) or adding weapons with no cultural link (Persian shamshir techniques for Kashima Shinto-ryu).
4. Worthwhile - taking something like gun retention - a simple cross-training study to ascertain if there is anything within a classical ryu's methods of kogusoku that would be worthwhile for a modern individual, information that was not otherwise available.

In sum, the tension is to maintain the old ("ko") while also maintaining the flow/connection (ryu) to this world we live. One can fail through maintaining a "living" museum piece, and one can fail by de-blooding the ryu through empty innovation, ahistorical or culturally heterodox amalgamation. One could add jazz to a Mozart sonata - but it would be trivial, and probably ugly. But some of the best jazz pianists were classically trained.

best
Ellis Amdur

[Kendoguy9]

Kit,

It's funny you mentioned teaching naginata to cops. One of my Daito-ryu sempai also studies naginata. He told me years ago that he found the naginata training more useful for police work than Daito-ryu because of the maai it teaches (I think this was along the line of the "why women should study koryu weapons" article Mrs. Skoss wrote a number of years back). I am assuming this has to do with keeping suspects at a better distance so you never have to get hands on with them in a fist fight. This goes into some of the tactics vs. survival conversations we've had though. In a perfect world good tactics should be all you need but the world ain't perfect and cops get ambushed all the time. I wish I would have questioned him further on the topic. I should look him up and try to get more information from him. I think this also depends on what sort of cop you are and what you do too. A guy on patrol I think needs to keep a greater maai than someone like me who has more of a CO type job, has fewer tools and needs to do it in a shorter maai.

[Hissho]

Kit,

It's funny you mentioned teaching naginata to cops. One of my Daito-ryu sempai also studies naginata. He told me years ago that he found the naginata training more useful for police work than Daito-ryu because of the maai it teaches ...

...I am assuming this has to do with keeping suspects at a better distance so you never have to get hands on with them in a fist fight. This goes into some of the tactics vs. survival conversations we've had though. In a perfect world good tactics should be all you need but the world ain't perfect and cops get ambushed all the time. I wish I would have questioned him further on the topic. I should look him up and try to get more information from him. I think this also depends on what sort of cop you are and what you do too. A guy on patrol I think needs to keep a greater maai than someone like me who has more of a CO type job, has fewer tools and needs to do it in a shorter maai.

I remember, and I would want to ask him what exactly he meant by that.

I think that a (naginata) maai is probably common in the kinds of situations where you have a prior warning of a higher threat. Which is actually most of them. In that case, it would be more useful.

The difference is at that range, if you can control the range (and many times you can when you call out a relatively cooperative guy who is obeying commands or at least not actively engaging you), your better option is projectile weapons, not contact weapons: lethal, less lethal (taser and/or munitions) and those in combination (this is where Ellis makes a really good point about team tactics and communication). This is of course the PREFERABLE thing to do in most tactical/higher threat situations. So I am good there...


However cops SHOULD NOT BE FIST FIGHTING WITH SUSPECTS. If you are there, things have gone wrong and it prolongs an encounter to try to keep distance rather than breaking distance and escalating to a weapon or closing and putting a suspect down rapidly (or closing and accessing a weapon while tying him up, but that is more advanced skill that most cops frankly do not have).

Striking has a place in both those things, but in the same sense that it has in jujutsu/kogusoku: it is a distraction and a force multiplier, not a pugilistic fight.

If the distraction finishes it, great!


Since less lethal weapons are often not effective with highly motivated subjects, and Tasers have some real problems just with the way the weapon works (we have a pretty high failure rate), at that distance, you really don't have much time to operate if the suspect is not affected by the LL and closes the distance.

Regardless, no matter HOW you deal with a suspect you will eventually have to go hands on. This is where a lot of sudden attacks and weapon grab attempts occur. In this case those with base grappling abilities are far better prepared than those without.

With most lethal encounters occurring inside that naginata range, I would rather spend more of my time working there. It is far less frequent, but far more dangerous when you end up there. Likewise with ground: the officer being in a bad spot on the ground is rare (only once in my career), but it is exponentially so much more dangerous that I think spending more time on it is vital.

Having the increased confidence at the close range bleeds over into the ideal ranges that something like a naginata range would offer, or further out if you can control your approach and contain his movement.

Goes way beyond the koryu discussion, I know.

[Hissho]

To beat the dead horse bloody, my last post I think points to why I have so much passion on this subject.

I think that for the kinds of circumstances described (foreknowledge of the threat, ability to tactically deploy and communicate prior to arrival) LE does a pretty good job of training its folks. We do pretty good for when we have the initiative, the scene is relatively controlled, and the like...

Where I think that things like kogusoku might inform LE is in when things don't go so well, and when the officer is ambushed, jumped, behind the curve, looses initiative, etc.

I think this because the "go-to" choice is now basically taking purely sportive methods (MMA, BJJ these days), or a limited, dueling format, low impact weapons base (FMA), and adopting them to law enforcement: with little contextually based adaptation.

A very close quarters, weapons environment based, and reactionary behind-the-curve weapons access/transition based methodology just makes more contextual sense than either sport grappling or armed dueling methods. And since that is already within the most commonly encountered distances it would seem to offer a lot in survival circumstances.

Provided a force on force and decision making component was included as a strong element.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of even police survival training is simply not preparing officers for this kind of thing. Lakewood still reverberates up here in Washington State, and I must say in particular with me because of these beliefs/ideas, and a failure to address the problem realistically.

[Kendoguy9]

I don't think it is such a bad idea to beat this dead horse bloody honestly. The reminder is very important to LEO and also just as useful for the civilian budo students. Beat away Kit, beat away!

[Cliff Judge]

Here's my personal two cents.

There are two things that motivated me from the outset to find my way into koryu training:

A) I wanted a deep connection to Japan's past. In particular, I wanted to train in a way that was founded by a guy who lived that kind of life in that age.

B) I wanted to gain proficiency with antique, Japanese weapons.

I don't think you can take koryu away from these things, they are roots.

But what keeps me training is the process of 1) learning the proper form 2) repeating it endlessly 3) ?. And that training process, I think, can actually be abstracted from the roots of Japanese warrior tradition and medieval weapons practice.

Furthermore, I don't think the goal of any koryu was ever something as simple as producing a technically proficient fighting person. I think the essence of any koryu is something very abstract, like a "modality of consciousness," that enables a well-trained practitioner to meet and handle any type of situation with the spirit of the ryu, whether its on the streets or in a conference room.

[Hissho]

A) I wanted a deep connection to Japan's past. In particular, I wanted to train in a way that was founded by a guy who lived that kind of life in that age.

But how much a connection to the past is it if it has continued to "live" and been changed over the years? It may not be much like what the guy who founded it actually founded....

Not that this a bad thing with a living tradition because...


.... what keeps me training is the process of 1) learning the proper form 2) repeating it endlessly 3) ?. And that training process, I think, can actually be abstracted from the roots of Japanese warrior tradition...


Furthermore, I don't think the goal of any koryu was ever something as simple as producing a technically proficient fighting person. I think the essence of any koryu is something very abstract, like a "modality of consciousness," that enables a well-trained practitioner to meet and handle any type of situation with the spirit of the ryu, whether its on the streets or in a conference room.

And that is really the crux of this discussion.

On Wayne Muromoto's blog he has an interesting post. (http://classicbudoka.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/48-oh-yeah-and-the-trouble-with-koryu/) A comment he made resonated with me in light of this discussion


wmuromoto

Anna, I saw your post. Interesting start, and I’m hopeful that you’ll offer more insights into koryu for the academic world to make it a legitimate field of study. Draeger and the hoplology group he instigated was one way of looking at koryu, but there are other ways to approach it, academically. I tend to look at the practice of koryu from the eyes of an artist, as an art form, since my own training is as an artist. But anthropologists, sociologists, behaviorists, historians, philosophers…they can all look at koryu and see different things, as if we were the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant.
–Wayne

I like your Modality of Consciousness comment: especially about adapting to any situation. It reminds me of some of the stuff that Draeger was writing about in the early IHS material. Not in terms of hoplological study and budo/bujutsu and whatnot, but in terms of mental training, etc. I have revisited that and found that he was talking about a lot things that are coming back in the form of Force Science and the like, but with him it was the result of training in koryu and the worldview that it is founded upon, though perhaps rarely trained today.

Part of that discussion was the whole emic/etic thing: but emic pretty much stopped at someone practicing a tradition and commenting on it from the inside. A deeper order of emic may in fact be someone practicing a tradition (a given) and applying it in a similar context for which it was intended.

[Hissho]

So, continuing on: when I referred to Draeger's early writing I mean the stuff he was talking about with fudoshin, zanshin, suki, and the like, and the training process and how it either developed those things in the case of the former and worked against it in the case of the latter. Pure "classical force science" stuff.

How does that relate to kata and to Force on Force and to what we might understand from the modern perspective?

Well - and pointing back to Wayne's article linked above - for the dilettante practitioner (I like that) - it won't practically relate at all.

For the truly serious practitioner that is properly trained it relates a great deal.

Folks writing about Draeger have talked about his presence, his intent, when he was doing kata. We all know you can watch the same kata from the same ryu done by different people and see radically different things going on, not technically but in terms of the intent, sometimes independent of the level of experience or the rote technical skill of the practitioner.

The pressure that such intent presents to the partner is a critical thing in what I am talking about here, it is both psychological and physical, and is the beginning of "stress inoculation" with the early stages of kata and it is the end of that process when the kata is broken and a more dynamic and open ended practice ensues.

I was always taught with this pressure, and that things are supposed to open up like that, pretty quickly after the basics of a kata were learned. I have talked at length with others on this, and lessons in another ryu whave been shared with me by some of my CQC students as related to Force on Force training having to do with a close gunfight that we work on. Some of the folks were having stumbling blocks dealing with how to move on a threat, how to deal with them with presence and voice commands, etc. and the drivers I was talking about were put in, for them, more concrete terms of sen and kiai and Kizeme.


Starting with the simple- the uncomfortable "eye contact" and personal space - up to the potential pain penalty of working more and more quickly with hard wooden weapons, even rote kata - done with that pressure - can be made increasingly more challenging by an experienced uke who keeps ramping up the pressure.

Common knowledge, if maybe not common practice, in koryu.

Until this pressure actually happens, you actually are not training anything other than rote movement and technique. If you are at that level in terms of personal practice (thinking about the actual technique, how your body is organized and re-organizing in the interplay of the action; how to generate force; move your feet; how to hold your weapon; how to manipulate your weapon....so on) you will not be able to learn to deal with pressure effectively and the only reason it "works" is because it is a kata and the other guy does what he is supposed to do. That is very low level practice in terms of force on force and psychologically it is referred to as an "internal focus."

If that is ALL you ever do, foot position, how to move your body and weapon, etc. or worse - worried about what it "looks" like ("you'll get marked down if your foot is turned out two degrees at that angle..."), then what you are actually doing is internally focussed beginning training. You can do this for twenty years, but if you never move beyond this to the external focus on the situation and the environment you are still practicing in a manner suited to only to rank beginners.

This applies to an "internal" focus on the uke as well, which is also bad: getting tangled up in how he is moving, what he is doing, etc. For kata this would simply going through the motions because you 'know' he is going to do XYZ next. This would be stopping the kata because he did something different than what he was supposed to do....

And patterning things like that can get you killed in real life.

Patterning them properly - through kata training that is "alive" and with partners who can provide this pressure - can save your life.

I believe it did mine.

[Hissho]

Drawing this to a conclusion -

Where I think the practice applies is not necessarily in the technique.

However, it appears that this is where many people practicing today seem to go - the technicalities, the fact that a soke may change something, the fact that a different line does something slightly differently, whether one's feet are in idori ('live") or seiza ("dead"),the slight turn of a blade etc.

Probably nothing new - we are told tales of warriors surging forward to witness a duel or fight about to happen between exponents of other ryu to get a look at what techniques they do or what exactly X-ryu's Tsukikage looks like.... Or the hubbub surrounding Sasaki's "swallow cut" in light of the fight with Musashi....

Then there are the tales of the guy that knew nothing, never really studied the ryu, and yet had inured themselves to the thought of their death - getting brushed a menkyo kaiden on the spot, with the "you've learned the highest teaching already, there is nothing I can teach you..."

Probably apocryphal but speaking to the more important aspect; its not in the techniques. Its in how you practice them.

(Not to say that it is not important,traditional or modern times, to have technical skill. Some people have on the flip side gone so far down the primrose path of "principle based" that many have found they have mastered principles and yet still can't fight. I have watched it in person several times and it is not pretty.)

I think that what is supposed to be offered in a truly intense, seriously committed practice is exactly what was termed that "meeting with death." It was an "in person" way to practice the idea of "saving your life by throwing it away." One wonders whether the later writers who expounded on that whole death thing were already misunderstanding what their forebears meant...

Not a literal death, because it was training. Only people who haven't experienced the real thing would consider training the same thing. But today we can see via scientific research that the stressors the body goes through in intensive training mimic the same kinds of things you experience in combat.

Therefore, it was in the same sense of conditioning yourself to deal with potential pain and injury, yet keep your wits about you and do what you are supposed to do. This inoculatesyou (in quality training, that is...) to learn to do this when it IS real.

Then, after you've done it a few times for real you bring the lessons back and it informs your training so you can get to higher levels, and progress cyclically like that.

Why is this important? There is that pressure again.

I revisit the discussion above regarding naginata maai to draw comparisons in when it would be totally valid.....

Encounter 1:

Say an officer steps out on a call with a knife wielding subject.The man is clearly agitated and his intent is now directed at the officer. He has just murdered his family, and is resolved to suicide by cop, but intends to take as many officers with him as possible. This man is pure intent, and is committed to throwing his life away.

This is in real life a tremendous force multiplier, and makes even the unskilled highly dangerous adversaries. In particular because he has psyched up and prepped himself and officer has gone in relatively cold.

So, now the officer defaults to training. If he is a typical cop, he has received a relatively weak physical base and a rather nebulous treatment of something called "mindset" that many trainers have simply tossed out there as something he needs to have when it is real. There has been very little actual work or progress on how to identify what that kind of mindset or intent looks like and little or no practice on how to manifest it or actually train for it.

So, this officer might immediately go into an internal state: can I handle this, how did my gun just get in my hand? I hope I am good enough...?....oh, crap he sees me! He's charging toward me? Why would he do that doesn't he see I have gun??!??? What was that stupid Rule thing, how close does he have to get? Oh man I don't want to have to sh....god I shot him!!!! I shot him!!! I shot him!!!!

He is having a difficult time controlling the adrenal dump he is experiencing because he spends so little time practicing in any meaningful adrenalized context, his breathing and heart rate have spiked and he is not used to feeling that way and it is frightening.

This internal mind state will likely be accompanied by obvious physical manifestations of great stress, backpedaling, uncertainty and unsure movement, a clear lack of recognition of danger based on interval (maai) and initiative (charging subject), a high pitched, even unintelligible screaming because the vocal chords are fine motor skills and he has done little practice with vocalization and breathing under dynamic stress, and a marked lack of intent directed at the threat, with perhaps a shying away, partial turning away, staccato movement....

This all reads to our motivated man with the knife as "PREY." And we know the classic bushi saying....the "weak are meat, the strong eat."


The picture should already be obvious to most people, but to paint the eyes on the dragon....

Encounter 2:

Instead our officer is very highly trained. He gets some force on force in his regular work, but mostly the SWAT team gets that so he gets limited exposure and its usually pretty basic due to some other officers having trouble with it every year.

But he has been receiving quality training in a koryu for a number of years, alongside a few other very intense practitioners including a special forces Afghanistan vet, and they have seriously worked on this element of their practice...

He instantly recognizes that he has a motivated subject full of malevolent intent. He has seen enough of that pattern both through his work, but also it has been modelled for him in his training by people who know what that looks like. This is not the kind of guy he is going to be talking to or negotiating with....he is aware of the potential threat the knife presents, but has trained against edged weapons, and he is also aware that he has a very high chance of survival even if he does get cut....

His weapon appears in his hand without conscious effort, and he has ingrained his handgun skills as often if not more than his koryu practice. He has also thought a lot about some of the kata he does in the dojo and considered what he would do if he were faced with a similar weapon in the real world, and how he might engage with his firearm.

He feels the adrenal dump but he's pushed his physical limits with intense training and he has felt this feeling before - many times - and it is no longer incapacitating it is in fact empowering.

He barks a command to drop the weapon! It is deep and clear and has the penetrating character of the kiai that he has practiced so often. His posture is upright, his gaze is piercing and serious and...calm, rather than a wide eyed, teeth bared, dog-in-fear action.

This last action causes the man with the knife to hesitate just a moment...wait a minute, that guy means business! He's serious! He probably actually will kill me...

In that moment of hesitation the officer has moved off his initial line, gained some distance and more time to focus on a good shot. He barks a command again but can tell that the hesitation is momentary, its actually just like one of the kata especially when his buddy the vet does it and tries to sucker him in that one move..... so he is already taking the slack out of the trigger and moving his weapon into his eye line. He is moving smoothly, he appears to be stalking game (indeed it has become that...), his hips level even on the rough terrain which has the added benefit of minimizing the bounce of his handgun sights as he is driving the weapon toward the subject as if it was a spear.

And the man charges! The officer knew it and retains his predator posture, rather than shying away or flinching at the subject's ferocious approach. Indeed there is a instant that the subject closes his eyes and drops his head ever so slightly- he KNOWS he is going to be shot, his intention has wavered a brief instant and in that instant the officer is utterly free of the pressure of the incoming threat and gets the sight picture he needs for a center mass hit.....

And the officer is left standing. He maintains cover on the suspect, who is writhing around on the ground still screaming, knife still in hand, and still a very active threat. He orders him again to drop the knife. He gets on the radio and in a controlled manner radios that shots are fired, that he is okay, that a suspect is down and that he needs medical response. Everyone on the radio hears him and instead of the pandemonium that sometimes erupts when a fellow officer is screaming "shots fired" on the radio, people are amped, but they are responding more calmly because they know their fellow officer is okay and he sounded like he had everything under control.


Inspired in part by Ellis' story (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=294147&postcount=3)of the SMR jo guy's shooting in Hawaii....

[johan smits]

Since this thread is about adapting koryu ;) I have been thinking about the history of jujutsu outside of Japan. Because I believe adapting koryu began way earlier in the USA and Europe.
The early Japanese teachers in Europe and the USA were trained in koryu.
Fusen-ryu, Tenjin Shinyo-ryu, Tsutsumi Hozan ryu (may be debatable), Yoshin-ryu and maybe Ryoi Shinto ryu, and maybe others but this is from memory.
Now not all of them may have been shihan or menkyo kaiden, or whatever but they did teach their systems. They did so however without teaching the kata, or esoteric training,etc, they taught practical technques for self-defense.

Although the jujutsu in Europe has been here for a little over 100 years it is still different from the original. Some may call it bleak, some may not call it jujutsu at all. Some may call it an improvement.
The techniques practised early on in Europe resulted in a so called ' open system' (easily influenced for good or for bad by other systems; judo, karate, aikido). This made a lot of the jujutsu practised, technically not really sound systems and it really ( in my opinion) devaluates the art.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[pgsmith]

Thanks for the interesting additions to the conversation folks, I've just had the opportunity to catch up.

I see what you are getting at in your scenarios Kit. However, I think that the difference would be due more to the training methods employed in the koryu, rather than simply training in a koryu art itself. I think that training modality could be employed just as effectively outside the confines of the koryu.

Personal opinion alert ... I think that the Skosses' contention that "if you want koryu, go to Japan" is still valid for the most part. Not because of any need to immerse oneself in the society that created the koryu, but because that is where the vast majority of senior koryu practicioners are. There are still only a relatively small number of koryu practicioners outside of Japan that have put in the time under seniors of the art that is necessary to understand and promote the underlying ideas and methods of the ryu. The rest of us struggle to work and understand under less than ideal conditions. I know that I don't have enough years left to me to fully understand what I'm studying now, but that still doesn't stop me from enjoying it. Since I am not an LE professional, it is not a life or death situation for me. Thus I am free to study my chosen koryu just because it interests me.

Johan,
I think the problem with most of the 'jujutsu' systems is exactly what I referred to in my personal opinion paragraph. They were taught to people for a time only. The vast majority of those early jujutsu practitioners did not study long enough under the right conditions to truly understand the underpinnings of the schools that were taught. They then took their (relatively) shallow understanding and went out on their own. It's why most of the modern jujutsu systems are simply a collection of 'techniques', because the originators did not study long enough to understand the underlying concepts that the 'techniques' were created to teach.

just my opinions based on my relatively minor experience. Feel free to squash them if I'm off the mark.

[johan smits]

Paul,
I think you are right about the way jujutsu turned out, as you say a collection of techniques with a substantial element missing.
This may be the reason why more than a few practitioners of modern jujutsu have gotten interested in koryu jujutsu. Probably with the idea that what they feel is missing in their art might be learned from one of the parent arts. This may be a good idea or it may not be. For myself I have
mixed feelings about this.
I do think several Japanese teachers lived in Europe for some years and they should have had enough time, with dedicated students to get a more in depth training across. It is my believe that those Japanese teachers chose to not teach kata but to teach applied techniques immediately suitable for selfdefense.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

You'd still be advised to teach self defense "tricks" rather than kata if you wish to make a living teaching budo these days. There is little general interest in the koryu in any form these days and there has never really been much in the time I've been around.

Kim.

[pgsmith]

There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the idea of koryu, just not much interest in the actuality. :)

[Maro]

Inspired in part by Ellis' story (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=294147&postcount=3)of the SMR jo guy's shooting in Hawaii....

I want to hear more about the broomstick dude. If it took the police officer 3 rounds and SMR training, what did the other guy have?

[Kendoguy9]

"There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the idea of koryu, just not much interest in the actuality."

One of the guys that studies with me comes from a BJJ/Kickboxing background. He became interested in samurai culture, old Japanese budo, etc. He got hooked up with my group doing Daito-ryu. He did his research and found that Daito-ryu had everything he was looking for. He started training. When he came to us there were only two people training: me and my training partner/co-teacher (now there are 6 of us on a regular basis with a few others that come in when they can). This guy tells everyone, "Wow, when I started I couldn't figure out why more people aren't doing this awesome, ancient, legit martial art!?!" After his first six months into training he finished the story, "It's because it hurts, a lot!" BJJ, judo, kick boxing, MMA, etc. are fun. Daito-ryu is not. The idea of it is pretty awesome though :)

[Joseph Svinth]

Boxing is fun? An average of about 8-10 people a year die while boxing. And that's down from the 1920s, when an average of about 25-30 people died while boxing. And even if you don't die while boxing (most people don't), you stiil get a documented injury rate (as in requiring medical attention involving a trip to the emergency room or requiring stitches) of about 35-40%. I didn't know Daito-ryu had that kind of injury rate. How do you keep people coming?

[Hissho]

I think that the Skosses' contention that "if you want koryu, go to Japan" is still valid for the most part. Not because of any need to immerse oneself in the society that created the koryu, but because that is where the vast majority of senior koryu practicioners are. There are still only a relatively small number of koryu practicioners outside of Japan that have put in the time under seniors of the art that is necessary to understand and promote the underlying ideas and methods of the ryu.

Yes, and I want to be clear that I mean basing it on genuine study with legitimate seniors, either overseas or in Japan. Not the kind of thing you are talking about with the jujutsu mentioned.

I am opining, in part, that a professional may have more access, so to speak, to some of the core teachings simply due to experience to that life and death experience.

Much hay is made in some quarters of the fact that modern budo is not "truly martial art," that practitioners with background in that true martial art have a different perspective, and that "Professional Perspective" has even been given a nod in sources from IHS to Koryu Books, and others (one old article I have directly compares the elements of koryu training to law enforcement, from this true martial art perspective) and all from people who are those seniors or have connection to those seniors, so I don't think this is too off the mark.

Though it probably does depend on the ryu and the practitioners.

[johan smits]

We are treating koryu as if it is one category (ryu created before 1868 or so?) But then koryu before has been adapted back in the old days is it not so? A lot of the 'younger'jujutsu styles have lost their combative edge and geared towards the selfdefence around 1840's. The styles may have been (or are tough) but surely different from the older koryu.

It may be so that people may be more interested in the idea of koryu than in it's actual practice. That may be because practitoners of modern arts are looking for their roots to become better at those arts and on the other side because of limited availabillity.
The last thing is by the way improving. You can train in maybe 7 or so or maybe even 10 different styles in koryu in Europe at the moment.

It still is a funny subject. There was a lot of argument and discussion here on e-budo - way back about people training in a style which was not considered legit back then. Katori Shinto ryu Sugino-ha. Back then it was the only thing available here in Europe. But this got a lot of people's hakama twisted all up the wrong way. And what has happended since?

Katori Shinto ryu has become really well presented overhere. That is for a large part thanks to Sugino sensei and Mochizuki sensei who started teaching their arts overhere and to the people who got interested and kept training.

So I guess if koryu people do not get their hakama's twisted too much there is a real chance koryu will get settled overhere.

Oh and by the way:
Budo in Europe in a nutshell.
Judo is a sport, jujutsu is not jujutsu and aikido is chasing guys is skirts and jojutsu is a bunch or broomstick dude's . :D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[johan smits]

Just two more things, since the thread is about adapting koryu.
It would seem to me that if koryu are going to spread and if koryu wants to take a place next to all the other arts that are practiced it is almost certainly it needs to be adapted (by those in the know and licensed to do so).

Otherwise (but that is how I see it) it will be become mere playing samurai and if that happens it will become more difficult for people to give it a real place in their lives in this day and age.

I feel koryu (as all things) should be practical and of use to people.

I have been reminded that I have left out two important arts which are trained in Europe. Ninjitsu of which we never see a thing (obvious is it not?) and karate - the art of the empty-hand which almost surely must have originated in Greece and not in Japan.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Eric Joyce]

Very good discussion so far. As I read through the posts, I was reminded of an article that I read from time to time that sort of relates to the discussion. Enjoy: http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_CreativityandChange.htm

[Cron]

About the possibility of studying Koryu in Europe:

In Germany we have a lot: Hozoin ryu Takada-ha, Ono-ha Itto ryu, Tenjin Shinyo ryu, Katori Shinto ryu, Moto-ha yoshin ryu, Kanshin ryu, Mugai ryu, Hyoho Niten ichi ryu, Hontai Yoshin ryu, Daito ryu, Tenshinsho Jigen ryu, Shinto Muto ryu, Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin ryu and Kashima Shin ryu.

But the community is still very small.

[johan smits]

Well koryu is certainly 'on the move'. Some time ago a sort of koryu conference was held in The Netherlands. I have spoken to some people who attended. From what I understand it's participants can be categorized.
1 / those whose lineage is proven and beyond a doubt.
2 / those whose lineage, well is somehow, someway, in a sense maybe a bit problematic.
3 / those who would run around with pointy ears and elveswords if the "lord of the rings"movies would have been made twenty years earlier. Since this is not the case they play koryu.

As a happy outsider I can state that the first category is easiest. Go and train with them and you will be part of the glorious few (that is if you are found to be worthy of teaching).
The third catogory is also easy to recognize. Let's face it when you, in this day and age, are not abel to find enough information about the background of people you are willing to train under than well ... you deserve those pointy ears. You will probably get those ears as soon as you take part in the demonstrations of said masters - for certain if they are teaching koryu sword arts.:D

The second category proves difficult. Their lineage is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They may have trained for scores of years under capable teachers in a koryu. They may be very knowledgeable and skillfull.
But what if their teacher or their koryu is not a member of 'certain' organisations? Or are maybe not mentioned in certain books about the subject?

We are living in interesting times.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[Cron]

The second category proves difficult. Their lineage is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They may have trained for scores of years under capable teachers in a koryu. They may be very knowledgeable and skillfull.
But what if their teacher or their koryu is not a member of 'certain' organisations? Or are maybe not mentioned in certain books about the subject?


Could you be more precise?

Are you refering to some special school? I realy want to know what you mean...

Concerning the schools I posted: As far as I know all have a very close relationship to Japan or one of the main teacher.

Best,

[johan smits]

Hi Cron,

I was not referring to a special school or style. But I feel koryu can be categorized in the three categories I mentioned.
But even then it is not easy. Politics are always a part of it. Where do you draw the line? And even better, who draws the line?

Suppose there is a faction of a school of which the mainline has been in existence for over 150 years. 135 years ago a faction split off from the mainline. The mainline is mentioned in the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten (the book which can not be translated - I got it on good authority) but the faction is not. Does this mean that the faction (still intact en practiced today) is not koryu? Because the there is something wrong with their lineage?

Koryu practitioners seem to me to be a clannish lot. So who do you believe apart from those you want to believe?

But apart from this all. The subject of the thread is about adapting koryu. It would be interesting (nothing more) if people with a lot of experience in koryu would particpate and delve into things.
But then maybe you don't discuss these things with outsiders (I would not know, I do not do koryu).

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

ps I was certainly not referring to you or your post. I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

[Kim Taylor]

Koryu practitioners seem to me to be a clannish lot. So who do you believe apart from those you want to believe?


Some old schools are secretive I suspect, some just don't care much (and so don't make any effort to get out there) and some wear their hearts on their sleeves. Same with new schools. We always come down to the definition of koryu and we've been getting there since before the net. Just what is a koryu?

If it's an art that started before 1868 then your split off group works, as does any art that can prove it started before 1868. This seems a simple and easy definition to work with until we run into Kendo. Check out the wikipedia article and look at the history section... Kendo seems to have its roots firmly pre-1868 with many of the great leaders of undisputed koryu kenjutsu schools being key to the development of this adaptation of the koryu called gekkiken and then kendo.

Is Kendo a koryu? For a lot of folks the boat of pre-1868 sinks right here. Kendo is a modern sport and so can't be a koryu or an adaptation of koryu! Or if it is an adaptation of koryu then adaptations of koryu mean it isn't koryu any more! Judo? OK then BJJ? Canadian/American/etc JuJutsu?

Thing is, everything comes from somewhere so it's really a personal preference rather than a definable moment where you put the line between old and new. I figure every single generation of instructor is "new" and all those that came before are koryu so therefore there is no such thing as koryu at all, or rather, the koryu are dead and gone, buried with our teacher.

Do blooded tribesmen want to believe their bunch is the only legitimate group in the forest? Absolutely, it's part of being in a group to be protective of that group. That doesn't mean that anyone gets to play koryu kop and dictate what's legitimate or not.

But, you say, pulling a very old chestnut out of a fire, what about the fakes?

It's always been simple to tell the fakes from the real ones. Just ask one question, "who's your granny?" It's how the old women in the village tell whether or not you belong. Do I know your people?

If my teachers have never heard of a koryu, or if we can't make some sort of connection somewhere back a generation or two, I'm going to call "stranger" and take whatever you have to say about my village with a big grain of salt.

I actually do this a lot, every new student I meet who has previous experience in the martial arts I ask them to name their teacher, or their teacher's teacher and if I still don't know them I ask them what their art is. I feel much more comfortable if they name someone I know.

We are, after all, just sociable apes.

Kim.

[Hissho]

Perhaps it really will mostly boil down to the individual tradition, or even the individual teacher - as we have been warned before of painting things with too broad a brush.

For my part in the conversation at hand, I returned to some descriptions and articles on SMR Jo, which had an overt interest in adapting to police work.

That may be a function of how functional the ryu may in fact be for adaptation: you are going to have more direct application for modern use with things like jo and SMR's other arts, as well as torite and kogusoku, than necessarily with swords and naginata, and the overall emphasis of the ryu may color any views toward adaptation.

There may be some other benefits, perhaps as a means of counteracting the kind of foolishness seen in examples of wholesale adoption of sport grappling to police work as I posted in CQC.

[johan smits]

Granny's, blooded tribesmen and sociable apes.
Kim did you pay my dojo a visit, incognito? Just asking since I got three individuals of each brand. ;)

The fakes are not the major problem anymore I think. Thanks to a lot of people who have been long time residents in Japan and who have made information available on the net.
And naturally the quality of the books published these days.
The fakes are there and will probably always be there. The good thing about them is that the arts are getting a lot of attention. Far more then when only the hard-nosed koryu practitioners (the legit's) would make information available.
The serious students will, in the end, come to the genuine teachers, I am sure of that.

The next problem however is what I mentioned earlier is who is legitimit and who not. Where do you draw the line?
The fact that a ryu or faction is not mentioned in a book is not a good enough argument to rule some people out. The perfect book has not been written and will not be written. No can do (contrary to what some people want us to believe). By the way I am not talking about the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten - that one has been written already it just cannot be translated).

Why do I care? Well frankly because I am interested in koryu. Do I train in it? Nope. Do I want to train in it? Maybe. In case I never got to train in it do I miss something? Nope. Does a koryu, in which I do not train miss anything? Hardly.
But enough about me and my motives.
Being who I am and knowing the other sociable apes to be a clannish lot, grannies and blooded fellows included I see the danger that other people will start to tell who is genuine and who not.
And I feel there is a huge responsabillity for each individual to seek things out for her/himself.
I do not want others to tell me what to think I want them to give me information so I can draw my own conclusions.

Back to subject.

Koryu and adaptation. How could (or should) koryu adapt to students outside of Japan? As a teacher I find this an interesting question.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

Koryu and adaptation. How could (or should) koryu adapt to students outside of Japan? As a teacher I find this an interesting question.

Having had all my training in the west outside Japan, a lot of it in various koryu, I don't really think about adapting the koryu to the west at all. The stuff I'm learning is the stuff that they are teaching in the westernized Japan of today.

We have some very senior instructors visit from Japan who have called some of our long-time Japanese-Canadians "real old-time samurai" because they are more or less from the previous generation in their attitudes to practice and etc. Their Japanese is also "old time" I assume, like any other group that moves away from home and essentially freezes their culture while the folks back home move on. In other words, the koryu outside Japan might actually be more old-time than the koryu in Japan, by a generation. Put another way, being immersed in the changing Japanese culture, the koryu would change without anyone noticing. Take it out of Japan and it freezes in time until the connections are reestablished.

The koryu adapt simply because the students are of the next generation and in order to talk to them you have to speak their language.

On Shindo Muso-ryu and adapting to policing, that's not much of a stretch at all. Jodo was a policing art from it's beginnings in Fukuoka and Shimizu sensei took it into the Tokyo keishicho many years ago. A lot of the top instructors are still in the various keishicho dojo.

I'm not sure we're all on the same page as to our definition of adaptation really. Do we mean teaching in English (or Dutch or German or Italian) in the west? (Shiiya sensei was just in Italy teaching jodo, when he comes to Canada it's sometimes a bit of a jolt when he gives us instruction in Italian or tells us that if we don't move our heads we'll be "kaputt")

Or do we mean taking a kata from a koryu and teaching it to a policeman and expecting him to use it on the street? Even the old samurai would not be using that kata "on the street", but he would certainly be using the body mechanics learned within... getting out of the way of anything being swung at your head is a pretty basic and useful thing.

Or do we mean some sort of mental training? Military basic training, the militaristic traditional western approach to Karate, the training of elite athletes, all these things can promote mental toughness and a certain "get it done" attitude that can be useful in many areas of life. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything in Koryu that cannot be found elsewhere unless we go for the magical/religious appeals to the kami. Not sure any police force anywhere is going to start believing in magical thinking though. ;-)

Kim.

[johan smits]

Hi Kim,

I understand what you mean - I have been told that if I want to experience the Dutch and the Dutch mentality of several decennia ago I should go to the Dutch societies outside of Holland, they tend you be very conservative.

You are probably spot on with the koryu in and out of Japan.
Another example from personal experience. I will not mention any names but over the years I have pestered quite a lot people (koryu practitioners) with my questions. Even with very reasonable questions some of them were very secretive. And in all honesty I was not asking for ' inside information'.
So some people were just not inclined to help.
The info I was asking for was provided without any problem by another teacher ( litterly: ' do your best and have fun training' ).

As a teacher myself I am intrigued in what way a koryu would provide for let's say a change in curriculum or in order of curriculum to teach.
As an example: idori is often a very difficult posture. Suppose it is taught in the beginning section of a certain koryu. Would it be possible for us ' stiff Westerners' to alter the order of learning and first learn tachiai instead of idori? To get used to the movement/ideas, etc of said school?
And I have got other examples, this is just one.

The average Westerner is rather critical and asks a lot of questions. This may not be the ' right ' attitude in practising koryu. But as a teacher I think a curriculum should (for a part be made to) fit the students.
Now there may be some slack given to foreign students but that is not exactly what I mean. Do koryu adapt (will they adapt) to the teaching and other circumstances of their students in the West.

Training for twenty years to get graded is a very long time. This may be convenient to some teachers or organizations but is it really necessary?
Is it smart to do when koryu has to compete with a lot of other interests/activities people are experiencing today?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

As a teacher myself I am intrigued in what way a koryu would provide for let's say a change in curriculum or in order of curriculum to teach.
As an example: idori is often a very difficult posture. Suppose it is taught in the beginning section of a certain koryu. Would it be possible for us ' stiff Westerners' to alter the order of learning and first learn tachiai instead of idori? To get used to the movement/ideas, etc of said school?
And I have got other examples, this is just one.

One of my teachers (Muso Jikiden) went from one end of the curriculum to the other and then started over, so he teaches that way. Another (Muso Shinden) was taught the first kata for over a year before moving on to the next. Both were taught in Japan.

I have never thought much about changing the teaching order really, mostly because I don't have classes that start at the beginning and move through. Koryu classes are small and in my case folks start wherever I am teaching so some start at the beginning, some at the end. The basic principles are the same anywhere, and they are expected to do whatever level of kata they're doing at whatever skill they can. Yes there are things that we do in some levels of kata that we don't do in others but they pick that up if they stick around. Yes there are ideas that build from one level to the next but again, they pick that up when they can, until then they're learning how to swing the sword, how to connect the tip to their feet etc. etc. That can be taught anywhere.

Frankly, since I've been teaching iaido since 1987 I haven't thought about whether or not I should change things for a long time. I just teach whoever is in front of me as I need to teach them. If they can't kneel, they stand. If they can't use their arm they practice one handed.



The average Westerner is rather critical and asks a lot of questions. This may not be the ' right ' attitude in practising koryu. But as a teacher I think a curriculum should (for a part be made to) fit the students.
Now there may be some slack given to foreign students but that is not exactly what I mean. Do koryu adapt (will they adapt) to the teaching and other circumstances of their students in the West.


The sort of changes I've mentioned above aren't specific to the west, all teachers will adapt to their students I suspect, except those who will not of course. In the west and in Japan I suspect there are teachers who won't make allowances or change the curriculum order. That isn't a koryu thing, it's a teacher thing.



Training for twenty years to get graded is a very long time. This may be convenient to some teachers or organizations but is it really necessary?
Is it smart to do when koryu has to compete with a lot of other interests/activities people are experiencing today?

I don't grade in any of my koryu and neither do my students, ever. There isn't any grading provision for any of them, I simply teach as I was taught. Actually looking back over that it's not exactly true, I suspect I could arrange for gradings in a couple of the koryu I do, but it's never come up. Soe of the koryu are tiny, I was once offered the position of shibu for North America in one, and thought the idea was unnecessary, after all there was nobody else doing what I was doing so what would be the point. As de facto head of the region I didn't need a title saying so. Most koryu are similarly not in need of grading systems.

One dojo, one list of students on the wall, top guy and the rest of the pecking order is pretty clear. It's only when you get into a situation where there are too many students and dojo to keep it in your head that you need the paper records.

Which brings us to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu. There is a koryu that is too big to keep track of everyone. I can't speak for other lines or other organizations which contain MJER, but for us in the kendo federation we mostly do not have a ranking system specific to MJER. We make do with ZenKenRen iai ranks. The koryu is taught in lineage so we know who our teacher is and who his/her teacher was, and we are careful about teaching students of different lines. The old koryu rules exist, but they are within an organization that also teaches iai which is taught by multiple instructors and has rank. A bit confusing for students but they eventually catch on. Thing is, every student who joins my dojo, ranks in the kendo federation and all that modern stuff, also has to practice my line of MJER koryu. That means a relatively large number of students compared to what I would have if I was outside the federation. Your implied statement that students like grading is quite true.

But when considering koryu, what ranks are there? Permission to teach and the right to tell others they can teach. Two ranks. Do we need koryu grading titles over here in the west? Why, so we can defend ourselves in internet chat forums from accusations of fraud? So we can put the big Japanese certificate on the wall of our dojo where nobody can read it?

I've also got a personal problem with receiving koryu rank given that my training is not in that dojo in Japan and my name's not up on that wall. The top guy may know me but very few others in the dojo do, so I'm that weird cousin out in the countryside who really isn't, and shouldn't be, in line for running the family business in town. Permission to get on with it and regular visits to make sure I'm not too far off track from everyone else so we can all practice together when we get the chance without hurting each other is just fine.

Do we need to adapt so we can get lots of students who want to dip their toes in the water of koryu? I don't know any koryu instructors who care about student numbers once there are enough to pay for the room rental. Four or five and you're good most of the time. You teach the old stuff the old way and then go for a beer most of the time. If you've got a student with a problem you adapt it as needed and then go for a beer.

Teach for 20 years outside that dojo in Japan and you might find you're adapting/changing things. After 20 years your teacher may just nod when he finds stuff he never told you showing up in your students. He'll know where it came from (or maybe not if it's something he just forgot to tell you but does himself) and if he needs to he'll fix it.

Kim.

[Hissho]

I'm not sure we're all on the same page as to our definition of adaptation really. ....

Or do we mean taking a kata from a koryu and teaching it to a policeman and expecting him to use it on the street?

Or do we mean some sort of mental training? ...I'm not sure I've ever seen anything in Koryu that cannot be found elsewhere unless we go for the magical/religious appeals to the kami. Not sure any police force anywhere is going to start believing in magical thinking though. ;-)

Kim.


No, a little, and yes.

How jo was adapted to the police was not because of its kami I would offer, and not so that they could just do kata, to be sure.

(http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42590)

I guess one question is where did these attitudes go?

Are there other avenues to achieve that? Yes, as was explained above.

As a means of apprehending certain things in "real time" while training, analysis, etc. though something is left lacking. There is a tendency in modern training to simply tack "mindset" onto something and assume that deeper levels of training are being achieved, or to go wholesale with sports and human performance models and there is , I think, something missing there.

There is a potential that other ways - even better ways - of training some of those mental and physical attitudes may be hibernating within some of the koryu that have been properly handed down. I think this underscored the approach that the IHS started with its "Hoplology Theoretics" which,while arcane, is certainly pointing to a practical performance model that had little to do with technical skills trained in kata, but a lot to do with how kata were trained.

A recent lesson in jo that was offered to some of my training partners by Pascal Krieger sensei directly pointed to this, and it had nothing to do with technique.

Whether a ryu has lost it, or whether a particular group can approach it, or can even conceive of it, or care to are clearly the matters that underlie this discussion.

[johan smits]

"But when considering koryu, what ranks are there? Permission to teach and the right to tell others they can teach. Two ranks. Do we need koryu grading titles over here in the west? Why, so we can defend ourselves in internet chat forums from accusations of fraud? So we can put the big Japanese certificate on the wall of our dojo where nobody can read it? "

The idea behind grading (well at least my idea) is that the person training can more or less know where he or she stands. Has (s)he mastered a part of the curriculum, has (s)he mastered all of it? Gradings provide for a certain structure and indeed it is useful when groups are getting larger.
It is also good for interested parties to be able to find out if someone is indeed 'genuine' or not.

Per example, in my country a lot of people start teaching once they have reached let's say shodan in whatever art. In my book a shodan does not equal a licensed teacher. If my children are going to train in one of the arts I will make sure (my children are young) they will do so with a licensed teacher (that is one of my criteria, I've got scores of others).

For some reason I believe (I could be wrong) that teachers of the modern arts are more prone to adapting and modernizing teaching systems.
Another point is I don't think koryu provide for specific teaching courses, a lot of modern arts organisations provide courses to become in teacher in those arts. Maybe koryu have that built in the system but it is a bit uncertain.

A lot of koryu teachers seem to prefer only a handful of students. This is something I do not understand. The training methods may not be suitable to cater to large classes but that does not mean that koryu could not be enjoyed by a lot of people.
I have read about teachers of koryu - way back in the old days in Japan who had hundreds of students. I do not see any harm in that. Blatant commercialism is out of the question of course that is not good for any art.

In my opinion, koryu did adapt long time ago when Japanese jujutsuteachers started teaching in Europe. It was their decision to 'not teach kata' but self defense techniques. Was it a good decision? Well for better or for worse jujutsu has been in Europe for well over hundred years. It evolved - not always in the right direction. It was taught to troops of warring countries during two world wars and it did good I suppose.
It is still here and after the dubieus influences of judo, karate, aikido (to mention the least harmful to jujutsu in my opinion) the next arts from Japan are arriving to influence modern jujutsu. That is koryu. And it might just be a good influence.

It's late and I've been teaching several hours this evening so for now
Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

There is a potential that other ways - even better ways - of training some of those mental and physical attitudes may be hibernating within some of the koryu that have been properly handed down. I think this underscored the approach that the IHS started with its "Hoplology Theoretics" which,while arcane, is certainly pointing to a practical performance model that had little to do with technical skills trained in kata, but a lot to do with how kata were trained.

A recent lesson in jo that was offered to some of my training partners by Pascal Krieger sensei directly pointed to this, and it had nothing to do with technique.

Whether a ryu has lost it, or whether a particular group can approach it, or can even conceive of it, or care to are clearly the matters that underlie this discussion.

I hear this quite often, but Kit you haven't told us what these lessons "are". What is it that is being discussed? What are these aspects of koryu that we should be defining before we start discussing where else they might come from? What aspect of kata training is it that is so important?

This is what Johan is looking for, and what I have never discovered in the koryu, leading me to believe that it might be teacher dependant rather than an aspect of koryu training methods. Some of my teachers in jo still teach in the same keishicho as Shimizu s. was teaching and they have revealed no particular secrets beyond the physical kata and an admonishment to train hard (be tough minded, take your lumps without complaint, wait longer before moving, make it work for real, teach the beginners well, don't injure your partner etc. etc.)




The idea behind grading (well at least my idea) is that the person training can more or less know where he or she stands. Has (s)he mastered a part of the curriculum, has (s)he mastered all of it? Gradings provide for a certain structure and indeed it is useful when groups are getting larger.
It is also good for interested parties to be able to find out if someone is indeed 'genuine' or not.

I know what parts of the curriculum I know, and to what level, without receiving a license stating that. So does everyone. Grades are not needed for that, in fact licenses for levels of mastery are dangerous things, they can create the impression in some people that they have mastered something. This can never be so. Best to simply leave people in some doubt so that they continue to practice like a beginner, as hard and as long as they can.

Licenses should be hidden in desks, not displayed for the idly curious public. The public should be shown what the sensei knows, not what paper he possesses, paper is easily bought, skills are hard-won and easy to judge for anyone with eyes to see.


Per example, in my country a lot of people start teaching once they have reached let's say shodan in whatever art. In my book a shodan does not equal a licensed teacher. If my children are going to train in one of the arts I will make sure (my children are young) they will do so with a licensed teacher (that is one of my criteria, I've got scores of others).

For my kids too I look for a qualified teacher. I have a teaching license in Aikido for my country, it's a shodan and I took 11 years getting it. For iaido I could get a shodan in three months. In 11 more years iaido practice with all grades passed in minimum time I should have a 5dan (coincidentally, the rank at which I can put students forward for gradings) so that's the rank I'd look for if I was looking to put my kids in iaido. Absolute rank number is meaningless, license to teach within an organization is important. If, in koryu, all you get is permission to teach, that's permission to teach.


For some reason I believe (I could be wrong) that teachers of the modern arts are more prone to adapting and modernizing teaching systems.
Another point is I don't think koryu provide for specific teaching courses, a lot of modern arts organisations provide courses to become in teacher in those arts. Maybe koryu have that built in the system but it is a bit uncertain.

I've not heard of any koryu that have a separate system for teaching how to teach. Nor any University system, or modern budo system with the exception of those organizations which subscribe to the coaching levels training in their country. These levels teach how to set up a training session, how not to injure the students during practice, and at the upper levels are turned back over the specific sports/budo for the levels advancement. In koryu the decision on when you are allowed to teach is made specifically by the instructor of the potential teacher in most cases. You're given instructions to go teach. As a result you usually go teach the way you were taught, bringing in any teaching-related knowledge you may have or pick up on the way.



A lot of koryu teachers seem to prefer only a handful of students. This is something I do not understand. The training methods may not be suitable to cater to large classes but that does not mean that koryu could not be enjoyed by a lot of people.
I have read about teachers of koryu - way back in the old days in Japan who had hundreds of students. I do not see any harm in that. Blatant commercialism is out of the question of course that is not good for any art.

In my experience it isn't a question of wanting few students, it's much more the case that koryu is simply not enjoyed by large numbers of people. Kata training is not widely popular. All you need do is look at the relative numbers of people in kendo, iaido and jodo in the kendo federations. Kendo is vastly more popular than iaido and iaido is much more popular than jodo. Poor old jodo is where you have to stand there waiting while your partner cracks you a good one in the solar plexus. What fun is that? In Kendo you can do your partner and if you're good, he can't do you back, and in iaido you get to play with real swords without any risk of damage unless you're clumsy.

I'd be quite happy if there were 30 students in jodo class tomorrow evening, very shocked too. I used to teach aikido classes of 40 or 50 but those too are now down to 15-20. The budo are not popular, MMA is "more practical" and all that. It's all fine as long as there are enough students for classes to continue, I'm a student of budo not a missionary for some sort of cult, and I do something else to put food on the table. Those professional martial arts teachers I know teach something other than koryu for their daily bread. They'd be delighted with huge numbers of koryu students too, but despite advertising and promoting it within their own classes, their koryu students remain small as well.

In a nutshell, I will teach anyone who shows up in front of me in class, and there is no charge at all for the classes (only a small door fee at the front desk). Despite this, and a very high profile on the net and locally, my classes stubbornly remain between 5 and 10 students. It's not secrecy and I hope it's not crap instruction. I think it's just a lack of interest.

Kim.

[Hissho]

I hear this quite often, but Kit you haven't told us what these lessons "are".

I thought I did. Though it may have been missed in all the back and forth about culture, rank, and paper and students and the like.

To recap what I have written before: referring to Draeger's early work regarding mindset and how it was developed, which includes the IHS work on Hoplology Theoretics (instituted in part with Draeger though Richard Hayes was writing. The description I gave of the officer encounters above pretty much spelled it out directly.

Hall's work also refers to it.

Some PMs and e-mail I have received indicate that some are picking up on it.

This is exactly the problem with the subject being discussed. It is a somewhat esoteric element for many people to apprehend. Suffice it to say, I think I learned more about these lessons of the koryu when someone almost succeeded in killing me than I ever did in the dojo, though the kernels were there, perhaps appropriate to my early introduction in all this, sometimes hidden in plain site. ;)

[johan smits]

I will try not to confuse us any further with ravings about culture, rank, students and paper and so forth :p although I do feel that if the discussion is about adapting koryu we should have a proper idea of what a koryu institutes.

If I understand it well it is a series of techniques not unlike the things found in WW2 Homeguard manuals for unarmed combat. (By the way I like those manuals).

Just a little bit more about rank and paper. Koryu in Japan work with rank and paper, do they not? Well one koryu adaption would be to just forget about that. Go forth and train. No rank, paper or license, that's cool.
But is that not the same as telling people I will teach you to drive, after a while they can drive a car. Driverslicenses? Naah we don't do that. And we don't need no examinations to get one.

On a practical side. If you are not a licensed teacher in my country, you cannot get membership of the licensed teacher's club (LTC ;) This in itself is something one can live with I am sure. What is a big letdown is that the membership includes insurances. So no license, no membership,no insurance. You want to teach without insurance? That is a big risk.
It has prevented some teachers of koryu to teaching overhere.
Are koryu teachers insured? I don't know.

Did Shimizu sensei not adapt Shindo Muso ryu to make it more convenient or more easy to learn? To draw more students to his ryu? To popularize it so to speak?

No secrets beyond the physical kata? That is music to my ears. I am not much into esoteric stuff. This will probably mean you can learn a koryu curriculum much faster than we were always told.

" I'd be quite happy if there were 30 students in jodo class tomorrow evening, very shocked too. "

Kim, guite happy and very shocked that is great man I really had a laugh.

Kit - with all due respect.;) Policeofficers in the USA do they get ' papered ' after a thorough education in which they learn all sorts of things to be abel to work in their profession? Or are they given a firearm and are told to watch out a bit? Why would koryu be any different?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Its not that, Johan, its that the discussion always ends up there because I think that tends to be all that people can discuss - for a variety of reasons. It results in what can amount to be essentially a competition in pedantry rather than anything substantive.

Not exactly what the men in that police jo article were discussing, and not what I am interested in.

[johan smits]

Kit, I agree with you it is not the most interesting subject when you consider koryu on the other hand it is also a part of the discussion.

I find your point of view very interesting because it gives me, being a civilian, another angle to look at the thing.

Most practitioners of martial arts are probably civilians. Why would civilians learn an art for warriors? Happened in Japan way back also. Did it change the (then) ryu? Well it's questions and questions.

But then you have studied koryu, could you give a concrete example of how say kata or techniques were altered? Have you found kata of use, describe them, describe the things you have altered. Without making things public that should not be made public. And spell it out please ;)

By the way have you bought my book already? the jiu-jitsuphotoalbum of Hans van der Stok. A real WW2 resistancefighter who did jiu-jitsu.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kendoguy9]

Re: Daito-ryu and boxing. I never said Daito-ryu had more injuries that required ER treatment. I said Daito-ryu is less fun to do. It is kata training, there is no real free rolling in it (we add that on our own via sumo, judo, bjj, limited force on force drills or whatever). It also hurts. I've been injured more in judo or boxing than I have in koryu (hopefully I'll never be injured in Jikishinkage-ryu because that could be really bad) but those are rare injuries that can happen in any sport. Daito-ryu hurts every class. At a certain point DR is teaching a lot of pain compliance techniques and you can't really learn that without making people feel pain. How do I get them to come back? I don't, they see value in the training for the work they do (security, police or clinical hands on) so they come back on their own. Some folks have dropped out and I haven't a clue how to get them back into the dojo. I think Mr. Taylor summed up my thoughts pretty well comparing kendo to jodo, "Kata training is not widely popular. All you need do is look at the relative numbers of people in kendo, iaido and jodo in the kendo federations."

[johan smits]

Maybe kata training is not so popular because of the way it is taught. Any chance of adapting the way of teaching kata? Do we think of that or do koryu teachers think of that?
Although judo and kendo kata are I think different beasties than koryu kata.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

(pain is an essential element of jujutsu. Although not overly pleasant it is not so bad once you get used to it. Damage is a different matter.)

[Hissho]

Most police defensive tactics training is kata. Virtually all firearms training and tactics training is kata.

[johan smits]

Is there any Araki-ryu influence in your firearms training?
Or in other training you do?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

RE: examples-

See posts 20 and 21 in this thread. I understand that folks sometimes breeze through these longer threads, so perhaps those got missed. Otherwise, are folks really having trouble extrapolating what I am talking about from the descriptions already noted?

If so, this is probably more of an uphill battle than I realized.

[johan smits]

You know Kit, I have seen the thread and I think you can were only shinguards and be completely naked for the rest and still do Araki-ryu kata. Tools and clothes is not what it is about is it?

Hypothetical situation. In a ryu there is a kata in which you sneak up behind a guy, grab his legs and kick his testicles. Is that okay for police work or would you adapt such a kata? Is it okay for a civilian to learn?

Do you throw an attacker on his head? Or not? Would that be wise? The person reacts how he is trained. So if you only train an old-fashioned kata in which you learn to destroy an enemy there is a big chance you will do so in a real encounter. But if you change (adapt) those kata are you still doing the ryu?

I don't think it is an uphill battle I think we are trying to delve a little deeper.

I had a guy coming to my class many years ago, broad, lean, muscles and tattoo's all over the place. A teacher of thaiboxing. He wanted to learn jujutsu. Why is that? - I asked. The guy worked in his spare time as a doorman and he badly needed to learn some locks etc because when trouble started he used his thaiboxing. Problem was he had been in court several times where he had a hard time explaining the judge why the other party was always black, blue and bandaged and he not.

He trained for some time with us and seemed happy.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[Stefffen]

Kit, thanks for your thoughts put on 'paper'. It has been an interesting read.

[Hissho]

Johan

I think we are on different planes of thinking here.

Sometimes tools is exactly what it is about....

I think I am already deeper than you have delved, so keep digging!

Think situationally rather than specific techniques. People seem to be really wrapped up in kata and technique. I was taught that kata and technique are simply vehicles for the application of the principles, strategies, and tactics of the system. Araki-ryu kata changed routinely when I was practicing them, and sometimes divergent physical techniques were still seen as applications of the kata: I saw that in another ryu as well, a sword school under a single soke system: kata changing, and indeed kata where once A and B were done, the "finish" could be one of several things "depending on how the enemy reacted." Not taught as "henka" but rather just a flexible approach to the basic kata.

If you "changed" a kata would it still be the ryu? Do any ryu consider the specific movements of a kata the defining aspect of their ryu? Not the signature, but that the ryu itself is a sequence of specific moves done without variance?

I think you know the answer to that already.

It should be obvious that I am not talking about specific techniques or tactics within kata at all, though some are direct fits and absolutely appropriate for given situations that may be a more relevant contextual crossover than the adoption of straight sporting methods, or even sport grappling methods adding a knife or a gun.

There is a different framework for thinking about these problems to begin with, one that is not supplied in Judo or BJJ because they have been engineered too far away from the weapons based environment, or in something like aikido because it left its martiality behind.

Simply plugging a weapon back in to sportive grappling can be problematic without proper integration within a mental and physical platform i.e. "mind/body organization" that assumes the presence of weapons. Once again, the BJJ in DT thread in combatives is a wonderful example (or bad example, depending) of how this can manifest.

To grasp where I am coming from, perhaps it is best to sequentially consider:

Context (weapons/tools, not specific weapons/tools but the weapons based environment)

then

Mindset (lethal or potentially lethal malevolent intent/restraint of people who have already or who may manifest that intent)

then

Organization (how your body moves and how your intent and thinking (say, an in approach or a yo approach, address and augment the above)

and only then

Kata/Techniques.

Steffen -thanks!

[Kendoguy9]

"Context (weapons/tools, not specific weapons/tools but the weapons based environment)

then

Mindset (lethal or potentially lethal malevolent intent/restraint of people who have already or who may manifest that intent)

then

Organization (how your body moves and how your intent and thinking (say, an in approach or a yo approach, address and augment the above)

and only then

Kata/Techniques."

Hey Kit,

I think that is where koryu is different than sport budo. Koryu trains you (or at least should) for what you are describing (although I think backwards to the way you list it). You train kata, kata and more kata. Those kata organize your body, if done correctly, they train that mindset that we are dealing with lethal or fully resisting force, and it informs the overall context that this is a weapons based or potentially weapons based environment. Sport budo takes a turn at the mindset stage. Sport budo is not a lethal engagement and your mindset is geared for the game and winning points and such. This means the context is completely different, no weapons involves or if it is fencing no weapons that will do harm are involved. I can tell ya going hands on with people is a completely different experience from a hard judo match. Sport judo might be able to inform the practitioner about a confrontation but the consequences of your actions are much more serious and require a different type of training. As per context a weapon isn't always a nice ko-Bizen katana or the latest offerings from Glock or a specific weapon. For many people who go hands on a weapon is a pen, a piece of broken glass, a cane, a foot rest on a wheel chair, etc. All will brain you or bleed you out just as well as another.

Ganbatte!

[Hissho]

Chris

Yes that was device to hopefully get people to grasp it.

Training must start with kata, but kata cannot be unplugged from context, and once that is understood, from mindset, without fundamentally changing what it is you are doing in kata.

In actuality it is all inter-penetrating and cyclical. Your comments re: sport make a lot of sense when you look at it that way, because the more increasingly complex the situation grows in the weapons based/tactical environment the more the sport model can become a square peg in a round hole.

[johan smits]

Hi Kit,

First of all: " I think I am already deeper than you have delved, so keep digging!" .

There is no doubt in my mind at all that you have learned far more than I have concerning these arts.
The "we" are trying to dig a little deeper does not stand for you and me but for the people who keep rummaging around about koryu. I guess I should have expressed myself more clearly. ;)

I have been digging for some time will and you are one of the people who has been a great help to me because of your posts. So keep em coming, makes the diggingg easier.


"Do any ryu consider the specific movements of a kata the defining aspect of their ryu? "

Is it not so that kata are " chains of waza " and kata as a training- and teachingmethod came in use later on and were preceded by training single techniques (waza)?
I always thought kata to be the outcome so to speak of the defining aspects of a ryu.

"Think situationally rather than specific techniques. People seem to be really wrapped up in kata and technique. I was taught that kata and technique are simply vehicles for the application of the principles, strategies, and tactics of the system. Araki-ryu kata changed routinely when I was practicing them, and sometimes divergent physical techniques were still seen as applications of the kata: I saw that in another ryu as well, a sword school under a single soke system: kata changing, and indeed kata where once A and B were done, the "finish" could be one of several things "depending on how the enemy reacted." Not taught as "henka" but rather just a flexible approach to the basic kata. "

This is the same for the jujutsu I train and teach. Although there are basic forms of kata there are what I call different possibilities within these kata. A little bit further on in training these possibilies are dictated by (amongst others) the reaction of uke in that particular setting.

We train actually very few kata because these few are enough to cover most of the ground so to speak.

Kit,
I think most people are interested in techniques and kata because it is their main form of training for a long time. You have facilities and possibilities to train/work/experience these subject which are very different from the John's and Joe's who are let's say officeworkers and who train koryu once or twice a week. All things considered it is probably another universe you are in.
That could account for the difference in approach to these arts.

Happy landing,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

To be honest, Johan, I am not sure I have learned so much regarding these arts, specifically. I had a small amount of time, all in the West, albeit with good teachers. I moved on to modern stuff because it was "more practical" and more akin to what I was learning on the job, until basically, I matured in what I was doing and how I thought about them, and started seeing linkages and connections that led to this way of thinking.

I am no expert on koryu by any stretch of the imagination. But in putting out some of my thoughts, in discussing them with people that are and their words and thinking (including two Japanese soke), and in some off-line contacts, I think I am onto something.

Summing it up, the line of thought leading from assessing the traditional elements and the modern adaptability, let me try to organize it this way -via the traditional concept of Shin-Gi-Tai, which I actually use in teaching modern CQC stuff. I'm going to change the order up a bit to from the surface to increasingly deeper (or inner??).

So I'll take a stab at it....:laugh:

The Big Picture:

The big picture is that the bushi had hundreds of years as a professional warrior class where thinking about and doing and codifying this was their stock in trade. They also did not have the many distractions we have today so that those that were REALLY committed to this stuff (founders, inheritors, menkyo kaiden) probably had insights and access to mental and physical things we are only re-discovering via science. I think, for example, modern Force Science is discovering things that the bushi knew, that I believe were described in their terminology and trained in their kata, and that in modern times we have previously had to look to sport performance studies to come at, and now we have a method that is specific to the armed, tactical use of force to evaluate it.

The Japanese tradition in particular seems to be less fanciful, more well documented and to have had at least some level continuity, and until recently were still very much closed to people who were not professionals or had some former connection to that class whereas most other traditions in the East did not. In the West this old stuff basically became interesting old books, and had to re-created from whole cloth - often by people who had experience in Eastern disciplines.

The Adaptability:

There are things that cops just 'know.' There are things that soldiers, that accountants, that (name your profession) KNOW that simply are not accessible to people who do not have the same experience. This is common sense.

Well, there are things that warriors KNEW. Things that may have made perfect sense of a technique or an action that today we look at and go "That makes no sense, why would you do that?" Even little things, because when survival is on the line, little things are important!

I think some of that knowledge may be things that professionals today can learn from. I think that a re-created tradition that has been cut off from a line of teachings may not have access to these things anymore. That these kernels of their knowledge might in fact be more accessible (and useful!) to a student today who carries weapons and has to use force with them than to somebody who does not, regardless of either person's rank within a particular school.

The senior or the teacher, however, if given a genuine transmission of a genuine tradition, might be a vessel to pass on that kernel of knowledge that may make for an "a-ha!" moment on the part of the student that is a "use of force professional." And learning might be had by all, and the ryu continue to 'live' in way directly related to its past usage.


Now for the brush strokes...


Techniques/Tactics:

This is the level everybody sees and most koryu people participate in. Yes I think individual ryu have 'signature' techniques and the signature technique may reveal deeper things about the ryu's principles or approach to combat, I think most people would argue that ALL of a ryu's techniques do that, even though a lot of the techniques in many ryu are pretty similar - if not the same ones if they share a lineage.

Even within a particular school, we see different lines different schools, and different teachers that prefer different techniques, or do them or kata differently: I remember hearing an admonishment from a headmaster that if everyone is doing the kata the same way, and it looks the same, they are doing it wrong!

This is just as true of modern arts. There are different "styles" of BJJ - everybody does not do an armbar the same way, each school and different teachers have different "details" that make their style recognizable, or they focus on a particular "game" or particular tactics: Carlson Gracie lineage guys have a reputation for "hurting" because they use a lot of pressure points and painful stuff in their technique, where others have different reputations.

The Adaptability:

Re-iterating adaptability at the technique level, and specifically from a taijutsu standpoint, here is where I think that armed close combat/clinch/entanglement in the kumi-uchi, kogusoku, torite, koshi no mawari sense has something to offer.

The current teaching to police and military on this is almost all aikido or combat sport based, or from modern methods derived from those, just adding weapons. These can be successful, but there is a remove there that I think would not be so wide if there was instead a return to the things that the modern grappling arts came from - the armed grappling noted above. I think this is both a common sense and perhaps a rewarding path to explore.

The Body:

There is a quality to proper body movement in a fighting sense that is unmistakable. People who fight well move a certain way, carry their hips a certain way, have a certain physical wherewithal that has little to do with particular techniques (what they are doing) and far more to do with how they are doing them. There are levels in this as well, some people are just more naturally gifted or understand more from training than others, that is just the way of things.

Here is where a lot of koryu and traditional arts fall down (:p) in my opinion: they don't have this. Once again I speak specifically to grappling traditions as they are my focus and I think more fertile ground for practical adaptation.

People may know the techniques, they may know their kata, down to a tee in terms of technical detail, they just don't know how to make them work as the resistance goes up. The same is true of modern arts - I have recently been teaching my take on arrest and control to our LE DT instructors and to a military spec ops guy that needed it for his unit. I show how all the stuff they have learned in arm bars and wristy twisties actually works....just not the way they do them, and not the way they were taught in the academy, or in conventional martial arts schools or institutionalized/organizational training.

The best way to learn the how is to actually fight/grapple, even under limiting factors for rules or training safety - you can do all sorts of other exercises, develop "internal power," believe that you are "principle based" and NEVER develop the actual "what to do" in terms of the technical skill, or just continually train with your opponents falling down when they are supposed to; if you want practically applied skill, you have to train with the speed and dynamics of the fight.

Witness the juxtaposition of the jujutsu (whatever brand) teacher that has deep experience in Judo, working with non-grappling students that clearly do not. The teacher will have that 'quality,' and the students will move in a stiff legged, hoppy, hips-all-over the place, nervous fashion. This kind of movement actually seems common in a lot of koryu jujutsu demos.They don't have "the body," they have kata - they have the functional equivalent of police defensive tactics.... In a very real sense this will exacerbate the stress reactions people experience under a serious threat to limb and life, rather smooth it out and help process it and maximize functionality.

I am not the first to note this, an old article in Journal of Asian Martial Arts talked about problems inherent in koryu and police training and it was an interesting comparison.

Adaptability:

Here is where the adaptation might go the other way: add more force on force training: resistive work taking kata as a starting point but with updated weapons (the context will be pretty much the same....). Bring a more "live" element in and you will see kata come alive. That is why Ellis required students to be grapplers and why he opened up the kata early on to this kind of thing, it starts training the how to do the what you are doing.

I have done so many times in CQC training venues with a group that integrates BJJ/MMA and firearms and live resistive training with blades and Simunitions guns, and I know some classical stuff works in these venues. And this is the most realistic stuff I have ever trained vis-a-vis the real world stuff that I use.


I think I will leave it there now, since the post is already long. The last section will be the mind, and that should tie in what was talked about earlier in the thread nicely.

[Hissho]

Okay, had a break, let me finish it up so it all stays together...

Mind:

There is likewise a certain quality of mind in the people that are good at handling crises and tactical situations. There is a certain calm intensity, a modulation of response and action, a certain control and tone of voice, and certain "aura" that you see with them. This quality of mind is even seen in their movement and comportment.

The adversaries see this, too, and interestingly it is a common factor in situations where LEOs are assaulted and killed - the "presence" of the officer, their actions, what they were paying attention to, whether they were perceived as fear-nervous or "intense," etc.

You see on actual incidents and how they respond and how they 'sound' when they are in the moment, and how much they are capable of paying attention to the big picture....whether its an OIS or dealing with an armed guy or what have you.

You see it during force on force training, where some people are just "squared away,""dialed in" or other phrases we use for folks that have it.

And I've seen it in some people doing koryu kata. I have seen some demos where one side of kata had it and the other did not.....

The martial artist would conceive of this best probably as zanshin, but there are a whole lot of component parts that go along with that term.

This is trained starting with having your technique down, so the emphasis on technique is not misplaced. It is very important. But a lot of technique can be developed on one's own. Partner practice, increasingly stressful, is where this quality of mind is trained.

You won't develop it if all you ever do is rote practice, slow or moderately paced, never altering or changing, never "finishing" it when a partner forgets a move and stops, etc. Not at the beginning, but as time goes on you should be doing progressively more intense work with increasing speed, increasing pressure, narrowing margins of error - even to the point that errors start getting made and owies happen - and so on. Breaking or trunking kata so that other kata are brought in mid-stream, or countering one kata so that another one is called for.

The way kata is supposed to be done... this is also how modern force on force training progresses.

Now imagine it is being done by a group of professional warriors, all inured to pain and fear from actual combat experience, relatively fit, training together all the time....how much further to you think you could "open it up" and push the limits of this kind of training - without undue risk of injury?

These aren't duels, these are in-group training. Yes there is risk of injury and pain (stress) in training with wooden weapons, but the "meeting with death" is still symbolic in that you are not trying to hurt the people who will be your partners in battle.

You are trying to test their mettle, and make them better. I view that kind of meeting with death very much along the lines of the modern understanding that intense opposing will training,with the stress of painful consequences, creates stress reactions that have been determined to be very close to the kinds of adrenal spikes that occur in real world lethal threat encounters.

They are a mini-meeting with death, a practice meeting with death....and coming out alive. This is why kata must be opened up, broken apart, and made intense for it to be combative training, and for it to develop zanshin. And then it is exactly like force on force training.

This is a far cry from competition or randori - the combative goal remains albeit delimited somewhat due to training weapons, etc. However, the stress reactions can be similar if the intensity is properly driven, even with a training blade.

Training this way will produce the kind of quality of mind described at the beginning, and in the second example I gave of the two officer encounters above......I know a number of officers that have been involved in lethal encounters that recounted that their experience was "just like training." If they are saying that, they are probably getting good training.

Adaptability:

The adaptability here is more a comparison. It is more looking at the entire concept of mindset and zanshin, looking at how it was discussed and codified and how it was approached in training, and determining what might be mined for information to apply to modern training.

Why? Because what currently exists in terms of this kind of training is actually quite poor.

As noted above, "mindset" is a kind of condiment tossed out by many modern trainers on top of the tactical training equivalent of a Happy Meal. People know about it but don't have the words or terms to explain it, let along a process to follow to achieve it.

Those that do have some useful things come from the academic/psychological world and tend to view and couch their training more in terms of the "soft" side of mental skills development: mental focus, meditation, visualization/imagery, Cue Words: the functional equivalent of the warrior's use of Mikkyo, minus the spiritual underpinning. Obviously since it still exists in different form there is something within it that speaks to us as humans in the combative environment.

But I think there are ways that it can be embedded in the actual training experience, "mainlining" mindset training so to speak, so that there is less remove. This is what I think kata is supposed to be getting at.

Whether people are doing kata in a way that can get at it is probably a group by group, even person by person matter. From what I hear even from some long term people in various koryu, I don't think many are doing so.

[johan smits]

Kit,
Many thanks for two of the best posts I have ever read on the subject!
This is the kind of information which is, I feel, very valuable and will be of great help.

I will " dig in " and will be back soon, with undoubtly some more questions.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[No1'sShowMonkey]

Heiho Kadensho by Yagyu Munenori offers some pretty zen-influenced vocabulary for mindset as far as swordsmanship is concerned. It is dense and abstract. In order to codify portions of what he wanted to say, Munenori had to borrow language from zen - not really the easiest stuff to parse.

[johan smits]

Hi Kit,
Again many thanks for your marvelous explanation. It is not only given given from a professional’s point of view but it is one of the best descriptions of what I might call the essential elements of a koryu.
I will use the coming weekend to digest it further but for now I have come up with the following.

When I interpret your post correctly there is a big difference between the older koryu, weapon-based arts and between the younger koryu.
The first being battlefield arts, the latter being non-battlefield arts (although the younger koryu may have sections for use on the battlefield in their curriculum).

The battlefield arts are made for warriors (their modern-day counterparts, although that is not exactly correct being, soldiers, police-officers, special forces, anyway those people who are government sanctioned to carry weapons and use violence). The non-battlefield arts are those geared towards self-defense for civilians.

Being a civilian myself, a licensed teacher of jujutsu ( some 30 years hands on experience with judo)but still a civilian, a part of the knowledge (maybe a large part) of a koryu will not be recognized by me. Even if the kernels of knowledge are offered they cannot be put to use since I am not professionally involved. Basically this would mean part of the ryu is lost (and according to you a vital part). Essentially this means I am no good to the ryu.

As an aside I wonder if let’s say a koryu is transmitted through several generations of genuine shihan, unbroken line, etc. but all civilians . Will the knowledge stay intact within the ryu and will modern-day counterparts of warriors have ‘aha-moments’ when taught.

Younger koryu may be a different matter. I wonder if koryu which are non-battlefield arts but more geared towards self-defense for civilians also have the same sort of knowledge you speak of but then indeed geared towards self-defense. Or would this be the same kind of knowledge or maybe they have lost it?
The younger koryu can they be seen as adaptations of the older koryu? In a changing environment, a changing culture?

A sideline about adaptation:
Might Seitei iai be seen as an adaptation to changing circumstances by several koryu practicing iai?
Higo ryu taijutsu, the same idea but then for several jujutsu ryu. On youtube there is or was a kata shown (Keishi-ryu kendo kata I believe). With the techniques coming from several different koryu. I recall being able to see a difference in character of those separate techniques. It was marvelous to see. Keishi ryu jujutsu also came from several jujutsu ryu.

Happy landings,
Johan Smits

[Kendoguy9]

Hi Johan,

I can't answer your questions you asked Kit but I do have a few thoughts. First I don't think you need to carry weapons in your day to day life to be valuable to the ryu. If you properly preserve the ryu you should still be able to transmit the core of the ryu to someone, say like Kit, who does use those weapons everyday. As far as I know Kit's teacher is not LEO or military (I could be wrong) and he was able to pass on the ryu. I think this is because that person was a fully licensed teacher. This is where lineage and titles etc. do have some place. I think a good example of this is Katori Shinto-ryu. I have some very old pre-War footage of Otake sensei's teachers and sempai doing the art at an embu. It looked a lot like the often criticised (or at least it was at one time) Sugino branch. It was slow, it lacked the agressive spirit we've come to expect from the Otake/Draegger era Katori Shinto-ryu. However, once those kernels were given to someone as skilled as Otake sensei the art truely came to life. Had the art not been passed down correctly for generations who knows if Otake sensei could have worked with it the same way. I'm sure we've all seen embu on youtube of ryu that are very famous for producing strong swordsmen or grapplers look sort of weak. Other schools like Jigen-ryu or Jikishinkage-ryu not so much (I think both of these Shinkage branches force that sort of spirit and mindset onto the student from the beginning).

I see those kernels as actual kernels sometimes, a seed. Some generations pass the actually seed down from generation to generation. They don't do much with it other than protect it and preserve it. Once in a while someone is given that seed and actually plants in the dirt it to see what grows. If the seed has truely been preserved well a plant grows and you have a new seed from that new plant to pass on. It gets passed on until the next guy says, "Maybe I should plant this and see what grows?" Sadly sometimes the seed gets planted and nothing grows because the seed is dead or close to it. Then you have to decide what to do with the dead seed. You can try to add something else to it to see if it grows or you can just leave it in the ground and move on to something else.

Sorry to stray from the topic a little bit. I would say once you do start to carry weapons on a daily basis as a career your mentality changes and evolves more like what Kit talks about (or at least it should if you are really training correctly and are aware of your job description). It is very eye opening and once you do you see all kinds of new information that has been been there all along. Koryu are pretty cool.

[Hissho]

Seed is better, on a number of levels...

[johan smits]

Kit, no doubt you are talking about esoteric knowledge…

And thanks Christopher for helping. Maybe I should have expressed myself better. The carrying of weapons may not be necessary on a day to day base but I feel being sanctioned to use violence is.

In that way you will be exposed to situations those not sanctioned to use violence are not. This is experience. On a very basic level, mid-seventies I was training in a dojo in which some police-officers were training also. Mind you, it was in Holland which was/is a lot different from the USA. These guys had hardly any facilities and were training jujutsu to keep in shape and do something. They were not very technically but some of them had seen a lot of action so they made things work for them.
No bs stories or bs techniques for them, they knew better. This is a very simple example of what, I feel, this post is for a part about.

Christopher, since you brought up Katori Shinto ryu. This might be an answer to one of my points. In case Otake sensei himself and his teachers have not been military men or police-officers (I do not know) and Draeger was a military man (which he was) it might have been Draeger’s input that has been vital to the ryu.

Well, before I make too many friends I want to get to some other points.

About being valuable to the ryu, I understand that koryu teachers need to pay the rent for the training-facilities so in that case it becomes rather easy to become valuable to the ryu. But why pester a lot of people worldwide with discussions if all you have to do is put up the bucks? :D

I think it was Ellis who has written about degeneration in koryu. Loss of skills and knowledge can be seen as degeneration from one point of view (from inside a particular ryu). On the other hand if by changing circumstances the ryu adapts and starts to fulfill other needs it might it not be called adaptation?

This is the specialization towards unarmed combat/ self-defense, bushi-knowledge/skills becoming available to the non-bushi. If you are not allowed to carry and use weapons, not being able to use them does not have to be lost knowledge.

Adaptation does it occur on a conscious or sub-conscious level? (for lack of better expressing myself)
On a conscious level I think it occurs when someone with full competence, knowledge and understanding of a ryu (say shihan) changes things.
As an example of this Ellis has written about changing a kick in a kata since it was biomechanically not sound. This is I think an example of conscious adaption.

What is an interesting question is ‘how did it become biomechanically not sound? ’ We have no way of knowing how the kick was executed centuries ago. But after generations of people working their whole lives in the fields, carrying heavy loads I wonder about the condition of their hip and leg-joints.
Could this be a case of unconscious adaption and not merely degeneration? Degeneration setting in when circumstances changed?

Koryu are indeed pretty cool.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Wakimono]

I think a good example of this is Katori Shinto-ryu. I have some very old pre-War footage of Otake sensei's teachers and sempai doing the art at an embu. It looked a lot like the often criticised (or at least it was at one time) Sugino branch. It was slow, it lacked the agressive spirit we've come to expect from the Otake/Draegger era Katori Shinto-ryu.

Just a footnote. It seems that this "agressive" expression of TSKSR waza existed in the generation prior to Otake Shihan, as this old film of Hayashi Shihan (Otake's teacher) demonstrates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XiqcmntUi-8

No more annoying...

(Sorry for my english)

[Kendoguy9]

Your English is just fine. Thank you for that clip. I have a feeling that the video is sped up from the original speed. They are moving way too fast. Besides, moving quickly does not mean agressive. I would not say that these guys are slouches just that they don't have the intensity and agressive spirit that I see in Otake sensei and Draeger sensei. Maybe I am partial. As Johan mentioned Draeger was former military. I think Otake sensei was supposed to be a kamikaze pilot just before the war ended. This could be why they were able to do what they did with Katori. I've heard Draeger sensei could even make iaido seiteigata look deadly! This goes back to Kit's posts about training in the weapons based environment and functioning in that environment. It shapes the mind and body a certain way.

[johan smits]

I agree with Christopher. The film is wonderful and indeed Sugino looked a lot like them. I always thought the difference between Otake en Sugino was found in the fact that Sugino learned Katori Shinto ryu under the koryu section of Kano's Kodokan. And he would be influenced by Kano and maybe that accounted for the difference ( less agressive style ).

But it appears to be another thing altogether.

Koryu are pretty cool.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Wakimono]

May be you're right, for me it's a too long shot to see the actual "intensity" of the participants; you have better eye than me... ;)

[johan smits]

No new posts for a couple of days?
Are we out of opinions?
Are we giving in?
Have we gotten all the answers?
Nobody wants to contribute to this interesting thread anymore?

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

Still happy landings to all of you.

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

No new posts for a couple of days?
Are we out of opinions?
Are we giving in?
Have we gotten all the answers?
Nobody wants to contribute to this interesting thread anymore?

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

Still happy landings to all of you.

Johan Smits

http://sdksupplies.com/001blog.html look down to the Feb 20 post.

Kim.

[johan smits]

Hi Kim,

Many thanks - I urge everyone to take a good look at the link.
(I printed it myself so I can read it in the train, later on).

Sharing information is, I guess, not a very koryu-ish thing to do.
And that is too bad, since it is a very interesting subject.
It would also be interesting to know how koryu shihan think about all
sorts of things concerning their ryu in the New World.

But a lot of them won't do that, only a few do - ' knowledge shared is power lost ' .
Guess the ones who do share must be really sure of themselves.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

Hi Kim,

Many thanks - I urge everyone to take a good look at the link.
(I printed it myself so I can read it in the train, later on).

Sharing information is, I guess, not a very koryu-ish thing to do.
And that is too bad, since it is a very interesting subject.
It would also be interesting to know how koryu shihan think about all
sorts of things concerning their ryu in the New World.

But a lot of them won't do that, only a few do - ' knowledge shared is power lost ' .
Guess the ones who do share must be really sure of themselves.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

I don't find the koryu shihan to be reticent about information at all, it's the students that tend to want exclusivity and mystery.

The real formula is knowledge unshared is knowledge lost. There is more than one shihan who has more students outside Japan than in, it's not uncommon at all so they are willing to share. Pick an art, pick a sensei and invite him to a seminar with 50 students. You would have a pretty good chance of getting him/her to come.

What is more relevant to your concerns is that there are very few koryu students around. I've practiced koryu of one sort or another since 1987 and while the numbers have grown, I'd guess no more than a few hundred practice seriously in North America. Of those who have been practicing for many years, most are not missionaries and don't really see the point of answering a bunch of questions online constantly. Advertising and evangelizing doesn't work with the koryu, they remain small and unpopular simply because they aren't sports. Truthfully, there are more ninja around than koryu students, and kids can get their fill of weapons there and in the karate classes. Both ninja and karate are a lot more fun for kids than koryu. Kendo and Judo are as popular as they are for a reason.

So, understanding and seeing this over decades, what is the payback for putting a lot of information out there? Not much at all in terms of students in class or money in the bank. For my part, there's a manual of Niten Ichiryu in German out there, a translation of one I wrote in English. Standard contract for me when it was published, if it ever clears the costs of production I'll get a little royalty. So far I haven't even received a copy, or a coin, nor did I expect to.

300 is a pretty good run for a koryu-related book, the interest is just not out there.

Kim.

[Ellis Amdur]

Thought I'd write something about a progression of adaptation. Handed down in the Araki-ryu is an old student notebook of an "adjacent line" - literally, there were two lines in the same village, with overlapping, but also different kata. This dates from early Meiji. One section of the notebook is <ryofundo> - this is a short, double weighted chain, known mostly in the West as <manrikigusari>, thanks to its being known through Masaki-ryu. In this section, there are three recorded kata (what makes this notebooks worthwhile, is that the student meticulously wrote out the kata sequences). This weapon was abandoned some time in the last 150 years.
The three remaining kata are evidently ryofundo against sword. This is near-insanity (not to say that one wouldn't use whatever one had, if that was all one had, but that's like a .22 handgun against an AK-47 at 50 yards). The ryofundo was a concealed weapon, anyway. You kept it tucked in your obi, and it could be quickly drawn and used in a brawl, to subdue a disorderly person (ouch), or when one's sword was not available (for bushi, anyway).
The Ise-zaki line of Araki-ryu tried to revive these three kata - filmed in the Budokan archival videos - and their version is painfully bad. Nuff said.
In my line, I began working on these about 20 years ago. The first thing I did was consider the context it was used, availing myself from information that I personally received from the short-chain's best researcher (the sadly recently deceased Laszlo Abel). I shifted the kata to ryofundo vs. kodachi or tanto.
However, the problem was that with one hand weaponry, both blade and chain, one is able to make fluid, sudden changes. Three kata do not even come close to elaborating all the interesting parameters of the weapon. However, I'm viscerally opposed to simply adding more and more kata - because this will not create a live fighter - rather, just a kata collector, who spends far too much mental energy, trying to remember each sequence. The solution, if one goes in that direction, is to make the kata more and more mannered and stilted.
So I went the other way. I had a chain made with small sand-bag weights, and the chain sleeved with nylon "rip-stop." It still hurts - a lot. But the nylon "sheath" keeps the chain from cutting flesh, and the sandbags won't kill you. Uketachi wears a lacrosse glove (which we first incorporated in Japan, being far superior to kendo kote, because you can also grab. The "kata" are now "frames," a general basis for sparring, and we merge all three of them in one. We maintain safety by demanding a targeting of the kote. Both, but particularly the ryofundo man, move in and out, with taisabaki suitable - we slip, sidestep, and dodge, and the goal is to hit the kote multiple times without being stabbed and todome is a THUD to the upper back (the kidneys do not feel good).
So we have a live practice.
And this has an application to modern times as well. Of course, in America, it's easier and more legit to have a carry permit for a gun than a chain. Were my work so dangerous that I <expected> to have violent confrontations, I would be armed with a side-arm. End of story. That's not my situation. Nonetheless, when having to go in a dodgy neighborhood, particularly at night, I've taken off my belt and hung it over my shoulder, under my jacket, in colder weather, or just out, when it's warm. I've gotten pretty good at iai-nuki with my belt - and I've gotten pretty good - and am getting ever better - at using the buckle as a weapon, making multiple hits in rapid sequence to vulnerable targets.
Given that I'm starting to approach that crest in age (60) before the inevitable downward slide (for another 60 years :), I'm starting to research the cane, using the same body dynamics we use in kenjutsu. (and that is quite apart from the tanto/yoroi-doshi, for which we've truly amplified and elaborated our studies, still within the parameters of torite-kogusoku).
Some weapons, such as naginata and spear, even bo, are almost purely for the past - although if I'm attacked near a construction site and there are pipes lying around, I'm going to be in a pretty good situation, unless, of course, there are firearms, in which I'll be in a pretty good horizontal position. But if a weapon has an obvious analogue to those in my modern world, I will and do use them in such modern parameters.
Were one to observe our practice - particularly with the ryofundo, one would observe what looks like sparring - but not "free-sparring" - it's structured through the kata, which enables us to concentrate on one or another technical parameter - BUT, if something else comes up - getting tied up in a clinch, for example, then components from other kata, etc., will take center stage.

[johan smits]

Ellis - maybe it was the wind overhere but I swear I could almost hear you sigh :D.
Anyway many thanks for a very insightful piece I really apreciate you took the trouble to write it.

About old age - looking ahead I recently started training again in Uchida-ryu tanjojutsu. I am not even sure if that is koryu but it is fun. And I must say that although in the kata the strikes do not seem to be very forceful, when executed on a heavybag the strikes (along the same lines as in the kata) are surprisingly forceful.

Kim,

thanks for the link. Your piece is really interesting. I think I am going to do something along the same lines for some specific jujutsu ryu I am interested in.
You are right when you say there are only a few koryu students around but there are a lot of students of modern arts around. Koryu could benefit from the interest coming from that group of people.
Payback for the trouble of putting information on the net? Money and students?
I guess not.
From my own history, I started jujutsu at fourteen years of age (fifty now) and eventually became a licensed teacher. Traveled around in Europe a bit to learn. Since I started my own dojo we have had koryu people coming by.
Sometimes shihan and sometimes not shihan. I paid for most of that myself. Lodging, travelexpenses whatever.
Did it result in an increase in students? No. Increase in income? No.
A higher rank? No. But what it did do was improve my understanding of my own art. And I met and came to know some really great people.

And that is really cool.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

Did it result in an increase in students? No. Increase in income? No.
A higher rank? No. But what it did do was improve my understanding of my own art. And I met and came to know some really great people.

Sounds like you're koryu student material Johan.

Kim.

[Hissho]

I think we've readily established is that it is strongly based on the attitude/interest of the particular teacher and of the particular student; probably also the teacher to the particular student, perhaps different from what would be taught yet another student with different ideas, interest, and aptitudes.

Which means to some extent this is probably a circular conversation: one sees things differently than another, because one may actually see different things in the same movements or kata or what have you.

Ellis - thing is you don't need a permit to carry a chain! Though walking around with one of those leather wallets with the long chains attached might not present the most professional image...:D

[Ellis Amdur]

Kit - so here's the question:

1. I go to the proper place and get a carry permit, which is readily granted, because my fine standing in the community - and the lack of access to my psych eval ;) - and I'm attacked by a knife wielding thug, with no means of escape, and I shoot him and survive (and save all 19 Duggar kids in the bargain!)
2. I don't have a gun, but I have my ryofundo, with chunks of iron at each end and I'm attacked and I defend myself with my ryofundo (admittedly not as high percentage - or even close - to the gun I hypothetically bought, got permitted and trained actively in its use). I break a number of teh guy's bones, including a blow to the temple which does very bad things to his neurological functioning.

In the US, will the courts be kinder to the properly permitted citizen following 2nd Amendment rights, or the martial arts whack-job who is walking around with a chain with chunks of iron on the end of it?

Ellis

[Hissho]

Depends on the situation, the Court and the Judge.... a Judge or Prosecutor or Jury that sees permitted carriers as "gun toting whack jobs" really may not make the distinction....

Not an attorney so this is not legal advice, just my experience within the system:

RCW (Revised Code of Washington) Dangerous Weapon Laws:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41

Interestingly, the language describing "nun-chu-ka sticks" (whatever those are....;)) seems to now only be included in the Possession on School Grounds RCW....

Dangerous Weapon on Schools grounds:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280

The description provided appear to include the ryufundo as a dedicated weapon.

A chain, in and of itself, is not illegal, and would not be furtively carried if it was extending from a wallet and attached to a belt.

Or if, say, it was your bike chain with padlock(s) and you can legitimately say you ride your bike a lot and carry the chain all the time...

The matter would be deciding whether to take the risk, so to speak, of carrying an illegal weapon with which to lawfully defend yourself. The issue would present depending on what the prosecutor could make stick, and whether they would even try to charge a man of your standing in the Washington State psych and LE communities if you defended yourself reasonably.

What you do to him is really not at issue if you are reasonably using force. This is where I think Johan's points get glossed: granted he is speaking in terms of Europe, but in the U.S. lethal force is justified when you think someone is trying to kill you. You can stab people and slash their throats, break their necks, etc. all that devastating koryu stuff that supposedly are not allowed in self defense or police use of force are totally legitimate, if not indeed recommended when an assailant is engaging in behavior which could reasonably be determined to present a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Happens all the time.

As you described a lethal threat, you could intentionally kill or maim him perfectly legally so long as that threat remained one during the course of your actions. How you do so simply does not matter, and you are not required to use "lesser means" first.

When the threat stops, you need to stop trying to maim/kill him.

The handgun may be the more sensible choice for the primary reason that you can hit harder and more often with far less effort - say the attack was a blitz style ambush from a guy that you were assessing, suddenly he's across the critical distance at you and you find yourself on your back, with him over you knife in hand, and you go into something from Hoben no Dan - maybe controlling the knife hand with one of yours: but now in a very difficult position to deploy efficiently or make use of the ryufundo or even a folding knife or fixed blade: either way getting to one of those and using it is an UGLY proposition and provides a lot of openings for reversals and for him to get a telling blow in the process. Being engaged in a mutual-carving and bashing-fest with an insane and/or drugged up adversary would not be a good time, talking reality and not martial fantasy, that is.

The same technique, but controlling the knife and his body with your off hand and body positioning may open a window to draw the handgun and = keeping it away from his reach, hit him repeatedly by only pressing the trigger until he backs off or collapses or drops the knife and gives up.

A little more detail than needed but trying to keep it relevant to the topic. Frankly most encounters you may face won't have the stand-offish-ness that a kata of ryufundo vs. kodachi at distance depict. Rather think of the Hito Schichi or Hoben dynamics and choose the more practical weapon accordingly.

Were I you, and able to carry weapons and still do that job (I am assuming they won't let you), I'd be carrying a concealed handgun and a folder or perhaps a small (sub 3 inch) fixed blade that was accessible with either hand while in situations similar to those sets of kata. Strap 'em on and run through the kata in your normal work clothes and where/how you normally carry the tools in those clothes.

[Ellis Amdur]

Thanks Kit - yes, I agree. Realistically, we are talking about hoben and other hitoshichi parameters. And there are certainly practical tools that are also weapons (Honest, I was just trying to get a closer look with my five cell flashlight when suddenly . . . ). :)

Truthfully - I only rarely am in risky situations these days at work - and I work for myself. I have a level three vest on when meeting individuals of concern and am <otherwise prepared.> legally

What I was inchoately wondering about is answered by the phrase "dedicated weapon." I can't see walking around with a ryofundo for that reason - but a practical legitimate analogue - your chain and bike lock for an example - makes sense.

And, quite simply, were I doing the more dangerous kind of work I used to do on a regular basis - and not employed by an agency that forbade same - then as you say " a concealed handgun and a folder or perhaps a small (sub 3 inch) fixed blade that was accessible with either hand while in situations similar to those sets of kata. Strap 'em on and run through the kata in your normal work clothes and where/how you normally carry the tools in those clothes." That's perfect - and to me, that's perfect Araki-ryu. (prefer the idea of the fixed blade myself).

I do shake my head at some of the situations I used to walk in - unarmed - back in the day!!

Ellis

[johan smits]

Sounds like you're koryu student material Johan.

Kim.

Kim, I will take that as a compliment. ;)

Actually quite some time ago I came into contact with a teacher of koryu whom I hold in high regard. I had the opportunity to become his student. At that time however I had some health issues which were keeping me from training seriously (also in my own art). In essence this was the main reason for me to not pursue training under that teacher.
Since it is someone from whom I could learn a lot this was not an easy decision.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[johan smits]

"What you do to him is really not at issue if you are reasonably using force. This is where I think Johan's points get glossed: granted he is speaking in terms of Europe, but in the U.S. lethal force is justified when you think someone is trying to kill you. "

Kit,
I do not have a legal background but (we are talking Holland since all countries in Europe have their own laws and legal systems) overhere I do think you always have to opt for the least serious manner to defend yourself.
When escape is not possible and you carry a knife (nobody overhere carries a gun) and a stick - the stick would be considered the least dangerous weapon probably.
Depending on the length of the blade you will be in trouble or not. Lock-blades, stilleto's not permitted. Pocketknifes are (pocketknife with possibility to lock the blade will give you a problem).

Only if your life is in immediate danger and you are so scared it affects you mentally (sorry I am lacking the correct words in English) you can apply to what we call 'Noodweer exces'. Even then it is not allowed to kill a person deliberately.

Many many years ago there was a very large group of what we these days call hooligans running amok. They were charging a group of policeofficers (including some on horse) of maybe twenty to thirty officers at that specific location. Policeofficers in uniform, no gear maybe some detectives with them.
Policehorses got slashed by razorblades on whips and some officers drew their gun (can't recall if they fired - maybe a warning shot).

The riots that day were nothing compared to the political riot that developed about the question if the officer(s) in question were justified to draw their gun and use it. That is Holland for you.

About stories:

"I do shake my head at some of the situations I used to walk in - unarmed - back in the day!! "

Ellis -

These will not make good bedtime stories for my children (but they are getting to big for that anyway). Any chance you might be triggered to share a few?
Then I will get out the Coorenwyn.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ellis Amdur]

Next time I'm in Holland, Johan - and over Coorenwyn only.

E

[Ookami7]

Just from reading the few examples in Ellis`s books/ articles I can only wonder;) 7yrs in and I haven`t even had anything as close as what Ellis has written about his time in Japan:cry::D:D
I second the motion that Johan would be perfect Koryu material:D:D:D

P.S. Ellis bought a 2nd round of all your books for my Aikido dojo over here!

[johan smits]

Yeah, rub it in Jeff ;):D

Ellis, let me know when you are Hollandways and I will make sure I have an ample supply of stone crocs filled to the brim and a notebook.

By the way good people there is a question maturing slowly in my head. I will be back shortly.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[DDATFUS]

Not an attorney so this is not legal advice, just my experience within the system....

When the threat stops, you need to stop trying to maim/kill him.

I am an attorney (mostly criminal defense), but this is still not legal advice.

Having said that, from a defense attorney's perspective my main concern with something like the ryufundo would be that, based on the weapon itself and on the descriptions Ellis has given of its use, it seems like a weapon you would use for a series of attacks. If I'm trying to use self-defense to justify my client's actions, what I would rather not see is repeated blows. Each time you hit the bad guy it raises a question of why the last hit wasn't sufficient. The first blow broke his hand? Well, why the heck did you need that second blow to the shoulder and the third blow to the temple and that nasty shot to the ribs after that? Wasn't there a point at which you could have disengaged? And after that point, isn't it really a matter of you attacking him rather than him attacking you?

Now, that's not an insurmountable problem. In the Rodney King case, if I remember correctly, the defense did a masterful job of showing how each and every blow delivered by the officers was in response to something that they could have seen as a continued threat. Still, all things being equal, I think I'd rather have to defend one hit that did a lot of damage rather than a bunch of hits that did a lot of damage (assuming that I could make the case that there was ample justification to be doing damage in the first place). Of course, if you're around to argue with a defense attorney after the fact then at least you survived, which I'll take over the alternative no matter how many blows it takes.

I think that Kit is also absolutely correct to identify the question of whether or not the state would even bother to bring charges. If Taxpaying Citizen with Spotless Record beats the everlivin' crap out of Repeat Offender That Police Really Wish Would Die Already, he could face a whole range of charges: insufficient assault, assault without a sufficiently deadly weapon, misdemeanor damage to occupied clothing, etc.

[Hissho]

David brings up a good point and one that pertains to how training is conducted vis-a-vis what one faces and what a legal expectation is.

For an armed citizen, even though there may not be a "duty to retreat" in your particular state, if you have distance and time to use a ranged weapon on a guy you are going to have to articulate why you did not disengage.

This could be a problem with adaptation in some of the weapons based koryu systems at the maai generally practiced....the goal in any armed or unarmed defense situation is to a) prevent harm to self or others and b) escape the situation where further harm can occur. When you have the ability to disengage based on circumstances, yet stay and continue the fight you are now engaging in mutual combat. If you stay and get revenge the tables have turned and you are committing assault.

Not always: say in Ellis example he is at a home visit, and dude with knife says he is going to kill Ellis and then dude's own wheelchair bound mother who is there in the room and whom he has been terrorizing and living off of for many years: then remaining to protect her, and doing the kind of damage David mentions, becomes more reasonable....

Being in your own home may make it different, or having to protect your family's retreat in public are other examples.

Still, the advantage of the close combat systems is that they generally contain a number of things that are defending against a sudden violent assault, armed or unarmed, and they often contain a pin or other momentary control while the practitioner draws his own weapon or disarms the attacker. That moment of control can also provide the opportunity to disengage, which is often the most tactical thing to do as well as the ethical/legal thing to do.

It is going to be entirely situationally based.

One thing I do want to clarify though is that you are not required to hit, then assess, then hit, then assess again, and so on. Same with a firearm: you don't just have to shoot him once and then look and see what happens before you do so again.

So an articulation of David's example would very likely be "he just kept coming." I don't mean lie, or being tongue in cheek, but if you are dealing with a crazed attacker (for whatever reason) the broken hand, the shattered cheekbone, the ruptured eyeball may not stop the assault. If you can't get away, and he isn't stopping, you can keep going until he does, and don't get too wrapped around the fact that you are hurting him "too much" if he is still a threat to you and others....provided your assessment of that threat is a reasonable one.

I teach cops and civilians that the best way to get someone to stop being a threat is to use the maximum amount of force that is reasonable first, rather than fiddling around with all sorts of different things until you get there. The second strategy prolongs an encounter and actually increases yours and the bad guys chances of injury.

Getting into firearms here would be a bit too complex (i.e. how many times can you shoot him?) but I hope that this makes sense.

[johan smits]

Ruptured eyeball?
Gee you koryu guys are a violent lot are you not?

"Not always: say in Ellis example he is at a home visit, and dude with knife says he is going to kill Ellis and then dude's own wheelchair bound mother who is there in the room and whom he has been terrorizing and living off of for many years: then remaining to protect her, and doing the kind of damage David mentions, becomes more reasonable...."

:up: Reasonable? Kit, all Ellis has to do is run harder than the old lady can ride in her wheelchair. THAT is jujutsu strategy.

All violence put aside, you and me, we have more in common than you might think at first glance.
I think the 'maximum amount of force that is reasonable' equals the 'minimum amount of force that is necessary'. Which is what I teach. ;)

I am getting back to my boring line of questions.

Koryu were developed within a specific cultural setting with specific rules and regulations and laws. To me as an outsider it would seem logical that koryu (read: living entities who want to excert power and inluence in society) would adapt to the rules and regulations of that society.
Let's leave hidden agenda's, political extremists, pan-asianism out of the discussion, just to keep it more easy.

I have no idea if koryu, these days and age in Japan have adapted to Japanese society. They probably have but maybe not. Any dojo-yaburi going on - on a large scale I mean? Swords and practice weapons are not carried openly on the street I presume, etc.

Koryu goes West (yep a mild case of plagiarism) - since there are attorneys present let me hasten to add that this is a joke with words 'plagen' in Dutch means 'teasing'.

Popularizing koryu seems a bit a dirty word in certain circles. But how come?
One of the reasons I have read (honestly can't recall where) koryu are not very popular with the younger generation is that it is often in one way or another linked to the political right.
This is not so in the West so that is one obstacle less.
If koryu are truly living entities and able to adapt to circumstances then why do they not do so? For instance in Europe - it may be lack of shihan - people who are qualified to make these adaptions.

I have another example: I have been reading a lot about taijiquan lately and although it is a different beasty from koryu you can compare them.
Most of the big family styles: Yang, Chen, Wu, Sun have developed a short form. ( mostly 8 or 10 techniques) Is it still their families style? Yes it is. Different characters, different flavors. So they have kept their respective identities. They did so to make taijiquan more accesable to the general public. And see it works.
Is there a specific reason why this could not be done with koryu?

*sighs and searches for stone croc with Coorenwyn*

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

I think the 'maximum amount of force that is reasonable' equals the 'minimum amount of force that is necessary'. Which is what I teach. ;)



It does NOT, but that is an entirely different subject. There is already a thread on this here:

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50515

Otherwise I think I am starting to see a point where we are diverging in this discussion, which I missed before, though you and Kim have talked about it.

Popularizing is not at all what I mean by adapting koryu. Taijiquan is actually a fascinating comparison, as what you have might be described as an even greater emasculation of a former combative practice, over subsequent generations, in the interest of popularizing it for folks who were not fighting men and stopped really caring about the actual martial application in most cases.

But again, the seeds are still there, to steal a Lowry-ism there is a "trickle" there in what was once a powerful flow....in the right hands the flow might be restored with some of its former integrity.

But what has happened to "Big Taiji" is the LAST thing I would want to see happen to any true martial art.

Pardon me if I am repeating myself, but I want to restate that I a firm believer in protecting combative material that involves inflicting serious injury and death from the majority of martial arts students who in my experience simply do not have the maturity or experience in which to properly conceptualize this stuff.

Even for many koryu, aiki, jujutsu, whatever exponents it is all a game, a fantasy of violence that is at once not too threatening (to the egos of those involved) while aggrandizing acts of killing and mayhem taken completely out of any contextual basis other than the act itself. This is disturbing, at best.

Enough soapboxing...again my idea is not about making it more popular at all.

I keep my modern CQC group VERY limited for this exact reason. No kids are allowed, and dilettantes that get invited don't tend to stay. I require a concealed weapons permit or LE/military experience in good standing. That is not hard to do, but it judges the level of commitment on the student's part, and a level of background in terms of terminology, basic understanding of law, and the fact that they have wrapped their head around the subject matter at hand in a realistic way as opposed to a dojo-based way.

It is exclusive, and I want it that way, because the stuff I teach might actually be used by them to save their lives - or to take a life in a way that is not contextually removed by "tradition" or the wearing of costumes or what have you. I want people that I am teaching this to be pretty squared away, and to understand the ramifications of what we are talking about in a very real sense, versus some kind of excited LARP-ing surrounding cutting someone's throat or disemboweling them.

As is, I have cops and police applicants, military spec ops, a medical doctor, another medical professional, a teacher, a tech security guy, and a businessman and contractor who are all upstanding members of their community. Most of them have black belts in one or more other systems.

I LIKE the idea of exclusivity and think it is the only suitable way to even begin to work with an adaptation of koryu into the modern context that I am talking about.

I am all for popularizing "budo." Aikido, karatedo, Judo (though an article in the latest USJF magazine about intentionally trying to make Judo more commercial kinda made me cringe...), BJJ, what have you should be open to all. They are not martial arts and have great self defense benefit.

But not this stuff. Disciplines dealing with deadly force need to be approached in a suitable way.

[johan smits]

Kit,

About the minimum/maximum force I am inclined to take your word for it but I will take a look at the link anyway. Just in case :D

"I LIKE the idea of exclusivity and think it is the only suitable way to even begin to work with an adaptation of koryu into the modern context that I am talking about."

"Pardon me if I am repeating myself, but I want to restate that I a firm believer in protecting combative material that involves inflicting serious injury and death from the majority of martial arts students who in my experience simply do not have the maturity or experience in which to properly conceptualize this stuff "


Actually I understand quite well what you are saying and I tend to agree with you. The only thing different from my point of view is the modern context. I am talking and looking at things from a civilian point of view. Suppose I would train with your group being in the same profession as I am now. Even though my intent and my level of proficiency would meet with your approval and standard - from my point of view I would be 'play-acting' since in my life there is no need or maybe a better word is opportunity to use those skills.

In case I follow my own line of thinking as purely as possible I should probably be searching for a koryu much younger than the schools from the Sengoku period. Koryu with its curriculum more in line with a civilian's life.

By the way the short forms of taijiquan I am talking about are not devoid of martial applications. Even the 'Peking style or 24 form' although developed with health maintenance of workers as it's first goal has got self-defense applications.
So do the short forms of the family styles. What I find very realistic is the fact that the teachers in those arts realize and acknowledge that the times have changed and people have many more distractions these days.
Instead of keeping the arts exclusive they have made adaptions without altering the essence of the arts. I think that is really a very smart thing to do.
They did not change the art itself, they made adaptions in the way these arts are taught.
Being a teacher myself this is something which interests me greatly.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

But having martial application is different from training in such a way that maximizes the application.

By changing the way an art is taught, not to mention a drive to allow more students from different walks of life and differing abilities, you do change the art in very critical ways.

The modern recreational shooter somewhat interested in self defense learns the same shooting fundamentals as the Navy SEAL or CAG operator......they just change the way it is taught, and change the very nature of the type of individual that gets to be there for training in the first place by making it far more exclusive.

As far as my group - you might be surprised. I am sure you would fit right in. The difference is not that they don't use it (most do use the low level avoidance stuff we base all our training on), its that they want to be prepared if and when they do. Enough people in our dojo as a whole have had some pretty scary scrapes, to include a shooting with home invaders, that the practical reality of it is not so remote. The guys in my group just want to have some idea what to do if it steps off, rather than relying on the statistics that it won't happen.

[Ellis Amdur]

I do agree with Kit here - every failure I've had a a koryu teacher has been in the area of trying to make it more accessible. This is different from using Araki-ryu parameters with a belt (ryofundo) or flashlight (short staff/kodachi - amalgam). Everytime I changed the core mindset - to make things more understandable, more accessible, the training material suffered, the group suffered, and the ryu was damaged.

I will state as clearly as I can that not every ryu is run that way - nor should it. But the sense of an elite is not confined to any profession, but as Kit clearly states, to an attitude and mindset. This also doesn't mean "we are too deadly for the mat, so we can't spar," or any of the other nonsense that kobudoka can come up with. If someone from another ryu were to say - that's not our operating system, so to speak - fine. I simply desire that my training maintains that edge so that if someone who must live that edge enters the dojo, they will find themselves at home with both the mindset and the material - even if they never need to use a ten foot spear.

And by the way, as for koryu lite, so to speak - it already exists. Aikido would be an example. And before anyone gets all insulted, that's why I occasionally am happy to teach aikido. To offer a tincture of that old school stuff to a wider arena. With no pretense that one is the other.

[Nathan Scott]

Good thread guys.

I had to comment on this statement:


every failure I've had a a koryu teacher has been in the area of trying to make it more accessible.

I couldn't agree more. I've been sticking to my guns for years, knowing for a fact (and from trial and error) that the traditional teaching method is the most effective way to teach the arts I study. I've had to explain the logic behind it so many times I could throw up, and the best I seem to get out of it is seniors at least leaving me alone. The good news is I have a handful of students I can refer to as examples of successful implementation of this teaching method. They learn faster than other students, and are beginning to surpass others of comparable rank/seniority in skills.

How many times do people need to learn from the same mistakes?!?!?

BTW, I've posted about this here before, but I use classical Japanese MA techniques, tactics, and principles on a very regular basis as part of my profession. Personally, I found it to be a - mostly - subconscious result of training correctly, for long enough. And yes, I'm a kata guy, FWIW.

Regards,

[Hissho]

Thanks for chiming in, Nathan - some questions:

Do you feel your approach has changed at all after you got on the job, or was it a confirmation? Considering of course that your aikido teacher at least was definitely on the more practical end of the spectrum...

How would you compare/contrast with what LAPD is doing DT/tactics wise: especially since some of those instructors come from more sportive backgrounds? (For examples, John McCarthy, Mark Mireles, George Ryan, and I am sure others.)

What do you feel you may have learned from them that affected what you learned previously?

And what do you think the classical method offered you - from the time you entered LE to now - that was not met by your academy and in-service training?

[Nathan Scott]

Hey Kit,


Do you feel your approach has changed at all after you got on the job, or was it a confirmation? Considering of course that your aikido teacher at least was definitely on the more practical end of the spectrum...

No, that was the interesting thing. I was relieved to find that it was just confirmation. I haven't changed the way that I train at all since applying it professionally. I actually expected there to be more eye-openers, but for me, situations have for the most part been resolved very decisively. Of course, there are the typical issues with PCP strength, sweaty people, people with thick jackets, etc. But I found myself bypassing those issues quickly without forethought or much stumbling.

My prior Aikido training definitely has been very valuable for me, though more and more, I'm using methods that I train more in currently than I do "Aikido". Technically, there is actually not much difference on the surface, but I am moving more and more away from "Aikido" and using more classical methods.


How would you compare/contrast with what LAPD is doing DT/tactics wise: especially since some of those instructors come from more sportive backgrounds? (For examples, John McCarthy, Mark Mireles, George Ryan, and I am sure others.)

DT/ Arrest & Control methods are largely based off of Aikido controls, so some of the locks are similar. When I was just getting started on the job there was only one instructor who had Aikido experience though. The rest were all doing MMA, boxing, and/or grappling. These arts are still their main focus, even though the first-contact arrest methods are based on Aikido locks (?). The methods taught are, from a martial artist perspective, relatively low-tech and basic. But this is for the same reason that Military methods are simplified - there is not enough time for hand-to-hand budgeted to teach anything deeper. In places like Japan, it is expected that officers will continue training after they graduate the academy. In places like the US, such officers are the exception to the rule. I'm lucky in the area I work though, in that they allowed us to build a "dojo" in the lower parking area, and a number of us train in some kind of martial arts. I think we are the only station in the Department to have our own matted dojo though...

Anyway, the instructors will be the first ones to explain to you that grappling on the ground is the last place you want to be, but then spend their time teaching us grappling anyway. In the meantime, most co-workers do not understand the first thing about joint locks or off-balancing, and stick to one or two methods to take someone in to custody.

Using Aikido terminology, most my partners seem to prefer some form of Ikkajo control. Personally, I find myself using Ikkajo, Sankajo, and Yonkajo controls the most. I've also used Kotegaeshi, Hijijime, and various other less known locks / methods with much success. As I mentioned elsewhere, in keeping with my current training, at the completion of a take-down I am ending up in either a one-handed or hands-free pin automatically now, which is very helpful for a number of reasons.

FWIW, I just had a situation earlier this week in which one of our clients began to fight us on contact. He wasn't very muscular or big, but it turned out that he was EXTREMELY double jointed in the shoulders. I've come across this before, but once we got him down I ended up just about wrapping his arm all the way around his head trying to take out the slack and find a point of control. Although I kept hold of the position of weakness I had ended up with his arm, I transitioned to an alternate joint to establish body control. I moved the point of my knee onto the side of his neck, where the skull meets the neck (let's call it the "neck joint"!), and used body weight/alignment to pin his upper body to the ground. This worked very well, and we were able to get him in custody easily once his upper body was immobilized (not exactly a new idea, but one I don't usually use...). After standing him up, he began to struggle again, so I used the outer edge of my forearm to again pin the side of his "neck joint" to the wall. In this case, the technique can be thought of as a "tegatana" controlling technique - at least, that's how it felt to me when thinking back on it. This also worked very well for controlling his body (hands were already secured).

Anyway, nothing too exciting or challenging, but thought I'd pass on a bit of different technique that came out a few days ago...


What do you feel you may have learned from them that affected what you learned previously?

If you are referring to what I do vs. the academy, I would have to say grappling. I've never dabbled in grappling before, and I think it's useful to have an idea what type of strategies to expect, and how to reverse basic grappling.

If you mean on the job experience, not much. I already was employing quite a bit of the "zanshin" concept outside the dojo before, but I can tell that it is quite a bit more acute and sharp now that I use it at work everyday. Other than that, my training seems to give me a pretty significant edge over my clients so far, who for the most part are not used coming across people like me who have trained significantly outside of generic academy stuff.


And what do you think the classical method offered you - from the time you entered LE to now - that was not met by your academy and in-service training?

As I said, you just can't get good at putting hands on without practicing it enough. Practicing anything is for the most part better than not practicing at all. The classical stuff is far more complete a system than the modern stuff is from a combative standpoint, meaning strategies, tactics, mental conditioning, and depth of teachings/principles. These are things that take longer to train though, and would require in-service continued training. The lack of in-service continued training is, I think, one of the biggest mistakes most Departments are making with their officers.

Classical training is a long-term method of training, not a quick-fix method. It is only useful for those that are willing to look at the bigger picture and train long term, IMO. However, it is VERY helpful, and I highly recommend it for those seeking practical ability.

As far as academy goes, they do a good job considering the amount of time they have to impart the skills. That being said, the one point I would have liked to have seen explained and emphasized is kuzushi. Balance breaking wasn't discussed at all, and joint locks are not useful for controlling someone unless kuzushi is accomplished.

Just some additional opinions,

[Hissho]

That neck control makes a big difference, both face up and face down, I have found, especially with the Gumbies and the people not feeling any pain.

If you would elaborate - what are the technical/tactical reasons you find yourself moving away from aikido methods (and in this case we have the unique perspective of actually the same techniques, just the modern aikido version of classical techniques) and turning toward the older stuff?

I think I know why, and it is one of the things I am getting at with this whole thread, especially in light of looking at classical methods versus modern derivations for LE and military.

[johan smits]

Kit,

"But having martial application is different from training in such a way that maximizes the application."

That is absolutely true. Even if you train the martial application seriously I still think that that does not necesarrily mean maximizing the application.
That is a big difference - maximizing is I think only possible when one has applied the techniques for real. Knowing what angle works and what does not work for instance in a technique.

"By changing the way an art is taught, not to mention a drive to allow more students from different walks of life and differing abilities, you do change the art in very critical ways. "

This is something I am not convinced of.
As a teacher I am inclined to say that a certain material can be taught in different formats or different ways. I am an outsider right? So maybe koryu are an exception to that rule, but then how come?

Allowing more people with differing abilities will only change an art when you start catering to those people. Adapting the art so they can stay and train in it an feel happy with it. But that is not what I mean.
If you allow more people in and you will not change the art itself but only the way it is taught will probably get more people trying their hand at the art.

The more people will try it, the more people will stay with it - seems to me while keeping in mind that a lot of people will not continue their training in it since it is not for them.

"Even for many koryu, aiki, jujutsu, whatever exponents it is all a game, a fantasy of violence that is at once not too threatening (to the egos of those involved) while aggrandizing acts of killing and mayhem taken completely out of any contextual basis other than the act itself. This is disturbing, at best. "

Apart from disturbing I feel the people teaching that way are dishonest. They give their students a false sense of security and ability which can be dangerous to them in case those people ever need to use their art in the real world.

Over the years I have come across people training with me who want to learn to protect themselves but I know there are certain areas of training they do not want to go. (the ruptured eyeball part so to speak).
As a teacher I can do two things. I can turn them away telling them I can not teach them and they will never be abel to defend themselves.
On the other hand I can also teach them some selfprotection techniques they can and (probably) will use in an emergency and tell them as good as I can what to expect in the real world. This means seriously discussing the shortcomings of what they are training in.
In that way I have helped them as best as I could and they do have some form of selfprotection so in an emergency they are not utterly helpless. Remember I am talking about civilians nothing else.

Ellis:

"I changed the core mindset - to make things more understandable, more accessible, the training material suffered, the group suffered, and the ryu was damaged."

But Ellis this is not what I mean. One way of adapting the teaching of the art is for instance to change the order of the curriculum. Or to create from the ryu's curriculum a separate well rounded group of techniques - still Araki-ryu mindset et all - which students of modern arts might train to get introduced to Araki-ryu.

An example: my style of jujutsu, were I to teach a group of judoka (with the idea to get them interested) I would choose to start with a different part of the curriculum than I would if I would say had to teach aikidoka or iaidoka.
Essentialy all of them would be learning the same art only my approach would be different.

Would the 'myote' from Araki-ryu maybe be a good example? From memory you wrote these techniques were Araki-ryu's answer to the upcoming Kodokan judo. This would hardly be battlefield techniques I guess but it would still be Araki-ryu mindset would it not?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ellis Amdur]

Hi Johan -


One way of adapting the teaching of the art is for instance to change the order of the curriculum. Or to create from the ryu's curriculum a separate well rounded group of techniques - still Araki-ryu mindset et all - which students of modern arts might train to get introduced to Araki-ryu.
<SNIP>
Would the 'myote' from Araki-ryu maybe be a good example? From memory you wrote these techniques were Araki-ryu's answer to the upcoming Kodokan judo. This would hardly be battlefield techniques I guess but it would still be Araki-ryu mindset would it not?

Separating the order of presentation of the methodology - that's no big deal. The second question has a couple of ramifications. The first one, I already addressed - that, for example, can I use a belt in the manner of a ryofundo, for the same purpose. (BTW - I first got inspiration re that from a book I read at age twelve, which described a group of marines on shore leave attack by a gang whom they destroyed with their garrison belts).

But the second question??? - first of all the myote techniques are crap, to be honest - primitive throws, inefficient structure. So should I improve them? Why? The best I could come up with already exists. There is greco-roman wrestling, judo, sambo - over a century of study by thousands of men far better than I'll ever be able to imagine. So my position is: study grappling and then come do Araki-ryu. In recent times, the old guys of Isezaki Araki-ryu, for the most part, were very proud of their dan rankings in judo. (What this means is that as soon as they could see how fast and far judo was advancing, they dropped the myote, more or less, and developed that aspect of things through judo). (Therefore, the myote is not part of my curriculum - it may be a historical curiosity, but of no other value).

How about kicks and punches? Learn some muay thai and come study Araki-ryu. What? How could a ring art have any validity to a "battlefield practice?" Simply, muay that is a study of the most efficient and powerful ways to kick, knee, punch, and elbow. A lot is not relevant - we find out what IS relevant in our own sparring sessions, which take into account what clothes/armor one would be wearing, or whether one is armed (Don't think I'd want to do a high kick against someone with a blade in their hand, of course). And then, in a civilian, modern context, a drunk starts pushing you and you kick his upper thigh with a really hard low shin kick and he's on the ground, largely uninjured. You have the tools, without having to deblood the ryu.

Another example - Araki-ryu has somewhere in its records an admonition to learn "tanegashima" - (the primitive muskets of the 16th century). No thanks. So should we update and include Araki-ryu techniques with firearms? Which firearms? That's ridiculous. And why bother? Go study with someone who is expert with firearms, as is requisite to your station in life (military, police or civilian).

In fact, that's exactly how the bushi did things in the old days. You look at the training history of many of the old shihan, and they had other menkyo in tactics, in firearms, in another form of kenjutsu.

There is no hard and fast rule here how "koryu" should and does handle the modern world. In Toda-ha Buko-ryu (THBR), much of this discussion is irrelevant - not all, but much - because the ryu is more circumscribed to archaic weapons, and no grappling component. But once again, your question has relevance another way. The way naginata schools have tried to make things more "accessible" is to join with the modern competition naginata using the light, whippy bamboo naginata shinai. The old school kata are seen as less and less relevant to winning competition, so are either ignored, or get "contaminated" by the thinking patterns of the modern sport form. THBR would not be "top of the line" using a naginata shinai - it's techniques are built for use of a heavy weapon, which one couldn't use in such sports shiai - so to change it in this way would mean the loss of what makes it valuable, even as a repository of old information.

I think that the problem in discussion here is the idea of doing something for the public good, making something more accessible so more people could have the benefits. How is this different from saying Chopin's music is too difficult for most people, so how about if we trim a lot of those notes? Maybe only a very few people will ever play Chopin's etudes. A lot more will play simpler music and have a good time doing so.

Whether koryu practitioners are truly an "elite," or merely have an ideology that they are an elite, is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is a knowledge base and a form of study that only a few are drawn to. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the koryu that requires improvement. That's just the way it is.

Ellis Amdur

[Kim Taylor]

Whether koryu practitioners are truly an "elite," or merely have an ideology that they are an elite, is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is a knowledge base and a form of study that only a few are drawn to. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the koryu that requires improvement. That's just the way it is.

Some may go with "elite" as a description, others might use "obscure" or "irrelevant" (which is of course the topic of discussion of this thread) or even "irritating" and "boring" but I think you've got it right Ellis, the key here is that koryu appeals to very few people so there are very few people practicing.

I don't know how one would change the koryu sword arts to become more popular without re-inventing kendo. I've never tried to change the techniques or my teaching style, I don't have the permission. I teach as I was taught and only what I was taught. As to missionary work, I have limited myself to advertising (putting information out there, offering seminars), being in the organization of my sensei (kendo federation) where iaido and jodo are supposed to find a fruitful bunch of potential students (personally I've found karate and aikido folks are generally more interested in iaido and jodo than kendo folks are) and teaching anyone who shows up in class (minus the personality checks and waiting outside the gate in the rain).

I'm pretty easy going but I still have a 90 percent dropout rate and at the best of times have only had about 14 students on the books. Koryu is just not that interesting to most people.

Kim.

[Kendoguy9]

"As a teacher I am inclined to say that a certain material can be taught in different formats or different ways. I am an outsider right? So maybe koryu are an exception to that rule, but then how come?"

As I see it (at least from my own limited koryu studies) is that the ryu shapes the student much more than the student shapes the ryu. Before I studied Jikishinkage-ryu I had seen the old budokan video of Omori Sogen doing the Hojo. I thougt to myself that isn't a very difficult kata! I tried to copy it and I did. The movements were pretty close, I lifted the sword when I needed to, I stepped when I needed to and I cut when I needed to. I wasn't doing Jikishinkage-ryu at all, in fact I missed almost EVERYTHING! To say the kata was hollow or lifeless was to be kind. In Jikishinkage-ryu the first set of kata are used to really start to shape the student, so much so that it influences how you move in almost everything else you do. I don't think you could do this without following the format of training (when I took a seminar with Sasamori sensei of Itto-ryu I felt like I was doing Jikishinkage-Itto-ryu lol). It wouldn't make a lick of sense to start a student out with the shinai kata or kodachi kata first because the foundation isn't there for those sets. It would do a diservice to the student to try. An art like judo or aikido there is a lot of room for a favorite technique, or throwing them into the mix at any point because they will after time form their own aikido or their own judo.

I feel that this concept of creating your own judo or aikido or whatever limits what a student can do. When I studied judo (for about 6 years, for 6 days a week, between 4 and 8 hours a class) I really focused on a handful of throws: hizaguruma, haraigoshi, and tomoenage. Even today when I show up to a judo class duing randori I default to those throws. There are many situations where another throw might be better but I developed my style to such a level even after 15 years this is what comes out of me. The same happens on the ground, too. This won me many trophies and medals (I'm not sure how many because I think I threw most of them out when I moved out of my parent's house). I can no longer afford to limit myself like that. In the kata method of training I spend an equal amount of time on all the kata. I've found this to be VERY helpful in the "real world." When I go hands on I am able to better adapt to the situation because I have a much larger "vocabulary" to pull from and a much better solid foundation (as much as I practiced I feel my over all judo foundation was actually very weak in retrospect). Kata or pieces of kata that I might not "like" to do in the dojo have found themselves coming out when I needed them because there was no "personal style" to my budo. I study the ryu as faithfully as I can and it has taken good care of me so far.

One of my DT/Arrest techniques instructors focused on two locks: kotegaeshi and ikkyo. That's it. He's a 25+ year veteran who has made a lot of arrests. He taught those because those are the only two he's ever used. He studied martial arts but they were all punching arts so punch them in the face and then ikkyo them. I like having more variety and I need more variety.

We had a gumby in our dojo back in the day. The guy could rotate his hand like in kotegaeshi 360 degrees! I found keep twisting until the slack is gone is the best answer for that. Also they tend to only be hyper flexible in one direction. The other direction the tend to be tight. If kotegaeshi just keeps turning try a sankyo and I bet you'll get their attention.

[Ellis Amdur]

One other point comes to mind, elicited by Chris C's post. Whether one can "change the order" depends on the pedagogical model. JsKR is a perfect example: as Chris C describes, there's really no way that one can start with the 2nd level or above techniques, because the first level are truly ground. That is true with THBR - with one exception. On the shoden level, there are naginata against naginata & naginata against sword. Until about 1930, the naginata/sword was practiced first. That changed when naginatajutsu was added to the school system for girls, to aid in the development of the mindset deemed necessary in the build-up towards WWII. The dual naginata forms were introduced, because one only had to teach one weapon to the kids instead of two. That order has been maintained since. I don't think it makes any difference, really, because the same groundwork/basics is equally and identically in both sets.

With Araki-ryu, there are whole areas where one could choose to start with any number of sets, because they have the same core. Hence, when it comes to weapons I, mostly teaching individually, have started one guy with spear, another with sword, another with bo, and one with chained weapons. Moving to another weapon will be a side-ways step rather than a "step up." In this case, one gets deeper and deeper in the ryu within the same kata sets, rather as in many other ryu, in a progression of different forms which offer different principles.

Best
Ellis Amdur

[Hissho]

RE: Firearms

I might think of that as more an admonition to "learn firearms" versus specifically learning the Tanegashima. Wasn't one of the former Araki-ryu headmasters a shihan in several firearms ryu?

RE: "creating your own."

Might that not be different ryu to ryu? I can see a school or teacher saying "you MUST do it this way," but that might be limiting the number and type of people that could successfully do a ryu (Ellis would be hard pressed to find students, for example, if people had to do it the way he does it at 6'6"...) but certainly ryu as old as Takeuchi-ryu seemed to have made allowances for rather different perspectives and performance of kata based on student personality and physical type, reflected in Wayne Muromoto's piece on Shu Ha Ri (http://classicbudoka.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/50-shu-ha-ri-the-markers-along-the-path/) in his excellent blog. I know of another headmaster that admonished his students specifically to NOT all do it the same way, and to make the ryu "your own."


Also, it seems from my limited experience, the older (Sengoku) schools, rather than having many disparate kata seem to have a few "key" methods that pop up over and over again across their practice, so that, as Ellis describes, practicing one is really practicing all of them.

Perhaps a very large selection of kata is more a reflection of those different body types and personality types leaving their personal stamp on a ryu? Actually widening the ability of future generations of students to get something from a school, to specialize in certain areas over others (which is a natural human thing), versus a matter of having to master and maintain "all of them?" If you have hundreds of kata and techniques and have to continually practice them all, might you not end up a "jack of all kata, master of none?"

Also in a ryu with a varied curriculum of weapons one could have to deal with some very real psychological and attentional issues appending to patterning various skill sets across different weapon types that might conflict. Today we have seen that problem simply with changing holsters, or changing the style of a pistol (adding a safety, or having a different spot on the gun for the mag release), so it can literally be a life and death issue under critical stress.

I believe that classical bushi understood this, and why early ryu seem so consistent across weapon types and fighting methods. It also makes sense for a school to maybe not use a weapon to its apparent optimum advantage based on another school's analysis: its not that they "don't know how to use the weapon," its that they are using the weapon in their way to keep it consistent. Might not be the optimal use of the weapon based on another ryu's logic, but it is based on that particular ryu's principles.

My shooting instructor is working within one parameter I asked set for my practice: I don't change my drawstroke. I chose this because I have trained it a certain way to maximize its effectiveness for very close situations (which I am more likely to face), and I want to keep one platform versus several different ones based on the distance of the adversary should I need to engage with a firearm. He said "that makes sense. It will slow you down slightly from the purely speed perspective, which is more important for competitive shooting and for shooting situations further away, but I understand the rationale and we'll just have to work with it." It is not hampering me all that much (my actual pure shooting skill is turning out to be more of an obstacle in that sense!!), but the tradeoff makes it consistent with a totally integrated tactical platform.

Which is what I believe the early ryu were trying to achieve.

[Kim Taylor]

RE: "creating your own."

Might that not be different ryu to ryu? I can see a school or teacher saying "you MUST do it this way," but that might be limiting the number and type of people that could successfully do a ryu (Ellis would be hard pressed to find students, for example, if people had to do it the way he does it at 6'6"...) but certainly ryu as old as Takeuchi-ryu seemed to have made allowances for rather different perspectives and performance of kata based on student personality and physical type, reflected in Wayne Muromoto's piece on Shu Ha Ri (http://classicbudoka.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/50-shu-ha-ri-the-markers-along-the-path/) in his excellent blog. I know of another headmaster that admonished his students specifically to NOT all do it the same way, and to make the ryu "your own."

If you guys will allow me to go into "sensei" mode for a moment, and make pronouncements rather than suggest methods of looking at stuff... It's shorter to declaim...

"Making the ryu your own" is not a matter of selecting a style or using various favourite techniques. From photography, which is another of my arts, there is a desire and temptation on the part of those who are beginners to "develop a style" as quick as possible and what they get is a gimmick. Choosing this or that is not the way you make a ryu your own. You follow your teacher like a photocopier, you try to do everything he does, exactly as he does it, for years and years and years. He demonstrates and you do.

The thing is, he does not try to correct you in the ways that you differ from him due to your size, or your muscle mass (hell if you can blow through an opponent due to your size differential and he's just a little guy... why not) or your prior, obviously efficient, way of movement. He gets out of the way of your unique body limitations and advantages while keeping you to the spirit and intent of the ryu.

That is making the ryu your own, only your sensei and your students can pronounce your style, you cannot. Back to photography, a genuine style is only apparent after you've been shooting for a decade or two. What you do no matter what gimmick you're playing with is your style.


Also, it seems from my limited experience, the older (Sengoku) schools, rather than having many disparate kata seem to have a few "key" methods that pop up over and over again across their practice, so that, as Ellis describes, practicing one is really practicing all of them.

I work with three koryu, the last (jodo) reluctantly because three is too many. Each of them does have a unique way of looking at the world, each can be taken down to a very few motions, as can aikido, my other major art. One of the Aikido students I've been teaching (after a decade and a half absence) told me that Aikido had hundreds of techniques. I laughed and said "maybe 15 if you stretched it". So yes, you've nailed it.



Perhaps a very large selection of kata is more a reflection of those different body types and personality types leaving their personal stamp on a ryu? Actually widening the ability of future generations of students to get something from a school, to specialize in certain areas over others (which is a natural human thing), versus a matter of having to master and maintain "all of them?" If you have hundreds of kata and techniques and have to continually practice them all, might you not end up a "jack of all kata, master of none?"

I don't think it's as deliberate or as conscious as all that. Yes I think you've got it right that more and more kata show up as the generations go by, and yes I think that different body types will promote a new kata or two but unless there's some ego problems involved, most students will not deliberately add to their sensei's teachings. Not the core instruction. The thing is, most students will hang on to their sensei's every teaching. Hence a "demonstration of how to do something if you're this big or this fast" will result in a new kata after you're dead. Kata are memories of what your teacher showed you.

A new headmaster may very well "trim the fat" in a school. As Ellis pointed out, why keep a lot of throwing techniques or punching techniques around in a school that deals with weapons. You want to learn how to punch someone, go study an art that specializes in it. Be efficient. You may keep a few small things around to show how to "do it our way" as in....



Also in a ryu with a varied curriculum of weapons one could have to deal with some very real psychological and attentional issues appending to patterning various skill sets across different weapon types that might conflict. Today we have seen that problem simply with changing holsters, or changing the style of a pistol (adding a safety, or having a different spot on the gun for the mag release), so it can literally be a life and death issue under critical stress.

I believe that classical bushi understood this, and why early ryu seem so consistent across weapon types and fighting methods. It also makes sense for a school to maybe not use a weapon to its apparent optimum advantage based on another school's analysis: its not that they "don't know how to use the weapon," its that they are using the weapon in their way to keep it consistent. Might not be the optimal use of the weapon based on another ryu's logic, but it is based on that particular ryu's principles.

My shooting instructor is working within one parameter I asked set for my practice: I don't change my drawstroke. I chose this because I have trained it a certain way to maximize its effectiveness for very close situations (which I am more likely to face), and I want to keep one platform versus several different ones based on the distance of the adversary should I need to engage with a firearm. He said "that makes sense. It will slow you down slightly from the purely speed perspective, which is more important for competitive shooting and for shooting situations further away, but I understand the rationale and we'll just have to work with it." It is not hampering me all that much (my actual pure shooting skill is turning out to be more of an obstacle in that sense!!), but the tradeoff makes it consistent with a totally integrated tactical platform.

Which is what I believe the early ryu were trying to achieve.

This.

Kim.

[Nathan Scott]

Hi,


If you would elaborate - what are the technical/tactical reasons you find yourself moving away from aikido methods (and in this case we have the unique perspective of actually the same techniques, just the modern aikido version of classical techniques) and turning toward the older stuff?

There is nothing wrong with Aikido. It is by far one of the deepest modern arts out there, IMO. Honestly, the main reason I'm shifting to more classical methods is because that is what I am studying now.

Pre-war Aikido (Yoshinkan derived) did provide me with an excellent foundation for practical application, but as I said, there is simply a greater range of principles, methods, tactics, and other teachings that are either missed or missing within Aikido.

Classical arts tend to focus more on zanshin and combative mindset more than modern arts like Aikido. I made it a point to incorporate this in my own Aikido, but such a focus is almost extinct in Aikido. But I think that is what helped me apply Aikido in real situations.

If I had to criticize Aikido, I guess I'd say that while repetition of simplified kata will get you in the ballpark quickly, there is a ceiling that is reached relatively quickly in which the techniques cap off. In other words, I don't think anyone will obtain the skill level Ueshiba Sensei had from just repeating the simplified forms. Personally, I began to incorporate the study of techniques from "Budo" and "Budo Renshu" years ago to my students. These are good examples of techniques/kata that were not yet simplified, and as such I viewed them as an advanced study.


In the kata method of training I spend an equal amount of time on all the kata. I've found this to be VERY helpful in the "real world." When I go hands on I am able to better adapt to the situation because I have a much larger "vocabulary" to pull from and a much better solid foundation (as much as I practiced I feel my over all judo foundation was actually very weak in retrospect).

I've also experienced this. I used to dislike the Tenchinage technique of Aikido in my earlier days of training. I later came to appreciate it as one of the most important techniques in the art later on, and was glad I didn't stop practicing it.

All kinds of things come out in real-life situations that you wouldn't expect. I guess that is why such things remain in the arts. For example, I just went through a four-day rifle course with my Department, part of which consisted of assuming a "military squat" shooting platform. Everyone hates this position, and believes it is inferior to the various kneeling techniques that could be easily substituted (sorry, I'm probably losing a lot of people with this analogy...). But our instructors told us the reason they've kept it in the curriculum is because, to everyone's surprise, one of our guys ended up getting shot at during a firefight as he was bounding from cover to cover. He apparently stopped in his tracks, dropped straight down into the military squat, and took the opponent out with his rifle. So now we're stuck with it! I've got a feeling the military developed this technique based on some kind of human instinct to drop straight down into as small a target as possible while remaining on your feet and engaging the target.

If it's in the curriculum, it's probably important.


I found keep twisting until the slack is gone is the best answer for that. Also they tend to only be hyper flexible in one direction. The other direction the tend to be tight. If kotegaeshi just keeps turning try a sankyo and I bet you'll get their attention.

Roger that Chris. Yeah, after we got to the booking cage and freed up his hands, I indulged myself with a bit of R&D prior to transferring him to his new home. I found his shoulders to have a "dead" feeling in them, which meant that Nikajo would not go through them, nor would Yonkajo. However, Sankajo, Shihonage, and Kotegaeshi all produced positive results, I assume, due to outward or inward spiraling locks. I have to tell ya though - I am a big proponent of Yonkajo, but he didn't have much of a reaction to it. Very unusual... :(

I guess that's why we have more than one technique, huh?

[Hissho]

Nathan

Thanks, its what I thought.

Though PLEASE tell me that your "R&D" was done consensually with a willing participant rather than simply trying things out with a suspect about to be booked.....

Kim-



You follow your teacher like a photocopier, you try to do everything he does, exactly as he does it, for years and years and years. He demonstrates and you do.

Technically - this cut, this (relative) stance, etc. yes.

But what if he is 80 years old? Can he no longer teach the ryu though he can't do it "properly?" Though he moves differently now than he used to? Are you required to do it like an 80 year old does it if you are 35?

Do what you are told is a better indicator than do what you see, no?


He gets out of the way of your unique body limitations and advantages while keeping you to the spirit and intent of the ryu

.....That is making the ryu your own, only your sensei ....(snip) can pronounce your style, you cannot. Back to photography, a genuine style is only apparent after you've been shooting for a decade or two.

Or from the beginning, if your sensei pronounces it "okay, no?

[Ellis Amdur]

Kit - what an important point!
But what if he is 80 years old? Can he no longer teach the ryu though he can't do it "properly?" Though he moves differently now than he used to? Are you required to do it like an 80 year old does it if you are 35?
Do what you are told is a better indicator than do what you see, no?

Let me give a couple of examples:
1. Saito Morihiro sensei of aikido certainly taught in a traditional, alpha dog manner. He had a bad lower back, and when he executed a lot of techniques, he'd shoot out one hip and twist his back. He was massively powerful, and could get away with a body out of alignment. That distorted posture is almost the "movement signature" of Iwama aikido. Nearly everyone imitated his stuck out hip and butt. Which leads to a question as to why he didn't stop them. Was he oblivious? Did he not care? Or was that a not untypical Japanese method of separating the wheat from the chaff. Those fool enough to imitate weren't worth the real goods. If this last was true, that, alone defines what he was doing as not a martial art, in the classical - I mean of any nationality - sense. Could you imagine a marine drill sergeant allowing the bulk of his recruits, soon to go into battle, to do something wrong because, if they were worth something, they'd "steal" the technique. I often think that much of what is construed to be "traditional Japanese pedagogy was, in fact, a mark of decadence - of martial arts as either recreation or self-cultivation, as opposed to a military training where one wanted each and every member of the group at optimum effectiveness as soon as possible.
2. Shinto Muso-ryu. Shimizu sensei taught well into his eighties - and he became a stiff legged man, with very short shuffling steps. Furthermore, he was teaching police, en masse, and began to change techniques to suit that method of teaching. This was followed by a lot of the jo folks - and when Shimizu died and people sought out Otofuji sensei in Kyushu, who was doing things the more virile Kyushu manner, or Nishioka sensei, who learned from Shimizu at a much younger age, it was quite a surprise, if not shock to many.

The Japanese pedagogy - following Confucian ideals - can, in many systems, allow the old man to stay at the top, teaching, when he should have been guided off to pasture a long time previous. The only old guys who can bring it off are a) those who struggle to keep in peak shape b) have the humility to be the equivalent of a good boxing coach or classical dance instructor - they know the ideal, they tailor it to the body and psyche of the young practitioner.

Ellis Amdur

[Cron]

I agree with Christopher. The film is wonderful and indeed Sugino looked a lot like them. I always thought the difference between Otake en Sugino was found in the fact that Sugino learned Katori Shinto ryu under the koryu section of Kano's Kodokan. And he would be influenced by Kano and maybe that accounted for the difference ( less agressive style ).

But it appears to be another thing altogether.

Koryu are pretty cool.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

Hi Johan,

totally forgot this thread ;)
Just a note: Sugino-sensei also went to the Hombu-Dojo in Chiba for Keiko.

Best regards,

[johan smits]

In for an early night and see what happens :p

Ellis,

First if I have given you the idea that there is something wrong with koryu then I have not made myself clear. What I find most interesting is the cutting edge of an art like koryu taught in a whole different enviroment. I have that with culture. I prefer Meiji photographs of guys with bowlerhats and tight jackets wearing swords and hakama above older pictures of samurai - for instance.

So I am not so much talking about improvement but about adaption in another environment. For me one of the questions, as a teacher and from my own perspective is, how can we get more people interested in koryu? And what can the koryu do about it and are they willing to do so?

Doing something for the public good? - I try to be a little friend of everyone and although I know that we are all equal I also now that some are more equal than others.

About music - I am not much into Chopin to be truthfull - I like others. One thing I like immensely is a speedmetal band 'Nightwish' they used to have the best of both worlds when they had 'Tarja Turunen' a classical vocalist. Her voice coupled with the band was really something different.

Myote techniques were crap - okay so that is an example of an adaption which was not that good. I guess there is no description of the techniques?:D


Kim,
'Koryu is just not that interesting to most people.'
Howcome?


Christopher

'The ryu shapes the student much more than the student shapes the ryu. '
I guess this is true in the beginning but after one has mastered the ryu does one not add to it?

This is what Kit writes about:

'Perhaps a very large selection of kata is more a reflection of those different body types and personality types leaving their personal stamp on a ryu? Actually widening the ability of future generations of students to get something from a school, to specialize in certain areas over others (which is a natural human thing), versus a matter of having to master and maintain "all of them?" If you have hundreds of kata and techniques and have to continually practice them all, might you not end up a "jack of all kata, master of none? '

Could this not be a koryu existing a couple of hundred years, all teachers adding something and in doing so have an excess of kata? Only adding and never restructuring?

Did Kunii sensei of the Kashima-shin ryu not restructure the jujutsu component of that art? To make it more easy to learn?

Michael - you forgot about this thread? :cry:
Thanks I did not know that.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits



ps Christopher
One of my DT/Arrest techniques instructors focused on two locks: kotegaeshi and ikkyo.
I do the same - different group of people to train but these are the coretechniques for them.

[Cron]

Johan, can you read German? If yes, try to get a copy of the "Budo Kyohan" by Sugino-sensei. It has been translated. Great work showing Shinto ryu during WW2 - the Kata, Kamae, etc. look like the stuff which is done today, too ;)
Definitely the price worth!
Cheers!

[johan smits]

Hi Michael,

Yes I read German, not as easy as say for instance English but well enough.
I have seen the book but since on Amazon.de there is no way to search inside it I hesitated since I could not see the contents.

If you say it is well worth the price I just found a birhtdaypresent for myself. ;) So many thanks for the tip I will definately get a copy.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kim Taylor]

Technically - this cut, this (relative) stance, etc. yes.

But what if he is 80 years old? Can he no longer teach the ryu though he can't do it "properly?" Though he moves differently now than he used to? Are you required to do it like an 80 year old does it if you are 35?

Do what you are told is a better indicator than do what you see, no?

Or from the beginning, if your sensei pronounces it "okay, no?

Do what you are told rather than what you see... if what you're told is correct, sure of course. (I've heard some strange mis-translations that are cleared up instantly by looking at what sensei is doing) If you can see something deeper, why not do that.

I've seen lots of "old man iaido" around, but my sensei who are over or pushing 80 quite simply say "don't do it like I do it" if they can't do a certain movement. Others can still take me apart so I've got no problem doing what they do and/or what they say.

On "style" one may very well develop a unique way of doing something that stays with you for the rest of your career, with sensei approval, but beginners have a wide range of movement by definition and sometimes they're going to be perfect, sometimes not. My feeling is that you won't know what movement you actually settle into for years. Another thing to keep in mind is that instruction in the arts is largely negative. You get told no often, but yes rarely (could just be my crap technique of course) so a beginner should beware of silence as being approval. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's just "too early to fix that one, he still has to figure out which foot goes in front".

But on the whole we need to trust our sensei not to give us "hitches" as Ellis has outlined.


I often think that much of what is construed to be "traditional Japanese pedagogy was, in fact, a mark of decadence - of martial arts as either recreation or self-cultivation, as opposed to a military training where one wanted each and every member of the group at optimum effectiveness as soon as possible.

Frankly I struggle with the idea of budo as realistic military training either now or in the past, (iaido on the battlefield and all that) so I don't worry too much about using this stuff "in the street" but I've always had sensei who insist it be "real", ie effective. The USA seems to be settling on predator drones to take out individuals they want dead and that means kids playing video games are going to be more important to the modern military than kids trained in koryu.

Having said that, yes we are talking about updating to modern relevance and in fact there are really only so many ways to efficiently drop an opponent on his head so real could mean effective in a modern situation. But your point about optimum effectiveness as soon as possible will negate much of our "years-long-training" fondness of koryu. Basic training and specialized training on the order of months rather than decades.


The Japanese pedagogy - following Confucian ideals - can, in many systems, allow the old man to stay at the top, teaching, when he should have been guided off to pasture a long time previous. The only old guys who can bring it off are a) those who struggle to keep in peak shape b) have the humility to be the equivalent of a good boxing coach or classical dance instructor - they know the ideal, they tailor it to the body and psyche of the young practitioner.

We've been lucky in that our old men are brutally honest with themselves about their bad shoulders, knees and backs. They use younger instructors to demonstrate when necessary and restrict themselves to fine tuning and showing flashes of their own power as they can. The flashes convince me they're worth listening to.

Thinking about it, I've had very few teachers over the years who could be put into "pasture-ready" category so I don't much think about poor instruction but I agree, the way we accept martial art instruction will allow poor instructors to reach the top and stay there. If we don't challenge, they don't need to prove it.

Some will get up in arms about this but I think the situation is more likely in the arts with a single guy at the top than in wider organizations and associations. What I mean by that is in the kendo federation or iaido federation or similar, these top guys can all keep an eye on each other as equals and may offer such advice as "take someone who can still show it on your next trip". If there's nobody to tell the old guy he's losing it, it's more likely he can still believe he's 18 and strong.


Johan Kim,
'Koryu is just not that interesting to most people.'
Howcome?

I think you're over-thinking it Johan, you are interested, we are interested, but are we interested in restoring old cars or flint-knapping or making our own snowshoes? There's popular culture and there's the geeks and nerds who like various obscure stuff. We're those.

I say kendo and judo are popular but that's only relative to koryu. They're both still tiny compared to storefront karate and MMA training.

Koryu is kata based, you can't jump around, yell and smack each other on the head so kids are going to like kendo better than koryu ken. Judo is competitive, kids love to compete, it's an olympic sport so there's money pumping in to support training. The training is good at the elite levels, very up to date. Koryu jujutsu and even Aikido aren't as much fun, you have to take the pain of being thrown and locked. In judo you can spend long periods of time just dishing it out if you're a competitor and you're good at it, Yay, you don't have to get cranked half the time, Boo.

Now when I say storefront karate is popular I mean there's lots of kids in classes but let's be honest, the successful clubs are ones that make it fun, that make it a bit of a babysitting service after school, which I totally support. One school in our group which is in a bedroom city offers pickup service from school, gives the kids a snack, makes them do their homework and then gives them a karate class before their parents pick them up. If parents are late they get charged babysitting fees. Lots of students, but for iaido and jodo and for the upper levels of their karate style, not a lot of people. The fun classes support the serious study of the few at the top.

Same for hockey, baseball, any activity that isn't fully supported by governments. Lots of kids at the bottom provide money for the few adults who go on to be very serious about it.

Koryu, by their nature, are more adult oriented (and adults job and family stuff to distract us) and more "elite" in this aspect than the more popularized arts. It's not really a mystery that they're not more popular, they aren't really suited to "popular" and the best we can do is be accepting of those who do find their way to our doors without putting up extra barriers (elitist as vs elite I suppose).

Kim.

[Hissho]

I think here we are delving even further into the difficulties of translation, pedagogy, and adaptation highlighted by our different perspectives....

Kim I get what you are saying, but that is simply a matter of instruction. That is not necessarily specific to koryu though there the subject of Japanese pedagogy comes into it. Otherwise I think we are talking about the same things in terms of individual abilities/style. I just don't think that means being a photocopier in all systems. Just the opposite in some.


Budo as realistic.....frankly this is the frame of reference problem I talked about before.

Iaido on the "battlefield" is misplaced - the whole idea misses the point, except perhaps in extremis iai in which you drop a polearm or get unhorsed and have to transition, even then it would likely be to a shorter blade.

Iai is meant for a different set of circumstances and environment than the battlefield, which still might result in combat for the bushi, in the same way that the modern special operations soldier doesn't walk around his home town with his M-4 slung, but likely carries the same or similar handgun as he carries on the battlefield in the event he needs it.



The whole predator drone thing is WAY overstated, I hope you know that and were just being tongue-in-cheek. Some men still go into actual battle with others. Hand to hand combat absolutely does occur, and units are engaging high value targets at close quarters, even in attempts to take them into custody. As well as hostage rescue which cannot be handled with a missle strike. I recently spent some time with a unit specifically seeking close quarters combat and arrest measures because this is increasingly the kind of thing they are being tasked with, had some harrowing experiences with, and did not feel they had been prepared for by their current training.

A Predator drone doesn't do these guys jobs for them, nor do "kids who play video games," and that kind of broad brush is simply a misunderstanding of what is actually happening out there.


Otherwise, I think the "popularity" discussion is a separate one, as mentioned above.

This last is intentionally provocative, intended that is for more discussion rather than as a B.S. electronic tiger way of slamming Kim or anybody else: I am wondering if the whole "geeks and nerds into obscure stuff" is more revealing commentary about resistance or dismissal to the idea of some koryu being relevant in the modern day than anything else. It would be a shock indeed, perhaps, to have an influx of special ops type guys, blooded in actual battles, extremely fit and very aggressive into the koryu. Even one or two in a particular dojo might seriously upset the current order of things...

...but then again isn't that what Draeger did??

[johan smits]

Kim,

I do have a tendency to over-think so your statement might be just.
But nerds and geeks? I thought we were cool :cry:

Hope this thread will bring some more interesting insights in koryu though.

Happy landings,

Johan smits

[Kendoguy9]

"It would be a shock indeed, perhaps, to have an influx of special ops type guys, blooded in actual battles, extremely fit and very aggressive into the koryu. Even one or two in a particular dojo might seriously upset the current order of things...

...but then again isn't that what Draeger did??"

Heck even some serious minded police officers, security officers, bouncers, etc. could really upset things at some dojo. I've seen different arts or dojo attract different sorts of people. I've known a few koryu dojo that have a student base of mostly laywers, doctors and such. The more rough and tumble sort of students really tend to shake things up and upset some people. The folks that like to talk about peace and love and harmony tend to get pretty mad when this happens lol.

A few weeks ago I got my first female student. Interestingly enough it is my own girlfriend. She's been watching us train for a good two+ years now and never had any interest in it. She started a new job working with special needs teenagers at a high school. One of the students has a habit of taking the footrests off the wheelchair and using them as clubs. Even after some basic clinical hands-on classes my girlfriend realized how woefully under prepared she is for any sort of conflict. She has never been in a situation where another human being has wanted to cause her harm. I think it was a bit of a shock to her at first. Kit's example of the two police officers in the same situation sort of happened to her this past week. She has a radio she calls to get extra hands-on staff to come. The student was trying to elope. She was trying to keep the student from getting outside and rolling down a rather steep hill into traffic. She was a bit panicked on the radio but crisis was averted. She was officer one. Hopefully with more practice in the dojo and more practice in the school she can change from officer one to officer two. At least she understands the difference and is taking some steps to change.

[No1'sShowMonkey]

I am curious in all of this what you all would line out as the most salient points of koryu adaptable to modern application.

Batto / iai would seem, as Kit has said, to have a measure of application to defensive draws for pistol.

Sword-taking might have a place in dealing with close quarters against a long-arm, should it come to that.

Jujutsu / aikido / judo all have pretty straight forward application in arrest and control techniques, as well as some good nuggets for weapon retention.

The physical techniques, though, are probably the most easily 'exported', as it were.

Kit returns over and over to the 'mindset', as Nathan also talks about.

I wonder what you would consider to be the koryu pedagogy for teaching zanshin, for teaching combative focus and awareness. I wonder that the salutation for kenjutsu techniques and the intense observation of the opponent, the soft focus, the mirroring of their movements would not be an example of how koryu would instruct a student in the kind of combative awareness and the specific kind of focus that more modern training methods are lacking.

Other such examples of how to adapt the 'soft' skills?

[No1'sShowMonkey]

RE: what modern training is lacking insofar as what Kit / Nathan / Christopher Covington has said on the subject, as I know zero about what modern military / LE training is like.

[Hissho]

Chris -

"Elope?" He was taking off the get married?? :laugh:

Other Chris -

Iai has some contextual crossover, not so much in the way of technical crossover (though the discussion of appendix carry does come in, but that would be too much thread drift).

I think we discussed the pedagogy for teaching zanshin up-thread. But we can delve in again more deeply......I think the IHS actually had some really good stuff in terms of theoretics describing the "soft" elements that classical teaching had in terms of mindset and zanshin, but unfortunately the terminology that was chosen ended up being pretty mind boggling complicated for laymen. It tool me several readings of all the articles collected together to really start to get a handle on it. I don't think it needs to be that complex.

Suffice it say, the underlying philosophy and rationale of the warrior would be the fertile ground for the "seeds of zanshin" planted through kata training. You would have to have that as a starting point: this would necessitate the understanding of the practice as a preparation for life and death, and where death was a very real outcome to those people training it, not in training, of course, but in their "field" application.

The idea that one was facing a trained adversary, the whole 1/3 chance of living when trained warriors faced each other, the idea above that it was a professional responsibility to be prepared for and expect surprise attack, situations of disadvantage, unequal initiative, etc. what today we would call "asymmetric encounters;" to whit, the description of that the term "iai" is supposed to mean - preparing for and adapting to (harmonizing with) whatever situation an adversary might impose.... the idea of "certain victory" and "certain death" and that one who embraces the latter and embraces the idea of facing death well will in fact often be the one who survives versus those who fearfully cling to life. The whole embrace of death thing had nothing to do with suicide or throwing life away for early warriors, but rather through embracing death achieving life this instead.

A very difficult thing to practice, something that early bushi no doubt had inculcated in them from childhood. It exists in other cultures, but the West is one in particular that seems to have lost it.

This being the raw material, the seeds get planted through kata not as simple technical exercises (which happens at first, of course, and must) but with an increasing emphasis on the "intent" of the adversary, on challenging the trainee's equanimity through intensifying what is happening, increasing the speed, changing the rythm, breaking the kata, etc. as is described in many traditional ryu....

This is not "real" zanshin, or as IHS called "unlimited zanshin," which is where actual death or serious injury is faced, but "delimited zanshin" which is basically a way to develop stress inoculation in the face of increasingly dynamic practice where pain is a possible outcome.

I'd imagine that back in the days when warriors were a much tougher lot, without the various liability issues with training that we have today, they pushed the envelope quite a bit more.Not trying to hurt each other, mind you, but simply accepting that to train for serious combat, serious training was necessary and a certain level of injury was probably far more acceptable to them than it would be with us today, even in professional circles.


I remember once watching a kata demonstration in which a senior exponent was paired with a clearly more junior one. They were doing some such sword or jo kata, I honestly can't remember as that was not what struck me about their interaction. The senior guy was I think in the receiving role. They engaged, and the normal wood on wood "clack" that we were hearing with the other groups demonstrating at the same time was not heard with these two. Instead, there was a dull thud. We all knew what that meant, somebody got whacked on the hand pretty hard.

The senior had no apparent reaction, and continued with the kata. The junior guy, though not obvious in a physical sense, clearly did have a reaction, and that a "negative" one. Fleetingly, a pained look came across his face and one of apparent concern. This was very slight, but the change in the energy of the kata was palpable. There was an "emptiness" (suki) there in his intent, that one could clearly tell would have been pierced right through with the intent of the senior. The junior did not break the form, did not stop in the technical sense in any way, but there was a change in his "aura" based on the fact that his mind had obviously not "remained" in what he was doing.

Come to find out it was the senior that had taken the hit, and the junior delivered it.

That's what I mean. There is a lot of training relevance to this, especially the higher up in intensity you go.

[Nathan Scott]

From my point of view, koryu arts contain deeper teachings, which require a longer period of time to master. They also don't look as "cool" as modern arts, and the effectiveness of koryu are not as obvious to someone new to martial arts than the modern arts. The typical Koryu method of learning requires patience, persistence, maturity, and mental analysis of the teachings. Most koryu also either do not demonstrate at all, or when demonstrating, don't show their true application, applied application (real fighting), or inner teachings. The etiquette required in Koryu is often more strict than that of gendai arts, as is the student selection criteria. Bottom line, these reasons make it less appealing for younger/newer students of martial arts.

From my point of view, the ideal student is someone who has already studied some form of modern martial art for at least 10 years before taking up koryu. Such a student has already been using their body in a more physical way than most koryu, and have often come to a place where they can appreciate a long term commitment to a non-profit dojo that offers a lifetime of learning opportunity.

For me, I'm in no hurry to be a "teacher". All that means for most people is standing around correcting others who are training. This is a common rut that many get in to in gendai arts, which in many cases begins to feel like a burden with little reward, since you are rarely learning anything new yourself. I already went through that teaching gendai arts. The way I teach now with Koryu arts is non-verbal for the most part, encouraging what I call guided self-discovery. This allows me to continue training and learning in arts that seem to be endless in teachings, while at the same time, providing me with a class full of training partners. For me, this is much more gratifying, and I always look forward to going to the dojo because I know I will be polishing my own skills and learning something too. Some koryu offer a level of advancement that one can still perform effectively at older ages too, which makes them an attractive investment of time.

Koryu arts emphasize mental aspects more (manipulation of distances and timing, tactics, energy connection, mental conditioning, etc.), and consist of increasingly more advanced methods, which in turn increases your odds of success in a real fight.

Personally, I think encouraging most younger students to study gendai arts first before pursuing koryu arts is probably the best way to go. It gives them a place to burn off energy, perform cooler looking and/or more athletic techniques, become familiarized with the idea of culture and etiquette (in some cases), and establish a reasonable physical foundation and perspective for them in other martial arts. Many koryu teachers use a gendai art as a filter for their koryu art anyway, which is also a good idea.

As far as application of koryu arts in real situations, I find that I rely on my experience/skills in swordsmanship prior to making contact with someone, and then convert to my experience/skills in empty-hand (jujutsu, aiki, etc.) once I put hands on. As such, although it seems like a less obvious choice compared to koryu jujutsu, I view koryu kenjutsu as a very valuable art to study in terms of modern day situations.

FWIW,

[Kendoguy9]

Yeah the first time I heard elope in that context I thought the same thing. Besides going away to Las Vegas to get married I think the only other time you hear that word used is in the mental health field.

She did well overall I think; she held the kid back from rolling down a hill, managed to call on the radio for more help and avoided getting a good braining. She was also able to recognize she didn't have all the "soft skills" we've been talking about and wants to train for more of them. I'd call that a win :)

[johan smits]

Kit,

' Otherwise, I think the "popularity" discussion is a separate one, as mentioned above.

This last is intentionally provocative, intended that is for more discussion rather than as a B.S. electronic tiger way of slamming Kim or anybody else: I am wondering if the whole "geeks and nerds into obscure stuff" is more revealing commentary about resistance or dismissal to the idea of some koryu being relevant in the modern day than anything else. It would be a shock indeed, perhaps, to have an influx of special ops type guys, blooded in actual battles, extremely fit and very aggressive into the koryu. Even one or two in a particular dojo might seriously upset the current order of things...'

Maybe you are right. On the other hand what is happening here is history in reverse so to speak. Koryu were created by and for bushi and were increasingly trained by commoners. This happended over a long period in which there was probably some decline in those (ko)ryu.
Koryu goes West and it is mostly practised by commoners with very little input from ' pro's' .

I think this discussion about adaptation has got a lot of facets which you can separate for the discussion but are actually related and influence each other.

One point is quality of teaching - Nathan mentioned - hence my question way back in this thread if a special koryu teachers course exists? If not why not? Quality of teaching is important. The fact you can kick someone's arse , koryu-wise or else does not mean you can teach it well to another person.
Lack of good teaching will mean the more critical student walks.

I have been training for some thirty-five years and am a teacher myself.
When I ask a teacher of koryu in which I consider training questions (not asking for special treatment or for info from higher levels or anything like that)
and I, for whatever reason, do not get reasonable and clear answers to my questions than I am not going to train under that teacher.


I just found the answer to one of my questions in a post by Nathan:

' . Many koryu teachers use a gendai art as a filter for their koryu art anyway, which is also a good idea.'

That could account for the fact why there are only so few people training in koryu :D


Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Josh Reyer]

One point is quality of teaching - Nathan mentioned - hence my question way back in this thread if a special koryu teachers course exists? If not why not? Quality of teaching is important. The fact you can kick someone's arse , koryu-wise or else does not mean you can teach it well to another person.
Lack of good teaching will mean the more critical student walks.

I have been training for some thirty-five years and am a teacher myself.
When I ask a teacher of koryu in which I consider training questions (not asking for special treatment or for info from higher levels or anything like that)
and I, for whatever reason, do not get reasonable and clear answers to my questions than I am not going to train under that teacher.


I can only speak for the particular koryu that I do, but the above is the exact opposite of what the procedure is. There is no "teaching" per se. The instructor models what is to be done. The student then practices it. Then the student must find how to do it themselves. There are kuden -- the hints and signposts along the way, but they don't actually tell what to do or how to do it. Really all the teacher can do is tell you what you're doing wrong. They generally can't tell you how to do it right, because it's your body, and only you can figure out the alchemy of sensations and visualizations that lead you to doing the technique naturally an easily: a full, personal understanding of what the teacher has modeled, rather than just a mannered copy.

From my own experience, this has been a frustrating experience for many Westerners. I suspect it's frustrating for Japanese, as well, but they don't tend to share their frustrations with me. Interpreting for the non-Japanese deshi, though, I've found that all too often they will ask the teacher or one of the old men of the ryu a precise technical question; "Should I move my foot first, and then cut?" or "Please teach me correct tenouchi." And the answer will be "Don't worry about things like that, just move with your whole body." Or, "Tightly with the pinky, not at all with the forefinger and thumb, and in between for the other fingers," basically what they were already told the first day of practice, and not the guide-manual answer they were looking for.

To be sure, some students get frustrated and walk away. But what can you do? Only they can figure out how they can do it. I think this is where the phrase, "Welcome any who come, chase after none who leave" comes from. Any and everything that a teacher can explicitly impart to the student generally is imparted to the student. It's all the other important stuff that the student has to figure out for themselves. To an extent, they have to reinvent the wheel, a wheel just perfect for them.

These days, more than in the past I think, there's a bit more explicit explanation, and yet the constant refrain we hear when we start doing uchidachi is "Don't try to explain. Show, and make them do it."

My job is teaching, but more and more I've found that the style above informs my regular job more than my teaching experience avails me on the dojo floor. And also that many of the newer pedagogies are moving closer to the old ways. Provide objectives, provide a structure for students to experiment, and let them figure it out for themselves. The knowledge is more internalized, and knowledge discovered is twice as sweet as knowledge given.

[johan smits]

Hi Josh,

Thanks for a very clear explanation! I do understand what you are saying and I do not think the method in use is not good. On the contrary there is something to say for especially if that which can be explained is explained.
But since this thread is about adaption I think the question about teaching is interesting.
Obviously the classical teaching method in koryu is a Japanese system with it's roots in Japanese society.

In case you transplant koryu to The West is this system still the best to teach koryu, or not? Should koryu adapt it's teaching method? Can this be done without losing essential elements of these arts? Or not?

Kawaishi sensei who brought judo to France and Europe developed another way of teachings the Europeans very different from Kodokan or Butokukai or wherever his roots lay.
Some are pro- some are contra- but it is a well used method especially in the beginning days of European judo.

And further: how are you going to arrange for insurance? Can you do that without a recognized teacher's license? In my country only against considerabel costs.


I am the guy who asks the questions - I don't provide the answers.
I do not have them, I hope to learn something from those giving theirs.



Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Josh

That was great, thanks.

When I think about it, it makes a lot of sense. First, when the ryu were being formed, almost every student would already have a background in a lot of the basics simply from being born into the warrior class. There would be a lot of things that would just be known and not need to be explained.

And some were probably coming in with skill in other ryu, and experience in combat.

Something that confirms this for me was reading about one ryu where the second generation had already devised a new set of forms to teach people the basics of sword handling before they embarked on the more challenging older forms. Why? Because the basic sword skills of students coming in had already deteriorated so much the bulk needed extra training.

That was in the early 1600s, what does that say for us today?

Second - since most of the Sengoku era people would already have some skills, the rest would just be gravy. A teacher would be serving the overall purpose by just making sure they weren't screwing up too badly, exhorting them to practice, and modeling for them.

And it would also identify who potential future menkyo kaiden holders might be: those who just "got it." They would then get more attention.

This is different from "keeping it from people." It is instead making people earn it, naturally separating them out by aptitude and ability, rather than offering "equal opportunity learning experience to match each student's uniqueness, growing the rainbow of diversity that our ryu is supposed to be..."

More and more I think of it like a special unit which entails a selection process, and not just anybody gets to "play," rather than an egalitarian approach where a teacher tries to make everyone succeed. Very Confucian - I give you one corner, you come back with the other three.

Logistically if we think about it, trying to get a group of even five or eight students to full license would be quite an onerous task for a teacher that also still wanted to train. Especially if he had to spoon feed some of them, and hold back others, by keeping things equal and treating everybody the same.

[johan smits]

"More and more I think of it like a special unit which entails a selection process, and not just anybody gets to "play," rather than an egalitarian approach where a teacher tries to make everyone succeed. Very Confucian - I give you one corner, you come back with the other three.

Logistically if we think about it, trying to get a group of even five or eight students to full license would be quite an onerous task for a teacher that also still wanted to train. Especially if he had to spoon feed some of them, and hold back others, by keeping things equal and treating everybody the same. "


I hear what you are saying Kit.

Question : would a koryu have a better chance of survival for a longer period of time if it had two Menkyo Kaiden holders or say ten in one generation?

Just asking.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[Maro]

I can only speak for the particular koryu that I do, but the above is the exact opposite of what the procedure is. There is no "teaching" per se. The instructor models what is to be done. The student then practices it. Then the student must find how to do it themselves. There are kuden -- the hints and signposts along the way, but they don't actually tell what to do or how to do it. Really all the teacher can do is tell you what you're doing wrong. They generally can't tell you how to do it right, because it's your body, and only you can figure out the alchemy of sensations and visualizations that lead you to doing the technique naturally an easily: a full, personal understanding of what the teacher has modeled, rather than just a mannered copy.

From my own experience, this has been a frustrating experience for many Westerners. I suspect it's frustrating for Japanese, as well, but they don't tend to share their frustrations with me. Interpreting for the non-Japanese deshi, though, I've found that all too often they will ask the teacher or one of the old men of the ryu a precise technical question; "Should I move my foot first, and then cut?" or "Please teach me correct tenouchi." And the answer will be "Don't worry about things like that, just move with your whole body." Or, "Tightly with the pinky, not at all with the forefinger and thumb, and in between for the other fingers," basically what they were already told the first day of practice, and not the guide-manual answer they were looking for.

To be sure, some students get frustrated and walk away. But what can you do? Only they can figure out how they can do it. I think this is where the phrase, "Welcome any who come, chase after none who leave" comes from. Any and everything that a teacher can explicitly impart to the student generally is imparted to the student. It's all the other important stuff that the student has to figure out for themselves. To an extent, they have to reinvent the wheel, a wheel just perfect for them.

These days, more than in the past I think, there's a bit more explicit explanation, and yet the constant refrain we hear when we start doing uchidachi is "Don't try to explain. Show, and make them do it."

My job is teaching, but more and more I've found that the style above informs my regular job more than my teaching experience avails me on the dojo floor. And also that many of the newer pedagogies are moving closer to the old ways. Provide objectives, provide a structure for students to experiment, and let them figure it out for themselves. The knowledge is more internalized, and knowledge discovered is twice as sweet as knowledge given.


Thank you for that.

As someone who is tentatively assisting others in a study group, that answers a lot of questions and suspicions I've had.

[johan smits]

Just a few words.

Last night, when I was mumbling ' koryu... koryu ' Marishiten appeared to me in the form of a strickingly beautiful brunette. She made a universal mudra by placing her indexfinger vertically before her lips and shaking her head slowly from side to side. With one finger she pointed to me and with her other hand beckoned me to her. The rest is okuden and cannot be told...

Anyway.

Looking back at this thread I see two parts: one about the adaptation of the techniques (and essence of the ryu) into this day and age and another culture and one about the organisational matters amongst others.
The first part is enormously interesting the second part less so but still when taking a larger viewpoint important, I feel.

What connects the two (I feel) is teaching, transferring knowledge and skill.
The traditional way of transmitting koryu, ' do as I do' , so to speak will work up to a certain point I think.
This way of teaching will find it's ' examination ' in real life. You do it as your teacher has shown you and if it's not good enough - bump goes your head.

This leaves the bloodied pro well taken care of.

The geeks so to speak will never have a way to find out if they have learned well what they have learned.
Tenouchi in the dojo is one thing. Tenouchi while making contact with a motorrider's helmet worn by someone who is running at you is something else and normally not experienced by the geekish on a regular basis.

So summing it up for myself it seems to me it's the pro's who are ' adapting ' koryu and the geeks who are ' adopting ' koryu.

Ah well as long as the last group doesn't go pointy-eared w'll be okay.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits ...chasing Marishiten

[Lockfield]

Just a few words.

Last night, when I was mumbling ' koryu... koryu ' Marishiten appeared to me in the form of a strickingly beautiful brunette. She made a universal mudra by placing her indexfinger vertically before her lips and shaking her head slowly from side to side. With one finger she pointed to me and with her other hand beckoned me to her. The rest is okuden and cannot be told...


Happy landings,

Johan Smits ...chasing Marishiten

errr, in some places Marici/Marishiten is a guy... :D

be careful... :p

[johan smits]

'errr, in some places Marici/Marishiten is a guy...

be careful... '

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Okay, let me explain,

the strickingly tall brunette in question was female - no doubt about it.
She can also take the f orm of a very tall slim blonde with a ponytail and high black ridingboots.
But never - I repeat - NEVER - does Marishiten - in my visions - take the form of anything else than female.
Honest to God.

Sometimes she rides a hog, but as I have already explained that is okuden... and well you know it ,,,


Happy landings

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Been enjoying Chris Li's interesting blog at Aikido Sangenkai (http://www.aikidosangenkai.org/blog/).

I daresay that what he is discussing pertains to the discussion here. In a sense, it is revealing what got "stripped out" of a particular modern art (aikido), turning it into a "budo lite" (love that one!) has largely been glossed over in classical arts as well, to make them more understandable and accessible to a wider audience.

Here not speaking of the physical body skills, but rather that the philosophical and psychological training has also been watered down or stripped out, or on the other end perverted (WWII Bushido and other antics of "masters" being a perfect example of the latter.)

Following this line of thinking, touching upon awase/ai, the idea of the Life Giving Sword (also doing some reading elsewhere on this - the "spiritual" community I don't think gets it, either...), "winning with the sword in the scabbard" and so on is applicable in terms of conceptualizing mindset, and proper training in it, and can/should be adapted to modern times.

I've already noted that mindset is typically either a toss-off addendum to an almost entirely physical training program, traditional or modern. Though frequently a mantra in both kinds of training halls, though people talk about "the will to win," it is - literally - almost never trained effectively. It generally manifests as:

a) Empty Talk (a cool name for a martial arts forum, actually :D) - in other words the kind of "oh yeah, you have to do it with mindset....like Bruce Lee said, you need 'emotional content'..."

b) Vague and ambiguous philosophical terminology with little concrete experiential understanding or explanation. This is exacerbated by the fact that much traditional Chinese and Japanese "scientific" terminology relative to human performance is couched in magico-religous terms because that was their science....the thing is warriors were talking from common experiences with life and death encounters and shared visceral (literally) understanding of what those terms were referring to, that are lacking in most martial artists today, thus leading to a vaguer expression of what (insert concept) 'is' than someone who would be grounded in that culture and would have psycho-physiologic touchstones to refer to when considering such a concept and relating to the stress they felt in combat.

c) Passive training of mindset. That is, even in the most challenging and active kata, there is little or no direct instruction on "this is what is happening in your mind....this is what should be happening....in order to get this to happen, when you start thinking THAT way, you need to use THESE strategies, and start thinking THIS way...." and so on. Nor is there a "real world" equivalent...."in training we are dealing with this kind of stress, that can cause this kind of thinking, in an actual situation, the stress will have more of this character, and therefore you need to make doubly sure that you do this in order to deal with that..."

I think this is exactly what the mental aspect of kata is supposed to be doing, and why there is so much within kuden and gokui, as they are what makes the experience more 'real.' Though this could also be misconstrued and devolve to "samurai role playing" if taken too far.

Modern force on force suffers from the same thing: "mindset training" occurs passively in the form of "stress inoculation" simply because the training is stressful. There is very little instruction on what and how people are thinking, rather, debriefs are typically "you need to be more aggressive." The upshot is that someone who is not performing well tends to be stuck not performing well, or that people who do well at a certain level tend to fall apart (to use a Boydian term disintegrate i.e. dis-integrate- with the richness that term implies) the higher the stress goes.

My view is that there is a training/teaching model in the classical tradition (with the caveat that we may be dealing with the very same situation aikido is dealing with) that can be drawn from. In other words if that model is presented with a higher fidelity to the actual meaning rather than the budo lite that has been served up.

The whole ethical aspect is a related matter, and incredibly important. I think that it is exactly right that these traditions were about a combative ethos first and foremost. But a "life giving," "sword in the scabbard" ethos that is predicated on greater fighting and psychological skills. I guarantee you that people who have a lot more training, who have trained with more intensity, who have had their minds and bodies tested, tend to keep far more level heads, use more appropriate force, don't panic under violent conditions, and have more "time" to exercise restraint because of that skill level and calm.

I can think of few nobler aims that to have a societies armed professions steeped in a tradition of mindful use of force that does not glorify killing and display and machismo but calm, cool, professionalism and measured use of force. This does not mean hesitation - far from it, hesitation is a hallmark of fear and uncertainty- but rather a knowing when you have to do what you have to do, and doing it decisively.

In a day and age when you have panic-shootings, six year olds with shards of glass being Tased, and either over-reaction or under-reaction to force incidents, I think there something here is needed.

[johan smits]

Please note before:
This post is written while in a lighthearted mood.

“ I can think of few nobler aims that to have a societies armed professions steeped in a tradition of mindful use of force that does not glorify killing and display and machismo but calm, cool, professionalism and measured use of force. “

:kiss: :D

“ I daresay that what he is discussing pertains to the discussion here. In a sense, it is revealing what got "stripped out" of a particular modern art (aikido), turning it into a "budo lite" (love that one!) has largely been glossed over in classical arts as well, to make them more understandable and accessible to a wider audience. “

So what is said here is that if an art attracts more people, when it becomes available to a wider audience it automatically turns into a “ budo lite “ i.e. something that is not the “genuine “ thing but good enough for them?

Maybe the average Joe and John don’t need the ‘ real ‘ material for the ‘ real ‘ men but they do have the need for some form of self-protection. ( Which in other words has been the subject of one of my previous posts.)

But why not buy a gun? Have ten (or twenty) lessons and there you go. That seems to me to be the ultimate form of ‘ budolite’ .

On the other hand one could also take the fact that John and Joe and their family do need some form of self-protection seriously and formulate a system or let’s say adapt ;) a system to cater to their needs (unworthy as they are though). So that they can leave their guns at home – make the world a better place. Wear flowers in your hair. :D

" I've already noted that mindset is typically either a toss-off addendum to an almost entirely physical training program, traditional or modern. Though frequently a mantra in both kinds of training halls, though people talk about "the will to win," it is - literally - almost never trained effectively. "

Explain please how this can be trained.


“ I think this is exactly what the mental aspect of kata is supposed to be doing, and why there is so much within kuden and gokui, as they are what makes the experience more 'real.' Though this could also be misconstrued and devolve to "samurai role playing" if taken too far. “

Making experiences more real? This bothers me.

On gokui and kuden.
It could very well be that gokui and kuden are not so much different from the advice fighting men have passed along though the ages.
I knew a man who has seen his share of nasty jungle warfare in some remnants of our Glorious Dutch Colonial past. The things he told me were nothing profound but just practical advice and that from someone who had been there and who had experienced these things for real.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Not meant to be snarky, but it is meant to be challenging - in the way that the following is meant to challenge your own thinking on this. If only because it appears the circle of this discussion has become a spiral....;)


But why not buy a gun? Have ten (or twenty) lessons and there you go. That seems to me to be the ultimate form of ‘ budolite’ .

Not if done properly. The use of firearms is just as much of a martial art as what we are talking about here. The fact that this is so little understood and so blithely talked about says much about why discussions like this go round and round.


Explain please how this can be trained.

I have. I think it is something you need to experience directly. I REALLY hate to say this, but apparently "It Has To Be Felt" :cool:


Making experiences more real? This bothers me.

Confirming for me that we are on different wavelengths.



The things he told me were nothing profound but just practical advice and that from someone who had been there and who had experienced these things for real.

Exactly!

[johan smits]

You are not snarky one bit.
Flowers from my hair are spiralling downwards, this discussion is not. :p
For some strange reason I feel we are more in agreement than it would seem to be so from our discussions.

Shooting might be a martial art but the lessons I am referring to seem hardly martial art to me. Any imbecile could learn that in a couple of hours
and shoot up half a street.

"it has to be felt"- why hate to say it/? it is the truth. Fighting is like making love, you can read about it, talk about it, discuss it, you can even watch it. But all these things won't make you a good lover. Yep the only way to....
blah,blah, blah ...Marishiten...etc. Oh and eh - you need the right equipment :laugh:

This statement above still means that most of us - who don't fight for real - will miss out on some of the most important points in a transmission no matter how hard/serious/realistic/have-to-be-felt-like training we do.

We are not on different wavelengths I think. The professional soldier who has trained all of his life and never went to war does not equal the one who did train all of his life and did go to war. I even feel he does not equal the conscript soldier who got his basic training and nothing more but was sent out to fight for his life.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[No1'sShowMonkey]

I am wondering where something like Hakko-Ryu / Hakko Denshin Ryu falls into this discussion.

After training at a Hakko Denshin Ryu dojo for a bit - populated pretty extensively with cops who bemoaned the rise of the tazer, but another topic - it seemed far more martial than most aikido. After some limited experience in koryu, Hakko Ryu just seemed to be stuck in third gear, or so. A bit more oomph than a lot of other places, but nothing of the long legs of koryu.

Given that the dojo that I attended was so rife with police, and that the founding principles are amenable to police work (No Challenge, No Resistance, No Injury!) I wonder that perhaps Ryuho Okuyama wondered at similar questions as have been asked here and came up with an answer and codified it.

[Joseph Svinth]

What are the rules of engagement? Defining those might clarify this discussion.

[Hissho]

From controlling to killing bad guys.

[johan smits]

Joe,
Clarifying discussions is sometimes good, not always. When you look for answers you should clarify - but since there are no answers on a board it is not a bad thing to let it run free and see what comes up. Maybe a mushroom maybe a diamant. And it is fun - no?
It does takes it's toll from the let's call it the patience from those participating
but that's cool, we're all trained.:p

' From controlling to killing bad guys ' sounds like the stuff movies are made from ;)

I have no personal experience with Hakko-ryu or Hakko Denshin-ryu but it might be an example of an art which is useful to both groups (pro's and civ's).
More realistic than a lot of aikido perhaps and less gory than the ' sneakup from behind and slashtheirthroat' styles. Which seem to be favored by some :D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

No, not the movies, though perhaps my answer appeared flippant.

Anyone, in fact, using force from a self defense perspective is best served by having countermeasures that begin with (assuming physical force is needed) control measures - i.e. those that provide ability to evade assault and to detain or capture individuals at the fairly low end of the spectrim. Most uses of force will in fact be here. Applicable measures may be found in the section of koryu curriculae that involve torite type measures. Even the oldest jujutsu schools contain these things, some with surprising similarity to stuff used today.

Increasingly our soldiers are finding the need to use these kinds of tactics as well.

On the other end of the spectrum is the means to stop a threat from actions that can cause serious bodily injury or death. This is the level that is often grossly misunderstood by people within the martial arts, who either "role play" the use of "deadly techniques" with impunity and little serious consideration of what it actually means to use that kind of force, or dismiss its usefulness altogether.

Often there is an inaccurate assumption that police officers are not allowed to intentionally kill suspects. They are under circumstances in which such action is reasonable - and are not in fact judged by their underlying intent when such force is reasonable.

A cop can beat you to death with a brick, and if it is reasonable, it is good to go.

The applications here from koryu are obvious and dealt with extensively up thread.

[Hissho]

Joe,
Clarifying discussions is sometimes good, not always. When you look for answers you should clarify - but since there are no answers on a board it is not a bad thing to let it run free and see what comes up. Maybe a mushroom maybe a diamant. And it is fun - no?
It does takes it's toll from the let's call it the patience from those participating
but that's cool, we're all trained.:p



The answers have been explained, time and again. Chris and Nathan have also provided examples...And done so patiently....:look:

[johan smits]

" Anyone, in fact, using force from a self defense perspective is best served by having countermeasures that begin with (assuming physical force is needed) control measures - i.e. those that provide ability to evade assault and to detain or capture individuals at the fairly low end of the spectrim. Most uses of force will in fact be here. Applicable measures may be found in the section of koryu curriculae that involve torite type measures. Even the oldest jujutsu schools contain these things, some with surprising similarity to stuff used today.

Increasingly our soldiers are finding the need to use these kinds of tactics as well. "

Kit, I feel that essentially nothing has changed. Gear has I guess but in essence it seems to me to be still the same?

" The answers have been explained, time and again. Chris and Nathan have also provided examples...And done so patiently.... "

And that is well appreciated.
But maybe I am looking for mushrooms...

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[pgsmith]

Anyone, in fact, using force from a self defense perspective is best served by having countermeasures that begin with (assuming physical force is needed) control measures - i.e. those that provide ability to evade assault and to detain or capture individuals at the fairly low end of the spectrim. Most uses of force will in fact be here.
I disagree. This is the way it should be for those professionally involved i.e. LEOs, security, military. Professionals are forced to encounter violent situations when they are otherwise avoidable because they don't have the luxury of simply walking away. For the average Joe on the street, the only violent encounters he will have are those that are unavoidable. When faced with unavoidable violence, the safest course is to end it as expeditiously as possible.

Attempting to control your assailant creates a much more dangerous scenario which can be fatal to the person being attacked, or bystanders that you are trying to protect. The professional has to accept this as a danger inherent in the job they are being paid to do. To the average Joe, this is unwarranted risk. It is my personal philosophy that if someone physically attacks me, they are trying to kill me. Therefore, I will do what is needed to eliminate that threat by ending the attack as quickly and totally as possible. I will not attempt to control my attacker as I have no need to capture him. I do, however, need to render him unable to carry on his attack. Whether that is unconcious or dead is irrelevant to my mind as it is self defense. This very philosophy has gotten me out of a few fights here in redneck land as I told them about it when they wouldn't let me walk away. It's amazing how their mind changes when they discover that they may well die if they try what they've threatened. :)

[Hissho]

Paul

On one level you are correct. It is a convenient approach to viewing self defense, and one frequently encountered in martial arts, but it is not a practical one, lacking a more global understanding of how violence manifests.

For the "boogey man" assaults that much of self defense envisions, this is generally true. Maximum damage to end the assault, and flee, if the attack is unavoidable. Hopefully it is effective...;)

You will almost never encounter such a situation if you lead a responsible life, are of middle class background, educated, and stay out of bad places. These DO happen, so it is good to have this approach in your toolbox, though. But if all you have in that toolbox is a hammer, doesn't mean you get to call every situation a nail.

Because even in cases of extreme violence there is commonly a need to control people. Jared Loughner, the Gabbie Giffords active shooter (who killed several people), was stopped in the process of murder by citizens who tackled and pinned him to the ground and prevented him from reloading his pistol.....

You might also be in a situation where dealing with a violent threat may require some level of control of the threat simply to cover your family's escape.

Or, you may have decided to intervene with a man brutally assaulting his wife, or a child, and you hit him and escape, and he simply starts in again - having some level of ability to control him would be critical.

Then again, you could simply deal with that as "not my problem." I have a higher expectation for people training seriously in martial arts, while at the same time I teach a lot about judgment and decision making as to just when one might want to get involved in a situation "not your own."


On the flip side of the coin, the far more likely situation you may deal with will be a lower level encounter that still might go physical. You are not in any way allowed to treat any assault/attack as if it were potentially lethal and act as if it was so...again with only having a hammer..... This is unreasonable and irresponsible, at best.

So the aggressive panhandler, the guy that gropes your wife and then grabs her, the drunken uncle, the crazy parent at the kids game, or the elderly dementia sufferer that starts beating someone at the buffet, or (any number of situations) that might involve some level of physical engagement simply is not very well handled by extreme measures, or by repeatedly beating or slamming someone down, disengaging, only to be re-engaged and start the situation over again.

Certainly, after an initial encounter he *may* leave or keep his distance....but he may not. Far better - and far less force needs to be used if - when appropriate to the situation - the person is controlled and held until police arrive.

Or, again, "best just not get involved." Always a wise and tactical option. In my opinion, not always a moral one, in particular with someone who is "trained for this kind of stuff." Or maybe the matter is properly trained...

I look to that other classic bushi attitude of being able to control the untrained without resorting to the use of the sword.....if you espouse that kind of approach you should be able to control someone when they are a threat, but beating them senseless is not acceptable.

It's just having a much wider understanding of violent encounters, and exercising judgment, decisions making, and reasonableness appropriately. Though there are very few dojo in which this is realistically trained.

[pgsmith]

But, the situations that you just envisioned are not self-defense situations. Self defense implies that you are protecting yourself from attack. Preemptively attacking to prevent harm (or further harm) is an entirely different situation which requires an entirely different mind set than simply defending oneself.

While I agree that locks and pins are good and necessary things to have in your toolbox, I was disagreeing with your assertion that control measures are most important for self defense.


I look to that other classic bushi attitude of being able to control the untrained without resorting to the use of the sword ...
The classic bushi approach to this attitude is to be extremely aware of your surroundings and always thinking. This allows you to prevent or avoid most situations that would otherwise require a violent response.

[Hissho]

Paul

Of course self defense is different from choosing to protect others. It is not entirely a different mindset. Not really interested in splitting hairs, though.

The attitude that allows you to avoid most situations is exactly true. But there are also situations that you are not able to avoid.

[Hissho]

Ah - re-reading I see the problem - that is a hair properly split, Paul, and thanks for pointing it out.


I should say I belive the fully trained person should be capable in measures including control measures up to more injurious responses.

[Joseph Svinth]

From controlling to killing bad guys.


That is *your* rule of engagement, but it may not be your employer's. (Or, for that matter, the jury's.)

This is why I have believed for a very long time that the fundamental question revolves around deciding in advance what you are willing to kill for, die for, and live with afterwards.

[Hissho]

Not mine, rather it is a baseline knowledge of my abilities and limitations against an understanding of use of force law, human performance under stress, and situational factors all pertaining. Though it is true that a Jury or prosecutor may not see it that way. They may also have little understanding of the factors above. Who is right?

Also, what one may be willing to kill or die for may not be at all reasonable. If that were the case anyone could simply make up their own rules. Those that do tend to end up prison.....or teach martial arts:D.

Still, you are correct in that knowing those things- in addition to study and practice of reasonable responses to varied scenarios - all help to develop confidence and an ability to maintain relative composure and effectively use skills during the real thing.

[johan smits]

" Not mine, rather it is a baseline knowledge of my abilities and limitations against an understanding of use of force law, human performance under stress, and situational factors all pertaining. Though it is true that a Jury or prosecutor may not see it that way. They may also have little understanding of the factors above. Who is right? "

That is a major problem in a way. Who is right and who will have to live with the conseqences? I understand that in ' Ye olde Japan ' it was possible to extract yourself from justice by moving and picking up life in place three villages further. Not so here and know.

Could it be that koryu in Japan were in tactics and consequently in approach and techniques much more in line with government's rules and regulations? Was it part of tactics? Is that something which koryu practiced in these days and age and other locations should adapt to?


One of the differences I see between koryu and ' modern arts' - let's call them that for now is that koryu is much more of a way of living - a certain approach to life. This is missing in modern arts. Modern arts only train sports or self-defence (or a combination) but as such these arts teach a fragmented approach to self-protection. This results in lack of traininig in certain very important parts of self-protection and thus in a devaluation of it's worth as such.
Is there a lesson to be learned from koryu for teachers of modern arts? Lot's of them I feel. Starting to learn a koryu after getting to a certain level of modern arts first is just not the best solution to this I feel.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ellis Amdur]

Could it be that koryu in Japan were in tactics and consequently in approach and techniques much more in line with government's rules and regulations? Was it part of tactics?

Johan - a great question, and the answer is yes. For example, many ryu have a teaching called something like "tome sandan" - essentially, the three ways of todome. Essentially, if a bushi killed someone, he was expected to take his kozuka (a small accessory knife), if the killing was on the order of a superior, he stabbed the corpse in the bottom of the foot: for revenge, underneath the ear; for a vendetta, in the solar plexus. (This was to make it legal, so to speak, although one still might be expected to do seppuku. An illegal killing meant one would be merely executed, and dishonored). BTW - I've read several writers who believe that these were "finishing blows," of a dying person, by stabbing vulnerable kyusho. Incorrect.

Furthermore, the kishomon (entry documents) in a ryu always had stipulations when one could fight with people from another school - usually after one was menkyo only. I think this had several purposes: 1) one hoped, thereby, not to have one's school shamed by inept members losing to others 2) "harm reduction" - that meant there'd be very few fights (illegal social disruption), without blatantly saying, 'you are all doing a hobby and may not use it."

So, of course, there were innumerable restrictions - Edo Japan was probably the only successful long-term totalitarian state.

But as to the second part of your question:

Is that something which koryu practiced in these days and age and other locations should adapt to?, you are thinking way too hard. That's easy. I know I'm not allowed to cut the head of the snotty kid in the computer repair store, nor can I use a kusarigama to punish the guy who took my parking space. One practices koryu. And if someone is so ignorant that they don't know their own society's laws, or so willful that they believe, as a genuine larping koryu wanker that the laws don't apply to them, then they go to prison.

The only requisite adaptations are in applying the mindset to the society one lives in (and many do not have a clue to doing that, or any interest), and possibly on a combative level, using principles and techniques that are value on the "battlefield" where one is: that could be anything from what Kit talks about in the field as a law enforcement agent, to my using "kamae/kiai" in such a way that people I am investigating willingly give me information that is used to get them arrested, removed from a job site, or the like.

Ellis Amdur

[johan smits]

Ellis,

That is an answer is it not? And a clear one. Essentially nothing changes and adaptations are on the level of what is practical. This means that koryu can be fully transplanted into another society and culture and still retain their value as a practical form of self-protection.

Apart from the above. Koryu were the product of a certain culture, in which religion or anyway believe, and a certain world-view were an important part.
I can imagine that a certain world-view (thinking about life, ethics) can be transplanted to another society and adapted without much problems.

But how about the religious aspects ? It seems to me that this could present a problem either for people (practitioners or would-be practitioners) who are religious or for those who are not.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ellis Amdur]

Well, koryu aren't religions. And far too much is made of things like mikkyo (it was just psychology by another name - Draeger constructed a somewhat false image there). And if someone feels that the rituals that a particular koryu requires offends their religious sensibilities, then they can go away and pray somewhere else. It's a one-way street, that. Seriously. I will not accommodate ideology in the slightest. I remember some Christian family sued the a US judo fed because of the requirement to bow to the opponent. The hell with them (mixed metaphor though it may be).
Ellis

[johan smits]

Okay so that is not an issue at all.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ookami7]

As Ellis stated very well. It shouldn`t be a problem unless the person brings that baggage with them. When in Rome do as the romes do. It is a phrase that many people should remember when they are in another country or even at a cultural event within their own country, city, town.... what not. I have no sympathy for anyone that can not open up thier mind and respect another culture`s way of doing things!!!

[Kendoguy9]

I thought when in Rome do as the Visoths do?

[johan smits]

As Ellis stated very well. It shouldn`t be a problem unless the person brings that baggage with them. When in Rome do as the romes do. It is a phrase that many people should remember when they are in another country or even at a cultural event within their own country, city, town.... what not. I have no sympathy for anyone that can not open up thier mind and respect another culture`s way of doing things!!!

I found the quote botton that's cool!:laugh:

You know I was just asking because one of the important things for me is that I should be able to place my activities in the here and now of my own life and culture.
It is not so that I do not respect other cultures (this does not imply by the way that I do respect other cultures just like that because they are different - a culture needs to have some elements in it to deserve my respect. This is very un-Dutchlike of me.

(lookiing at the state the world is in today it might be better to say some elements of other cultures should be lacking in them to deserve my respect - but that is an aside)

Back to the floor:

For instance in case I have do a certain ritual during training or if I have to pray to or make amends to let's say Japanese spirits or Gods or whatever.
That is all very well for me as long as I have a teacher who can explain - read: translate - it for me so that it makes sense to me and it can mean something to me.
In the absence of such a teacher the gestures and all would be meaningless to me and I would soon feel I am ' playacting' samurai.

Growing a full beard and a Toshiro Mifune hairdo is what some people find cool. And it probably is cool. It is just that I am not one of those people.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ookami7]

Johan, really all it is a open mind and being able to give and take. Understanding the other culture and adding what you think are positive parts of that culture and sharing in turn your own. A good example of this is that I went with my Kendo sensei and his family to their home town over summer. A little bit before Obon started. Besides showing me some of the local tourist stuff we visited his family graves and family that still lived in the town. I respected the culture and followed the basic traditions. In addition I also showed my respect in Christian tradition as well. Any one that has been over here long term can tell you examples from foreigners that try their best all the way to the stupid ones.... like the one that was caught skinny dipping in the imperial moat:eek::look::saw: As I tell my kids, life is what you make of it!!! The milage of your yen will very:D:D

[Stefffen]

I found the quote botton that's cool!:laugh:

You know I was just asking because one of the important things for me is that I should be able to place my activities in the here and now of my own life and culture.
It is not so that I do not respect other cultures (this does not imply by the way that I do respect other cultures just like that because they are different - a culture needs to have some elements in it to deserve my respect. This is very un-Dutchlike of me.

(lookiing at the state the world is in today it might be better to say some elements of other cultures should be lacking in them to deserve my respect - but that is an aside)

Back to the floor:

For instance in case I have do a certain ritual during training or if I have to pray to or make amends to let's say Japanese spirits or Gods or whatever.
That is all very well for me as long as I have a teacher who can explain - read: translate - it for me so that it makes sense to me and it can mean something to me.
In the absence of such a teacher the gestures and all would be meaningless to me and I would soon feel I am ' playacting' samurai.

Growing a full beard and a Toshiro Mifune hairdo is what some people find cool. And it probably is cool. It is just that I am not one of those people.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

It might not mean much even after an explenation, but it will probably mean something after several years doing the same thing over and over.

[johan smits]

It might not mean much even after an explenation, but it will probably mean something after several years doing the same thing over and over.

That is just not how I work. I try to be friendly and hospitable and kind :cool:
oh and honest, did I mention honest?
Doing things which have no meaning to me means that I am playacting.
When you playact you are not sincere. When you are not sincere you are not honest towards a teacher.

That is no good.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[pgsmith]

Doing things which have no meaning to me means that I am playacting.
When you playact you are not sincere. When you are not sincere you are not honest towards a teacher.
Then perhaps you wouldn't do very well in the koryu. It has been my experience that much of what I was asked to do made no sense ... at first. There are a number of movements and responses I was taught in the kata that are quite counter-intuitive. I was told that I'd understand later which, much to my surprise, I did. Some of the things that I was more stubborn about having explained still didn't make much sense until later, when I had the proper background to understand what my notes really meant. :)

[johan smits]

Then perhaps you wouldn't do very well in the koryu. It has been my experience that much of what I was asked to do made no sense ... at first. There are a number of movements and responses I was taught in the kata that are quite counter-intuitive. I was told that I'd understand later which, much to my surprise, I did. Some of the things that I was more stubborn about having explained still didn't make much sense until later, when I had the proper background to understand what my notes really meant. :)

There is a very real chance I would not do well in koryu. Even with that knowledge I am quite a happy person:laugh:
One thing though, why did your teacher not just explain? So you would have a fair chance of understanding and things would be much clearer, much sooner?
Aah he was testing you maybe, if you are of the koryu wood variety or not.
Those who are not will not progress or will stop training.

Might that be something koryu could adapt? As in adapting teaching methods?
To anohter time, society, brand of students? I am warning you it is probably me just not understanding what it means to train in koryu, etc. :D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Kendoguy9]

"I was told that I'd understand later which, much to my surprise, I did."

I think there is only so much someone can learn, process and integrate at a time. That includes information and physical skills. Even with detailed explanation it just goes in one ear and out the other (or gets put in a notebook only to be rediscovered years later). I've seen or heard things in class that my teacher did and thought "wow that's new, or that's different," only to go back and watch video from years before and realize he did or said the same thing and I just didn't get it at the time. I don't mean to sound all Zen fortune cookie but it is sort of the case of "the teacher will appear when the student is ready."

"Well, koryu aren't religions."

Agreed, but they do require a certain amount of faith. Faith that doing the Hojo no kata or Ikkajo kata or what ever abstract kihon kata you study (heck kata in general) till your head spins will somehow increase your ability for combative or hands on engagements.

[Hissho]

On making no sense -

That was my experience and in fact I abandoned koryu because of it. It was later experience in some critical situations that made me see the sense in some of it, confirmed with later musings and discussions, and then meandering back into the koryu world.

On Faith -

I think its deeper than this on a number of levels. Faith that what you are learning will 'work' is a different thing than faith that empowers your morale and calms your mind in the face of life and death. This first I see as technical/tactical, and it is more a confidence in your practice.

Faith in the religious sense is part psychological, part spiritual. Siddle has written directly about the role of religious faith in terms of facing deadly force encounters. If you have a strong faith that some religious force is looking out for you, that they will take care of you, and that what you are doing is "right" in a spiritual sense, that is a tremendous force multiplier. That may give someone a far greater "cup o' courage" than if one did not feel that those things are in place. I think you see this with the bushi beliefs in mikkyo - not only is a religious approval of one's actions obtained, but various magical technologies are offered to provide the psychological sense that one is protected. Going into a situation in which you honestly feel you may be killed can be made easier if one truly, honestly has faith that one is protected.

That this can be perverted is clear: from WW II Japanese Shinto-Zen "holy war" and "war Zen" to radical Islamists; but I don't think anyone would contend that these folks are LESS dangerous or LESS powerful foes because of their religious beliefs. It's just the opposite because of their faith.

Facing death is a spiritual experience. As the saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes." I think the reason that mikkyo was so intertwined with bujutsu was that very reason - these were men who at least originally knew they were going to be facing death, and knew how difficult that could be at times, and understood that men who had something to empower them and override their fear had observable effects on combative performance.

And in the best traditions also provided a grounding in compassion and ethics to prevent their charges from becoming simply soulless killers.

I think both are incredibly important to this discussion when it comes to actually laying one's life down, or taking another's life. You want your enforcers to be mindful if at all possible, and you don't want them paralyzed by fear in the anticipation of what they are about to do, or by guilt in the aftermath.

[Stefffen]

There is a very real chance I would not do well in koryu. Even with that knowledge I am quite a happy person:laugh:
One thing though, why did your teacher not just explain? So you would have a fair chance of understanding and things would be much clearer, much sooner?
Aah he was testing you maybe, if you are of the koryu wood variety or not.
Those who are not will not progress or will stop training.

Might that be something koryu could adapt? As in adapting teaching methods?
To anohter time, society, brand of students? I am warning you it is probably me just not understanding what it means to train in koryu, etc. :D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

As other have said, a beginner will probably not understand. I have seen it happen when someone try to explain a beginner to early. Much better to work on feel for some time than go in to a more deep explanation. If the person keeps coming to training he will eventually not look so awkward.

[johan smits]

As other have said, a beginner will probably not understand. I have seen it happen when someone try to explain a beginner to early. Much better to work on feel for some time than go in to a more deep explanation. If the person keeps coming to training he will eventually not look so awkward.

I am not convinced. It may very well be that this method of teaching: Let them find out for themselves. Or he or she has to 'steal' the techniques were used for several more reasons.
For example: Explain things early they will learn faster and so either you will loose a student (probable loss of income) or they become to strong too soon and become equally skilled and become a concurrent to a teacher.

Another reason is to weed out the weaklings. The best will find out and they will 'get' the real thing. Call it natural selection. Is that good? Maybe from a ryu's point of view it is. On the other hand - how many students have died because they thought they had it but did'nt. How many more could have survived if they would have been taught more clearly from the beginning?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[johan smits]

On making no sense -

On Faith -

I think its deeper than this on a number of levels. Faith that what you are learning will 'work' is a different thing than faith that empowers your morale and calms your mind in the face of life and death. This first I see as technical/tactical, and it is more a confidence in your practice.

Faith in the religious sense is part psychological, part spiritual. Siddle has written directly about the role of religious faith in terms of facing deadly force encounters. If you have a strong faith that some religious force is looking out for you, that they will take care of you, and that what you are doing is "right" in a spiritual sense, that is a tremendous force multiplier. That may give someone a far greater "cup o' courage" than if one did not feel that those things are in place. I think you see this with the bushi beliefs in mikkyo - not only is a religious approval of one's actions obtained, but various magical technologies are offered to provide the psychological sense that one is protected. Going into a situation in which you honestly feel you may be killed can be made easier if one truly, honestly has faith that one is protected.

That this can be perverted is clear: from WW II Japanese Shinto-Zen "holy war" and "war Zen" to radical Islamists; but I don't think anyone would contend that these folks are LESS dangerous or LESS powerful foes because of their religious beliefs. It's just the opposite because of their faith.

Facing death is a spiritual experience. As the saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes." I think the reason that mikkyo was so intertwined with bujutsu was that very reason - these were men who at least originally knew they were going to be facing death, and knew how difficult that could be at times, and understood that men who had something to empower them and override their fear had observable effects on combative performance.

And in the best traditions also provided a grounding in compassion and ethics to prevent their charges from becoming simply soulless killers.

I think both are incredibly important to this discussion when it comes to actually laying one's life down, or taking another's life. You want your enforcers to be mindful if at all possible, and you don't want them paralyzed by fear in the anticipation of what they are about to do, or by guilt in the aftermath.

Kit, you have formulated in a much better way than I could do one of the points I mean. Taking the above as a starting point my question would be is it possible to adapt a koryu's teachings (on the above - providing they have teachings on it) to the Western culture and will it still be koryu then?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ellis Amdur]

Taking the above as a starting point my question would be is it possible to adapt a koryu's teachings (on the above - providing they have teachings on it) to the Western culture and will it still be koryu then?

Johan - My koryu are doing just fine in the west. Kashima Shin-ryu is thriving. Yagyu Shinkage-ryu is doing well. Asked and already answered.

And dare I say, you are being just a little mulish (a little genever oulde would be helpful at this juncture, I think). You experienced my teaching a classical ryu - Araki-ryu for one week as a pilot project for further teaching.. I very clearly adapted my teaching style to the age, physical condition, emotional state and culture of the individuals who were there. I do not teach like my teachers taught me. I assert that the essence is the same.

And of the people who participated in the training - approximately 12 as I recall (and approximately 20 more at the KSR dojo), eight decided that they really liked it (and maybe me), but that my "implicit demands" were too strict. I was, just in the way I manifested what I was teaching, asking/requiring more of my students than they would have liked to give. As I recall, one young man at the KSR dojo was rather arrogantly maintaining his own sword style in my class, and I invited him to attack me any way he liked, and I laid the edge of my bokken on him three or four times, neutralizing everything he did and not hurting him in the least. (Were that me, I would have quit what I was doing - no disrespect to KSR - and joined the guy who beat me. Or at least, stumbled back to my own teacher and said, "I've been beaten this way and that. What am I lacking?" Honestly, I don't think he did, because he didn't show up the next day, and if he got it, he would have come back for more, if only to gather more intelligence for his own ryu).

Four decided to study with me. Two have since quit. (One has jumped intensely into BJJ, also due to my influence, so that's a success, too.) The other two are crazy for more training. To me, that was a huge success - TWO dedicated students out of a sampling of approximately 20-30!

Ellis

[johan smits]

Ellis – Me, being mulish? Me?
Well I guess there has to be a first time for everything so if you really think so. :laugh:

Your post does bring back fond memories. I do recall this young man and the situation– you were a gentleman about it, it has to be said. I had some words about it with his teacher some time later. I have known them for a long time and in the early days there was no one of their group I could not handle with a broomstick.

And tell you what (just in case some of them are lurking here) I think I still can. No disrespect intended to my KSR friends but if it’s anything to them , their teacher knows where to find me.

For some reason I am not surprised that your koryu are thriving in the west. You never struck me as an example of the average koryu teacher and Araki-ryu has adaption in it’s roots does it not?

But there has got to be some more mushrooms to find.

And now just a sip of Corenwyn – I will drink to your health.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[pgsmith]

I am not convinced. It may very well be that this method of teaching: Let them find out for themselves. Or he or she has to 'steal' the techniques were used for several more reasons.
For example: Explain things early they will learn faster and so either you will loose a student (probable loss of income) or they become to strong too soon and become equally skilled and become a concurrent to a teacher.

Another reason is to weed out the weaklings. The best will find out and they will 'get' the real thing. Call it natural selection. Is that good? Maybe from a ryu's point of view it is. On the other hand - how many students have died because they thought they had it but did'nt. How many more could have survived if they would have been taught more clearly from the beginning?

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

I'm not sure if you are missing what I'm saying, or delibrately misinterpreting. It has nothing to do with 'weeding out' or worry over someone becoming too good. After all, the objective of every instructor of koryu is to produce someone that is better than you. What I'm talking about is insufficient frame of reference. Since I love analogies, here's one for you to help clarify what I'm saying ... You are complaining that the mathematics department of every university refuses to start teaching with advanced calculus instead of algebra. I keep saying beginners have to begin with algebra to understand the basics and develop a frame of reference before trying to understand advanced calculus. You say its just to weed out those that aren't serious about being math majors, or to keep the students from becoming smarter than the professors.

[johan smits]

I'm not sure if you are missing what I'm saying, or delibrately misinterpreting. It has nothing to do with 'weeding out' or worry over someone becoming too good. After all, the objective of every instructor of koryu is to produce someone that is better than you. What I'm talking about is insufficient frame of reference. Since I love analogies, here's one for you to help clarify what I'm saying ... You are complaining that the mathematics department of every university refuses to start teaching with advanced calculus instead of algebra. I keep saying beginners have to begin with algebra to understand the basics and develop a frame of reference before trying to understand advanced calculus. You say its just to weed out those that aren't serious about being math majors, or to keep the students from becoming smarter than the professors.

Paul I am not delibrately misinterpreting your words. Maybe I am missing something. Keep in mind that compared to some posting here I might be an oaf.

But I am a critical oaf.

" After all,the objective of every instructor of koryu is to produce someone that is better than you. "

I do not believe necessarily in the goodness of people, so I do not think the above statement is true to reality. But we are allowed different opinions.

Due to my ' mulishnes ' so to speak people will get annoyed sometimes. But they really try to help. I believe they are willing to put up with me for so long because they do understand that my questions and ramblings are sincere.

In this proces we generate a lot of information, more so than just a question and answer model. The last I find very limiting. In a discussion as this I feel a lot more information is generated. And that's good.

A last word and then I have got to go and cook a meal for my family please do not forget that English is not my first language (but then that was obvious to you from the beginning :)

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[kokumo]

Well, koryu aren't religions. And far too much is made of things like mikkyo (it was just psychology by another name - Draeger constructed a somewhat false image there). Ellis

Ellis,

It's been years since I read Draeger on mikkyo, so none of the following is any commentary on what he may or may not have said.

Inasmuch as the context of this discussion is narrowly restricted to the applicability of koryu to modern close quarter combatives, it's largely correct to say that the relevance of mikkyo to adapting koryu is primarily psychological in nature. But that is a measure of the focus of the discourse and the discussants, not the depth or breadth of mikkyo, as your remark above would seem to suggest.

When the only problem you're addressing is hammering down a nail, everything looks like a hammer (or is judged by its suitability for use as a hammer). By this measure, my laptop is near-worthless -- but if I dismissed it as "just a tv with a keyboard" I would be making a major error). But beyond CQC, mikkyo has subdivisions which touch on areas which were significant to koryu as living social organizations with responsibilities of governance, both internal and external.

Pages 257-273 of Katori Shinto-ryu: Warrior Tradition, for example, contain a great deal of material that was formerly transmitted primarily via mikkyo, including astronomy (not so very long ago, indistinguishable from astrology, both east and west), in-yo gogyo, gogyo used in fortification (think of it as military feng-shui), civilian building siting and town planning, etcetera. What Otake presents is just a small sample of a larger body of multi-disciplinary knowledge which would have been associated with mikkyo.

Even if one initially drew a distinction between bodies of knowledge appropriate to officer and enlisted classes (or their medieval equivalents), some of the geomancy is relevant across the board (where's the high ground? whose back will be to the sun? etcetera). Of course, one could make the case, as you already have with gunnery and grappling, that rather than attempt to excavate and revive the old knowledge, one would do well to learn from a contemporary instructor how to orient via the night sky, how to read a map and compass, how to use GIS systems, how to construct defensible urban space, etcetera. The problem is that, by definition, one can't know what is slipping from one's grasp when doing so. I would argue that the best judgment about what is useful and what is not in these subdivisions is likely to be made by a contemporary professional with expertise in the modern analogues of the relevant subdivisions -- or at least, a best practice would be to include that expert perspective in the decision-making process (although, per my last point below, time may not permit that comparative luxury).

A second problem is that qualified mikkyo teachers treat the bodies of knowledge to which they are privy in much the same manner as koryu instructors treat the information they hold; they will release a certain amount of that material publicly to ascertain interest, but then make decisions on the basis of the responses they observe about who they will (or will not) give deeper access. Suffice it to say that I have been privy to a number of tales like that you related regarded the KSR practitioner, in which the dramatis personae are not two budoka, but a buddhist priest and a budoka, and the priest made a determination that the budoka was not a suitable vessel. I have even had that uncomfortable sense that both participants in the "story" I was being told were present as it was being told and were, in fact, the only people in the room.

A third problem is that there are explicit Buddhist prohibitions (and though compounded with Taoist, Confucian, and "Shinto" elements, the primary structures of mikkyo are Buddhist) on instructing anyone who is packing. Sometimes that restriction is interpreted narrowly and literally as "armed at the moment of instruction," other times it is interpreted more broadly as "prone to walking around armed and likely to use the knowledge in a way that will cause harm." In the wake of the great Pacific War and the atrocities committed by Japanese forces in China in the name of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (and the public embarrassment resulting from Brian Victoria's book, documenting the activities of a number of Zen lineage holders in that era), there has been a pronounced social tendency to take the latter view. This creates an additional hurdle for budoka who are interested in that material.

A fourth problem is that "mikkyo" is as broad (and in some respects useless) a category as koryu. Some mikkyo was nothing more than corner store magic on the order of burning a candle to draw money. Other lines of mikkyo contain terrifyingly complex cosmology and epistemology that no Western philosopher has yet even approached in subtlety, breadth, depth, or rigor. So any encounter with mikkyo, good or bad, only provides information about one line and one teacher. Extending from the single encounter to the whole field is bound to end in error of some kind.

Lastly, there's the fundamental question of time. How much time does one spend doing one's bujutsu (whether kata, or more "live" practices such as you describe)? How much time does one spend on basic fitness? How much time does one spend on IS practices? How does one make a living? How does one have a life. Each of these areas could easily become an all-consuming rabbit hole, and choices must be made (cf. Kit's request that his firearms coach not change his draw). The benefit of a larger body of practitioners is that it allows for more sub-specialties within the social whole.

Much of that is arguably beyond the scope of the current discussion, but perhaps not. More narrowly, I will assert again, as I have in the past, that the basic gachirinkan and ajikan meditation practices found in Shingon provide useful keys not only to arcana of the koryu, but to some basic modes of "seeing" and, for lack of a better phrase "parsing space" that have immediate practical application. Those basic practices were accessible to bushi -- i.e. professionals -- from CE 1000 forward and had a significant infuence on the form and content of the koryu that they left behind. I will further argue that those (and others) would be immediately apparent to a contemporary professional. And then I will shut up and get back to the book proposal I'm working on.

All of that aside, many thanks to all of you for a large body of thought-provoking discussion which I believe I am likely to read several more times just to begin to digest it! Please pardon the interruption, I hope it wasn't too annoying!

Best regards,

FL

[Ellis Amdur]

Paul - Although agreeing with much of what you say, I think it is a little idealistic. I am well aware of many shihan who withhold information because it is their "ace in the hole." This can have a number of reasons:
1. The iemoto system ensures an income (unlikely to be monetary - more likely to be devotion, perpetual students, etc.) and unless one is graduated, with full certification of the gokui, etc., one cannot teach, one is still a student and under the teacher's control. I can think of a number of prominent ryu where the headmaster ensures that there will be, in essence, no fully developed young bulls in his pasture. When they try to go independent, they may be vilified, expelled. Many ryu are dried out - no place left for hot-blood.
2. The mystification of some of the higher knowledge can lead everyone to a kind of self-hypnosis, over-inflating the importance of that esoteric dimension. Too encased in ritual too much is made of, say, "applied psychology." (Not discounting the truly religious dimension that Kit notes as a real component for the development of bravery in the face of death and resilience in the face of trauma). Everyone makes too much out of what may be mundane at times.
3. Some teachers deliberately confine the whole curriculum to their own family - it's a feudal set-up where the other students must serve the family.
4. I very definitely withhold info - sometimes, as you say, because one cannot teach calculus until algebra is mastered. Sometimes for other reasons. I recently "tested" a student for two years, so to speak, holding him to only the most basic stuff while I taught others, some who entered after him, more. He was only allowed to practice off to the side, and maybe watch at times. I did it deliberately. He never complained and practiced hard. The last time I taught that group, I taught him both sides of three whole kata sets in a week. And he remembered them all, and his fundamentals were sound. He leapt upwards, so to speak. However, note this: the very fact that I did this is, as I say, evidence that koryu is NOT battlefield training. It is a product of the luxury of time.
5. On a more general note, I return to Paul's correct description. If it takes eight years for a student to master a step, I'm not going to waste time teaching him the next step which is impossible without the first. (I'm usually quite pissed that it's taking that long). OTOH, I've taught one man the entire torite curriculum in a week, and certified him in that section - a really seasoned grappler, he understood each and every component as I taught it. Why waste any more of his and my time?
Ellis Amdur

So, actually, although you are right about a pedagogical progression, there are a number of reasons where a teacher would withhold knowledge from the practice to the shabby.

[Hissho]

A third problem is that there are explicit Buddhist prohibitions (and though compounded with Taoist, Confucian, and "Shinto" elements, the primary structures of mikkyo are Buddhist) on instructing anyone who is packing. Sometimes that restriction is interpreted narrowly and literally as "armed at the moment of instruction," other times it is interpreted more broadly as "prone to walking around armed and likely to use the knowledge in a way that will cause harm."

Fred - is this something pertaining to a certain level of teaching? I have not encountered that, and in fact thought just the opposite - a Shingon priest blessed our house and paid a little extra attention to my training weapons and my modern weapons and armor for work... he was not Japanese, but was ordained at Koyasan and I know thought of well based on his trajectory since I met him... fascinated to talk to you about this on the other stuff - PM inbound.

On "basics" and "weeding out."

Paul's point makes perfect sense, especially from a CQC perspective when life is literally at stake (i.e. when you know the guy you are teaching is going to go out and stake his life on what you taught....)

Basics are what save your life when you don't have time to think. They have to be at the level of mushin. If a student does not master them for whatever reason - incompetence, lack of attention, lack of practice - it demonstrates that they are simply not prepared yet to go on to the more involved stuff - they literally will not have the working memory to use the involved stuff if their basics are not down.

So yeah it weeds people out - for their own safety, for one reason. And testing their commitment for another. The carryover to modern practice of older ryu makes sense if only as a holdover of those views.

[pgsmith]

Although agreeing with much of what you say, I think it is a little idealistic. I am well aware of many shihan who withhold information because it is their "ace in the hole."
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Stop bursting my bubbles! :)


I do not believe necessarily in the goodness of people, so I do not think the above statement is true to reality.

It is not due to any inherent 'goodness', it is one of the basic underpinnings of the koryu which have allowed them to survive for as long as they have. Once you achieve a certain ranking within a koryu, you are expected to do what is best for the ryu, not for yourself. As Ellis has pointed out, this is not always the case for a variety of reasons. However, it is supposed to be the case that all practice of the ryu is supposed to be towards the benefit of the ryu. In my opinion, it is this outlook that is the reason that the koryu are not more monetarily succesful than they are (I know of no one that makes any money from them).

[kokumo]

Deleted due to double-post.

[kokumo]

Fred - is this something pertaining to a certain level of teaching? I have not encountered that, and in fact thought just the opposite - a Shingon priest blessed our house and paid a little extra attention to my training weapons and my modern weapons and armor for work... he was not Japanese, but was ordained at Koyasan and I know thought of well based on his trajectory since I met him... fascinated to talk to you about this on the other stuff - PM inbound.

Kit --

The source of the prohibition is one of the lower-order "training guidelines" to be observed by fully ordained monks, and it comes in a block of such guidelines including:


103.Teaching to person holding a stick 104.Teaching to person holding an umbrella 105.Teaching to person holding a knife 106.Teaching to person holding a sword 107.Teaching to person holding a weapon 108.Teaching to person wearing armour

In a strict sense, these fall in a section regarded as what we might call "best practices" and violations by ordained monastics are to be avoided, but don't involve any sort of formal confession or penance.

The commentaries on these rules are detailed and fascinating. The stick rule commentaries actually detail the length of the stick to allow exceptions for walking sticks and canes, the umbrella rule commentary points out that this relates to umbrellas as status symbols, the knife, sword, weapon, and armour rules have exceptions for sickness and weapons which are holstered or scabbarded.

So you have the explicit rules, the commentaries on the rules, and the lineage specific interpretation and application of the rules and commentaries. In the case of Japan, you also have the fact that most priests are not fully ordained monks, and thus, not bound by the full monastic discipline. For some sects, this has been the case for a thousand years or more. For the rest, this has been largely the case since 1868 or so.

The other element here is the distinction between exoteric and esoteric teachings. The monastic tradition is (primarily) exoteric. The model of transmission in most Japanese ryu (both cultural and martial) is actually based on the comparatively secretive model of transmission found in the mikkyo or esoteric traditions. Closely held texts, personal instructions, goku-i reserved according to rule or whim, coded language, etcetera: whether it's poetry, tea ceremony, shodo, or budo, they all secularized the model and sacralized their material by adopting the esoteric model of transmission.

But exoteric or esoteric...Blessing a warrior's weapons and armour in his residence with the intention to insure that no evil befalls the warrior and that they are only used to prevent evil from befalling others? There are many lines that have no trouble with that at all. Some folks take a broad view of things. Others take a very constricted view. Sometimes this is because of personality, sometimes this is based on experience (either personal or collective).

It should be noted that the Buddha came from a warrior family and the one fixed rule about soldiers arose when his father complained that his own army was in disarray because all of his soldiers were deserting the army and becoming monks in order to get free food and clothing without a further obligation of military service. From that incident came the rule that soldiers had to be officially discharged from military service in order to enter the ordained Sangha. "No deserters need apply" has been the rule for over two millenia.

I would argue that most of the rules are based on what we would call a "harm reduction" model, but where there are people, there are sticklers, and where there are sticklers....Thus it has always been.

Best,

FL

[Hissho]

In a strict sense, these fall in a section regarded as what we might call "best practices" and violations by ordained monastics are to be avoided, but don't involve any sort of formal confession or penance.

Ahhh - seems there are a number of things that fall under this. Thank you for the fascinating explanation.

Another aspect to the faith element of this discussion would be religious concern for one's own salvation. Particularly problematic when the religion specifically prohibits killing at all - and yet has a very long tradition of sanctioning it under different circumstances. But if I am a warrior in a culture concerned with that, and in particular a pre-modern culture with a good deal of superstition thrown in, having some kind of "protection" against the acts I am going to do, duty bound to do, and some kind of spiritual get-out-of-Hell free card could have a great deal of impact to me in the performance of my duties. I am sure many warriors were simply enculturated (sp? Is it even a word?) with this, and were as irreligious (though perhaps still superstitious) as fighting men today, but for some who appeared to be rather devout, this could very much be a mindset issue. Having these ideas so thoroughly inter-twined with their combative practice just makes sense - indeed makes sense as one of the main reasons to have such ryu.

Not that this couldn't be problematic - the aforementioned Zen at War offers the Buddhist story of the bodhisattva boat captain (Buddha in another incarnation?) killing the robber to prevent the murder of everybody on board, and it being compassionate, which has been repeated to me in questioning along these lines. But that book also offers some absolutely stunning statements from Zen priests through the ages which are nothing short of excusing wholesale murder if the killer takes care to see the killed as "intrinsically empty" - so some extremes here need to be accounted for. Not that such murder hasn't been justified by other religions.

[johan smits]

In this proces we generate a lot of information, more so than just a question and answer model. The last I find very limiting. In a discussion as this I feel a lot more information is generated. And that's good.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

............... :D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ruediger]

As I recall, one young man at the KSR dojo was rather arrogantly maintaining his own sword style in my class, and I invited him to attack me any way he liked, and I laid the edge of my bokken on him three or four times, neutralizing everything he did and not hurting him in the least. (Were that me, I would have quit what I was doing - no disrespect to KSR - and joined the guy who beat me. Or at least, stumbled back to my own teacher and said, "I've been beaten this way and that. What am I lacking?" Honestly, I don't think he did, because he didn't show up the next day, and if he got it, he would have come back for more, if only to gather more intelligence for his own ryu).
Ellis

Just out of interest ( okay...i'm curious... :) ) what do you mean with KSR?
Kashima Shinryu...Katori Shintoryu...?
And if it's Kashima Shinryu...are you talking about a member of the Kashima Shinryu, headed by Seki Humitake...or the followers of Inaba Minoru?

As i said...just out of interest...

Regards

[Ellis Amdur]

Sorry - such problems arise with abbreviations. TSKSR. Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu. I am not, hereby, asserting that, thereby, I "beat" TSKSR. Rather, it illustrates a lot of points in a small image.
1. The sectarian nature of many koryu that do not practice "live," and at least at lower levels, do not prepare students for things they don't expect.
2. The "frog in a well" phenomenon which is very common in koryu <A frog living in a well asserted, "I can see the whole universe and it's a small blue disc!">
3. Just poking Johan a little about old memories. (BTW, Johan - I was not referring to the "yellow belt" who piped up, "shihan, shihan, that is incorrect, in Katori Shinto-ryu, we do this, this, this, this and this, and blah, blah, blah. . . "

Ellis Amdur

[johan smits]

Sorry - such problems arise with abbreviations. TSKSR. Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu. I am not, hereby, asserting that, thereby, I "beat" TSKSR. Rather, it illustrates a lot of points in a small image.
1. The sectarian nature of many koryu that do not practice "live," and at least at lower levels, do not prepare students for things they don't expect.
2. The "frog in a well" phenomenon which is very common in koryu <A frog living in a well asserted, "I can see the whole universe and it's a small blue disc!">
3. Just poking Johan a little about old memories. (BTW, Johan - I was not referring to the "yellow belt" who piped up, "shihan, shihan, that is incorrect, in Katori Shinto-ryu, we do this, this, this, this and this, and blah, blah, blah. . . "

Ellis Amdur


I know Ellis, that one was a pup.

I must say it seems to me that a lot of people I meet who are practicing koryu are prone to a certain amount of arrogance.
Arrogance based on experience and skill I find, although I do not think it is good, tolerable. Arrogance based on nothing more than belonging to a group is just silly.
Is there not an Araki-ryu admonition on ' arrogance ' ? TKSR has one (or heaps) on being humble I am told. I am still working my way through Fred's posts trying to formulate some decent questions.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Ruediger]

Sorry - such problems arise with abbreviations.
[..]
Ellis Amdur

No problem... :)
as written, i was just curious.

Thank you for the clarification

Regards

[arnold11]

Sorry - such problems arise with abbreviations. TSKSR. Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu. I am not, hereby, asserting that, thereby, I "beat" TSKSR. Rather, it illustrates a lot of points in a small image.
1. The sectarian nature of many koryu that do not practice "live," and at least at lower levels, do not prepare students for things they don't expect.
Ellis Amdur

Precisely why schools decreed that students were not to duel till they achieved menkyo kaiden or some other formal permission. Insomuch as this student was trying to assert some contrary opinion relative to yours, he was effective challenging you and thus the interaction you had, however convivial due to the nature of the seminar, was a duel. He most certainly would have taken a victory on his side as confirmation of his technique over yours.

My teacher always stressed to me that, "In martial training, your successes belong to the lineage, but your failures are your own."

[johan smits]

Insomuch as this student was trying to assert some contrary opinion relative to yours, he was effective challenging you and thus the interaction you had, however convivial due to the nature of the seminar, was a duel.


I guess that is one way of looking at it.
*shaking his head while mumbling ' curious lot those koryu guys' *

Happy landings,

Johan smits

[durandal]

Sirs, could you please tell us some of your sources so we can document ourselves on this controversial subject? :D

[johan smits]

Sirs, could you please tell us some of your sources so we can document ourselves on this controversial subject? :D

" A duel is an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules. "

The first published code duello, or "code of duelling", appeared in Renaissance Italy.

As an aside to this admittedly humorless answer of mine I must say we Dutch are a loose lot. So it is quite possible the young man in question tried to sneak in some TSKSR. Hence my having some words with his teacher (who by the way was training in Japan at that moment - otherwise he would have loved to participate in the seminar ).
As far as I know my friend he would not have laid the side of his bokken on the man to show him, oh no....:D

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[johan smits]

Back to normal mode:


Just as one can see koryu practitioners as ‘ vessels ‘ for koryu maybe koryu can be seen as vessels for mikkyo. Other vessels would be any other activity for which mikkyo forms the base (performing rituals, any activity in society).
The above would especially seem to be so in a society in which koryu perform functions whatever these functions are.

In a society in which mikkyo does not play a role, let’s say outside of the Japanese culture it seems to me it will not be easy (or even possible) for koryu to perform as a vessel for mikkyo.

If I have read Fred’s posts correctly it will not be possible to simply replace mikkyo with another (religion, worldview, whatever) since koryu-tactics and –techniques are in a sense formed by mikkyo.
What remains practical in koryu are the tactics, called applied psychology by Ellis and several other methods Kit and Fred write about.

This means in essence that koryu are not going to adapt at all.

Sure, use a modern knife instead of a tanto, modern firearms instead of harquebuses, Kevlar vests instead of Japanese museumpieces. But these are all adaptions (changes) on the outside.

Another question is would koryu not lose their potency when after a prolonged time away from their mikkyo roots? Or will the essence of the ryu remain ‘ dorment ‘ until a right vessel comes along?
This would mean the body of knowledge should be seen as a separate entity from us? If so doing what exactly? And with what purpose?


The only true adaptation of koryu I know of would be Kodokan Judo (the original version not the sports-variety). That could truly be called koryu-lite. It is based on (actually more but let’s say) two koryu and it is adapted for the better good of the masses (if there has remained anything esoteric in it is being researched by people way beyond my level).

That koryu are not democratic institutions is something I can live with on the other hand a feudal set-up where the other students must serve the family. Or maybe the teachers? That is food for thought.

Here’s a gokui from the repertoire of my own ryu. Stab a guy in the arse from a shadowy arcade. It won’t kill him but he will not be abel to move freely and you will. So you can get away.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[arnold11]

Back to normal mode:


Just as one can see koryu practitioners as ‘ vessels ‘ for koryu maybe koryu can be seen as vessels for mikkyo. Other vessels would be any other activity for which mikkyo forms the base (performing rituals, any activity in society).
The above would especially seem to be so in a society in which koryu perform functions whatever these functions are.

In a society in which mikkyo does not play a role, let’s say outside of the Japanese culture it seems to me it will not be easy (or even possible) for koryu to perform as a vessel for mikkyo.

If I have read Fred’s posts correctly it will not be possible to simply replace mikkyo with another (religion, worldview, whatever) since koryu-tactics and –techniques are in a sense formed by mikkyo.
What remains practical in koryu are the tactics, called applied psychology by Ellis and several other methods Kit and Fred write about.

This means in essence that koryu are not going to adapt at all.


In the interest of full disclosure I should say that I have been taught and practiced mikkyo both from a "martial" perspective (applying mikkyo as part of lineages I have been involved in) and a religious perspective (I am a practicing Buddhst.)

While I certainly agree that it is an oversimplification to say that mikkyo's existence within koryu is that of mere psychological tricks, I have yet to find many instances of martial arts that I feel were FOUNDED on mikkyo-specific principles. Rather, they are founded on combative principles and then mikkyo is added/grows into the ryu because mikkyo was what was around in those times.
Had these arts developed at another time with other spiritual/magical systems abound, those may have been adopted. One of the important elements of utilizing mikkyo in martial training is that you must relate to it. It must have meaning as to effect an internal psychological change. To that effect, you could, and perhaps SHOULD, adjust the mikkyo elements in a lineage to better reflect the culture of those doing it. Many of the mikkyo elements use Buddhist iconography and symbolism. A feudal Japanese warrior would be familiar with these and be able to relate to them- most westerners cannot.

I am not convinced that the mikkyo in martial arts could not, in SOME cases, be replaced with another religio-symbolic system and have the same effectiveness. However, this could really only be done successfully by someone who has fully mastered the lineage, has experience in mikkyo- both from a buddhist and martial perspective- AND understands the culture into which they are converting it. Eg- You need to understand exactly what is meant by invoking Bishamonten and then figure out a way to convey that same effect utilizing western iconography and experience. Personally, I think it is just easier to require students with interest in mikkyo to learn about buddhism and the original sense of the mikkyo. I mean, if you look at a statue of Bishamonten, is it that hard to figure out what is going on? ;p

[Ellis Amdur]

Arnold - Thank you! It's hard enough, sometimes, to find a rationale to train in archaic weaponry, from a culture not one's own - but the idea of adding onto it, and alien, culture bound religion, alien to most Japanese, bowlerized, ideologized, poorly translated - is daunting (and also, not very interesting). To give an example of the difficulties, there is a section at the end of THBR, which clearly has <some> relationship to esoteric, possibly mikkyo material. I asked the assistance of a mikkyo educated priest - he took the section to Japan - and was told by a scholar in his temple that "there might be five people alive who can understand what this might be saying."

I asked my Araki-ryu teacher about the mikkyo and he said, in essence, "We are fighting men. We used this to become better fighters. For you to learn this would require that you become fluent in archaic Japanese, sanskrit, Buddhism and actually believe in it. Mikkyo for our ryu is just ways of manipulating the mind to achieve certain states. You understand what we are trying to accomplish - it's in all the kata. Go home and learn psychology - its the same stuff, in your world view."

Now, I can imagine a mikkyo devotee or believer objecting to what might be regarded as a trivialization . . . but as I remember, all is "empty," or contingent reality - and that would include mikkyo as well. So, if someone asserts that invaluable secret essential teachings might be lost, maybe. But the thousands of hours I spend training in the ryu, with the added aims of the mindset, will bring me far closer to essential teachings. <The one caveat is what Kit pointed out earlier - a true religious faith armors the mind against fear of death and of PTSD> - (for better or worse - I believe that the Aztec priests who cut the hearts out of their prisoners very likely didn't experience PTSD.).

Sort of putting things in mikkyo terms - the kata themselves are a rite. Why should I spend time contemplating an image of the moon-disc when I can embody - or at least appraoch - <suigetsu gokui> within THBR kata?

Ellis Amdur

[arnold11]

Sort of putting things in mikkyo terms - the kata themselves are a rite. Why should I spend time contemplating an image of the moon-disc when I can embody - or at least appraoch - <suigetsu gokui> within THBR kata?

Ellis Amdur

I agree completely. I do think in some cases the very alien nature of mikkyo can give it some psychological punch for westerners, but then you are basically just running on some dumbo's-feather principle. You are better off practicing the kata.

I personally believe that students of japanese martial arts have a responsibility to understand Japanese culture so that they can be aware of the context of things. However, after that point, it is a little silly to ask them to pretend to be men of 17th century Japan.

Example: I trained with a gentleman who was a devout christian. When he first stated he told the teacher that he was uncomfortable bowing before the Kamiza due to his religious beliefs.

The teacher responded that while in the west bowing is a sign of submission or worship, in Japan it is a sign of respect. By bowing before the kamiza he was in no way implying that he was honoring that which he bowed to above his god, but simply showing respect. "Think of it like a military salute."

That was all the explination the man needed. He bowed to the kamiza and showed proper respect and deference and never had any issue.

In one particular kata the practicioner is told to emulate Fudo Myo. The teacher explained who Fudo was, showed the man a statue of Fudo in the dojo and gave enough background in Buddhism to clearly show the intent of utizliing Fudo as a symbol in the kata. Then he said, "Honestly, as a Christian, it may be hard for you to think of yourself as Fudo Myo, or relate to him. For you, it would probably be more appropriate to think of yourself as Jesus when he threw the money-lenders out of the temple in righteous indignation." All that was asked of the man is that, should he ever become a teacher, he transmit the kata with Fudo Myo, rather than Jesus, lest several generations of "adjustment" lose the essence.

When I do that kata, I become Fudo Myo. When he does that kata, he becomes angry Jesus. While the propriety of this conversion can be debated by those who feel ryu should not be adapted, I sincerely believe that little is lost in this translation. When I see him do that kata it looks correct and has the correct feel. Moreover when you look into his eyes when he does the kata, you can see he is channeling the correct mental attitude.

HOWEVER, that translation was dependent on a teacher who A) Understood the lineage, B) Understood Buddhism, and C) Understood Christianity.
If any of these three elements were missing, any attempt at "interpretation" would, at best, succeed by some luck.

[johan smits]

Well I guess all good things come in three's. :p

Arnold thanks very much for your explanations. You have given answers on several questions I had. You actually saved me quite some time formulating these.

And Ellis you state that it is hard enough to find a rationale to train in archaic arts from a culture not your own. I guess I am still trying to find a rationale to strat training in a koryu. With the idea that if I have got enough information about these matters I will be able to make a wise decision.
Otherwise it will be plain, dull and direct jujutsu for me until the end of my life. Which, come to think of it, may not be so bad either.

I hope one day soon we will be able to contemplate the moon through the bottom of an empty coorenwynglass. That would be good.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[P Goldsbury]

Precisely why schools decreed that students were not to duel till they achieved menkyo kaiden or some other formal permission. Insomuch as this student was trying to assert some contrary opinion relative to yours, he was effective challenging you and thus the interaction you had, however convivial due to the nature of the seminar, was a duel. He most certainly would have taken a victory on his side as confirmation of his technique over yours.

My teacher always stressed to me that, "In martial training, your successes belong to the lineage, but your failures are your own."

Apologies for intruding on this very interesting thread. Mr Davies, you occasionally sign your posts with your full name, but not always. Could you please add your name to your signature.

Best wishes,

P Goldsbury