PDA

View Full Version : Uchidachi and Shidachi



john mark
4th July 2000, 19:24
The main points of Nishioka Sensei's essay "Uchidachi and Shidachi", Sword & Spirit: Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan, 1999, edited by Diane Skoss, pp. 171-178 seems to be

-- in kata training the role of uchidachi and shidachi must be clearly understood;

-- paired kata training is not competitive;

-- the role of the uchidachi is that of the teacher and leads the shidachi through the kata; the uchidachi must give a true attack and must have a humble spirit;

-- the role of the shidachi is to learn from the practice and not to compete with the uchidachi; and

-- the roles must be maintained even though the shidachi may be senior to the uchidachi.

1. Is the foregoing a correct/plausible summary of the main points of the essay?

2. On page 173 Nishioka states that we should follow one teacher, because "[having] more than one teacher can create serious problems in your training ..." and the student should not practice with students of another teacher until the spiritual nature of both the teacher and the disciple has matured. I have interpreted (probably incorrectly) this to mean that the following only one teacher will decrease the likelihood of comparison of techniques and the inevitable competition between the teachers. This competition is antithetical to the spirit of rei.

-- Is my interpretation correct?

-- Is this concept similar to the concept that each dojo only has one sensei/teacher/boss?

-- What are the implications for participating in seminars?

-- How do we know if our spiritual development is sufficient to begin practicing with students of other teachers?

I look forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Diane Skoss
4th July 2000, 21:57
Hi John,

I'd say that you've got a pretty good handle on what Nishioka Sensei was wanting to communicate in your summary.

Your second question is a little more difficult to address. Nishioka Sensei firmly believes that you must know who your teacher is, and that you basically have one teacher at a time (in Shinto Muso-ryu). This is because each menkyo kaiden has their own coherent cohesive take on Shinto Muso-ryu. You need to have a real good grasp of your own teacher's approach before you can train easily with others of various backgrounds without getting well and truly confused. Mixing and matching (say a hikiotoshi uchi done the way Nishioka Sensei teaches it with a honte uchi based on the principles that Kaminoda Sensei teaches) is a major league bad idea.

What Nishioka Sensei didn't elaborate on is that training "within the family," as long as you know who your teacher is, is not a problem. For example, when I was in Japan I trained between one and three times a week with my teacher, Phil Relnick. I also, at various times in my time there, trained once or twice a week with Nishioka Sensei, and/or any one of the five menkyo kaiden who trained regularly at the Hino Dojo. I learned a lot training with these guys--their approaches were flavored slightly differently than Relnick Sensei's, but the essential understanding of what we were trying to do were the same (since they were all students of Nishioka Sensei). They would occasionally offer a tip or two, or correct outrageously bad technique, but they never tried to instruct. I consider these guys to be like my uncles--brothers to my own teacher. Nishioka Sensei is my grandfather teacher.

Now in your particular situation, you might seem to have two instructors. We both operate as equal representatives of Relnick Sensei, entirely on his authority and under his direction. But we've got vastly different experience and different strengths (and weaknesses). It's a bit unusual, but in a sense, you've got both a mother and a father teacher. Some things Meik teaches better, other things you'll learn better from me. You'll be able to train easily with our peers here in the U.S. (and Japan) and their students, as well as our teacher (who is ultimately responsible for your training) and his other students. But until you're pretty confident in your understanding of underlying principle it could be confusing to train with students of other menkyo lines.

Seminars within family units are extremely useful. There may be differences in nuance, timing, distancing, but they won't be major or unsafe. And taking every chance you can get to train at your teacher's source is a good idea.

In this case, I think that the "spiritual growth" that Nishioka Sensei refers to as necessary before training with others may also include (in addition to the humility, open-mindedness, kindness, etc.) a confidence and security in the technical principles as expressed within your teachers' line. Your teachers will hopefully be able to tell when you are ready, for both family excursions and broader outings.

As far as the danger of comparison generating unfortunate competition between teachers and being antithetical to rei--while that's definitely possible, I'd say that Nishioka Sensei is more concerned with the potential for technical mishmash and misunderstood loyalties that can occur when accepting instruction from too many different teachers. This creates an enviroment in which the sort of spiritual growth he is after cannot be engendered.

I hope this helps??

Meik Skoss
5th July 2000, 13:43
John,

I just read your post and Diane's reply. I agree with what she says re: Nishioka and the point of his essay *and* his teaching. Other teachers have other takes on this point but that's what both Mssrs. Nishioka and Relnick think.

Personally, I think that it's useful to move around a bit, hastening to add, AT THE PROPER TIME IN ONE'S TRAINING. It is a very complex issue. That's why I don't think seminars are a very good way to study koryu. The best thing to do is train regularly with one teacher and one group of students. Then, when you've gotten enough experience, travelling around, to other teachers to broaden your understanding becomes useful.

Earl Hartman
5th July 2000, 18:40
John Mark:

Just though I'd jump in here. I have to agree with Diane and Meik: training while trying to absorb the teachings of many different teachers is very problematic, to say the least, whether you are training in koryu or gendai arts.

When I was practicing kyudo in Tokyo, I was at a dojo where there were a number of high-ranking teachers with no single teacher in charge of instruction. So, of course, I got instruction from everyone. Some of this was good and some of this was bad. In particular, there were two instructors, both of about equal rank, and both quite good. They had markedly different ways of shooting, as well as a healthy dislike for each other; when one was there he would tell me to do it his way, and if the other was there, he would tell me to do it his way. Woe betide me if either of them ever caught me shooting according to the other guy's method. I was being bounced from pillar to post, and the situation finally became entirely untenable, so eventually I had to blow them both off (as politely as I could, of course) by simply deciding to follow the teaching of a 3rd teacher and stop trying to please everyone. He outranked them both by miles and was the teacher I had come to Tokyo to practice with, anyway, so I had a way out that saved everyone's face. It took me longer to do this than it would had I been a member of a distinct ryu or a designated disiple of a specific teacher (where following one teacher is just how things are done), but in such a setting, refusing instruction from teachers of such rank is difficult if not entirley impossible. When one of the instructors realized what was going on, he simply walked away and no longer taught me. It was a very difficult situation.

Even though kyudo got amalgamated and standardized after WWII, there are very distinct differences in shooting technique from teacher to teacher that are directly traceable to the ryuha that they learned when they were young and things were not so standardized as they are now. If these things are noticable in modern kyudo, which has actively worked to eradicate ryuha based secterianism, then the situation is bound to be much more pronounced in the koryu, where there is, as far as I can tell, no philisophical need or desire for standardization.

Earl

john mark
7th July 2000, 12:20
Does the concepts discussed by in this essay apply to other koryu or other martial arts, e.g. aikido or are they limited to Shinto Muso Ryu?

Best,

Diane Skoss
7th July 2000, 13:00
Hi John,

Nishioka Sensei was writing specifically about Shinto Muso-ryu, but I'd say that the notion of uchidachi as senior and shidachi as junior is common to many koryu and gendai budo. However, the nuances differ, and the ways it is expressed differ from ryu to ryu. So while Nishioka Sensei's essay might be useful as a thought-provoker to members of other ryuha, they should most definitely discuss the ideas with their seniors and teachers to see how close the match is. Nishioka Sensei emphasizes these ideals as part of his Shinto Muso-ryu training; other instructors may focus more closely on other areas. In SMR, I feel psychologically quite different when I take the different roles; in Buko-ryu a psychological distinction is not emphasized. As with most things in the koryu, it is case by case.

Interestingly, aikido (and Daito-ryu, for that matter) turns things around and the senior usually throws the junior (in demonstrations, for example). In my opinion, this does something not completely healthy to the relationship between senior and juniors, instructor and students. I think that Ellis Amdur addressed this in one of his essays in Aikido Journal some years ago. I don't remember exactly which essay (and due to wear and tear on the brain don't remember all the details of his argument), but I do know that he will be coming out with a book collection of those essays in the fairly near future and you should be able to find it there.

As for the notion of training with just one teacher, and knowing to whom you owe your loyalties, I don't think it is as prevalent an idea in the modern arts (note the ubiquity of large general seminars, and the more casual moving amongst dojo that can occur), but I think that many koryu instructors would agree with Nishioka Sensei's contention that it is harmful to try and serve too many masters. In aikido, I trained with a lot of different teachers, to the point where I can hardly say exactly who my teacher was/is--many individuals influenced me and gave me a great deal. But in Shinto Muso-ryu, I have only one teacher. In Buko-ryu I have only one teacher.

Hope this helps!

[Edited by Diane Skoss on 07-07-2000 at 07:08 AM]

Earl Hartman
7th July 2000, 19:28
John Mark:

My experience in training in kendo with the police in Japan was very similar to what Nishioka Sensei was expressing. I am a neophyte in Shinto Muso Ryu jo, but I instantly recognized what Nishioka Sensei was talikng about when I read his article, which, for me anyway, expressed the essence of a distinctly Japanese approach to learning things.

In a kendo practice (not a competition) the junior is expected to vigorously attack the senior without worrying about the success or failure of either his attack or defense. This is in order to teach the junior the proper attacking spirit, quick reaction, decisiveness, and proper technical fundamentals. In return, the senior will often give the junior openings so that the junior's attacks can be successful and so that he will learn to instinctively take advantage of openings in a real match when they present themselves. Another way the senior will guide the junior is to maintain a pace that challenges the junior but does not overwhelm him. In this way the senior slowly raises the junior's level by nurturing and challenging him at the same time. As the junior progresses, the senior will gauge his progress and calibrate his responses in such a way that the junior is alwyas working at the outer limits of his abilities. My usual experience was that this would continue for a time until the end of the practice match, when the senior would give the signal that the session was to be ended by a 1 point or 3 point match. In the practice match, it is expected that the junior will then put everything he has learned into trying to score points as best he can. In this type of training, it is treated as a real match and both partices are expected to do their best.

This method is based on a simple realization: both people know that the senior is better and that it is the job of the junior to learn and the senior to guide and teach. If the difference in rank and skill is great enough, it is arrogant for the junior to think that he can actually score points on his senior with any regularity; therefore real competition is only allowed when the senior gives the OK. However, the entire practice is all based on the fundamental priniciple that it is the junior's job to challenge the senior with everything he's got and that it is the senior's job to do everything he can to raise the junior's abilities. This often looks like simple sadism to the outsider, but it is the kendo way of challenging a person to go beyond their limits, which is the only way to improve.

It is this understanding of specific roles in the practice that is, to my mind, anyway, a distinguishing characteristic of the way Japanese approcah learning budo. In my experience in the US, there is less of an understanding of this, with the result that the flavor of kendo practice in the US is markedly different (in my experience, anyway). I hasten to point out, though, that when the time comes for a real competition in kendo, these roles are forgotten and each person is expected to do his/her best to win.

Earl

Tim Atkinson
12th July 2000, 08:23
I have only resently started Shinto Muso Ryu Jo, with Paul Maloney in Sydeny Australia. Therefore I cant really connent one way or another with regards to this system, other than that I am thoroughly enjoying my study! However it is my underlying belief is that a ryu is a sytemised collecting of waza that the founder has formated in a way in which they thought that the ideas could best be transmitted. After all we are all learning heiho and the application of heiho. And as a heiho is only an idea, the ryu is a conduit through which the founders ideas are transmitted down through history. If this is the case, then it is more important in my view that the teachings be tranmitted with a steadfast adherence to the "idea" than to the waza and the way it is taught. Obviously the waza must contain the same spirit and movement, but if the "idea" is taught the same across a ryu then the cross-pollination of waza by instructers can only be of an advantage. We all do the same waza in a slightly different way with a slightly different areas on which we concentrate. This maybe due to body shape, teacher or prior learning. But if the "idea" is identical, then the waza is the same.

I hope this makes some sense. This maybe old hat to you all but then that is why we are all at different places on the same path.

john mark
12th July 2000, 12:10
Tim,

Recent experience at the AUSKF Iaido seminar pounded home one of the main points of Nishioka Sensei's essay as emphasized by Diane and Meik -- until you are fairly advanced you should study only under one teacher; otherwise your waza, form, etc. gets all screwed up. On the other hand I use to train at many Kyokushin dojos without any problem even though all Kyokushin teachers teach differently and emphasize different points.

Best,

Diane Skoss
12th July 2000, 14:57
Tim,

There is definitely something to what you say, but the fact is that it takes an enormous amount of training and study to understand the "idea" of a ryu well enough to know the extent to which variation is okay. I'd say that menkyo kaiden level folks have this understanding; I reckon those who have other licenses are in the process of developing it. For the rest, it is a matter of time and training, and I think for your first decade or so strict adherence to the technical instructor of one person is critical.

Cheers!

Dojorat
12th July 2000, 18:29
Greetins,

How do you say...

Shu... Ha.... Ri...???

Perhaps as Dianne alludes, within the first decade (depending on system and ability) the emphasis should be on the "syllable" Shu. Subsequent to that, maybe you can study with inflection on the Ha. And maybe someday you can begin to explore what it takes to pronounce Ri.

Cheers,

Tim Atkinson
14th July 2000, 08:00
Thanks all,

Sometimes you need to lead back onto the path by someone ahead of you showing you the way.

I guess that as with the ryu I already have a grounding in that the waza of SMR are like an onion. With more depth and layers than is first obvious.

I have founs that I must leave my kenjustu "baggae" at the dojo door, as somethings feel so similar that I automaticly go to something which turns out to be quite wrong.