Any difference between MJER iaido and MJER iaijutsu?

[Dokuganryuu]

Isn't iaijutsu more physical than iaido? I'm wondering because I've seen training videos by Kim Taylor and videos by Kyoshi Masayuki and if they're the same or not. Thanks.

[Scott Irey]

In the West the long standing percieved difference between the two has been JUTSU is more physical, focusing more on technique and less on the spiritual and DO is less physical, focusing more on the spiritual. Although JUTSU refers to technique, and DO means way (implying some spiritual end) there is no clear seperation between the two really, not in Japan at least. Many a JUTSU branded art focuses heavily on the spiritual and like wise many a DO branded art focuses heavily on the physical. I asked my sensei's about this long ago when I switched to a dojo that taught a far more physical brand of MJER and labeled itself Iaijutsu. I assumed that since it was more physical and "combative" (at least to my perception at the time) it was called Iaijutsu. Sensei informed me that the only reason they called it Iaijutsu was because the other group called theirs Iaido...by calling what we did Iaijutsu people would be less likely to confuse us with the Iaido group. And as years have gone by, I have to say that the "Iaijutsu" group I train with has a much stronger focus on the spiritual elements of iai than the "Iaido" group I trained with for years prior. So to answer your question I guess I would tell you "No, Jutsu does not mean more physical than Do..although it certainly can be...it really comes down to what the people in charge feel like calling it"



[Edited by Scott Irey on 10-08-2000 at 12:44 AM]

[FastEd]

I just want to clarify what you are trying to say...the two videos you have seen are the same, or are they different?

[Cady Goldfield]

I always got the sense that with "jutsu," attention and concern was/is more with the pragmatic and practical function of learning an effective combat method, while "do" uses principles and waza either directly from or derived from such combat/fighting/self-defense systems as a vehicle for developing inner qualities.

IOW, "jutsu" is concerned first and foremost with the "body," but in so doing one develops a certain character -- due to the rigors of training and the protocols of dojo and martial life. "Do" seems concerned first and foremost with the "inner spirit," using the methods of martial training, or a derivative of it to set the stage for the development of the desired personal qualities. In the quest for the inner development and enlightenment, "do" practitioners attain physical skills.

If taught correctly and if they train correctly, both kinds of practitioners -- jutsu and do -- end up in the same place.

[Jack B]

Hi Cady!

The DO arts that I have trained in have all leaned more towards the practical, technical, physical side. The inner spiritual growth is a result of concentrated practice in the reality of combat, not the other way around. The inner qualities are honesty with yourself, conquering fear and desire, developing focus and persistence, and developing relaxed natural self-confidence. None of these qualities are explicitly trained during class, other than as something you must have to succeed physically. Having never practiced and art that calls itself JUTSU, I don't know if it's any different.

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Jack B
Hi Cady!

The DO arts that I have trained in have all leaned more towards the practical, technical, physical side. The inner spiritual growth is a result of concentrated practice in the reality of combat, not the other way around. The inner qualities are honesty with yourself, conquering fear and desire, developing focus and persistence, and developing relaxed natural self-confidence. None of these qualities are explicitly trained during class, other than as something you must have to succeed physically. Having never practiced and art that calls itself JUTSU, I don't know if it's any different.

Hi Jack! (Now I feel like a SWAT team is about to show up...)

Thanks for your definition. It certainly does prove earlier points that the two terms have somehow merged and become ambiguous over the generations.

Having come up, originally, in Korean systems, I recall that we made a distinction between "sool" (techniques) and "do" (Way). These terms were the Korean equivalents of "jutsu" and "do" ("Do" being one of those words that crossed cultures, derived, I believe, from Chinese -- "tao."). "Sool" specifically referred to the technical aspects, and the physical method of learning technique. That's how I got the impression that "jutsu" refers more to the technical approach to a system. Many of the "do" arts seem to have evolved to include aesthetic (art for art's sake) forms and movements that don't necessarily have a practical application in combat, but which do require the individual to practice with a focused mind and a certain degree of discipline -- forms of internal development.

For instance, from the (admittedly small amount of) iaido I've seen, there seems to be an elaborate rei involved that doesn't appear to serve more than a ritualistic purpose, yet certainly requires great mental focus to perform. Rei practiced in classical kenjutsu I train in, on the other hand, is far less elaborate or "artistic," but has direct application to combat and its preparations. I'm wondering whether those who train in iajutsu make that same distinction?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting "You say tomayto, I say tomahto" discussion, neh? :)

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-11-2000 at 03:05 PM]

[Brian Dunham]

Cady,
The reiho in most Iai systems is really not that elaborate. In fact no more so than any kenjutsu reiho that I have seen. However, quite a bit of emphasis is placed on doing it correctly. I think this creates a misconception among many non Iai-ka that so much of the art is ceremony. I would also be careful in saying that it serves no more than a ritualistic purpose, as that is the PRIMARY purpose of any method of reiho. I do agree, though, that any reiho should be performed with readiness for action. This can not always be seen by somebody that does not practice that particular system.

[Earl Hartman]

Cady:

Would you mind identifying the style of classical swordsmanship in which you train? Is it part of Daito Ryu or something else?

Earl

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Brian Dunham
Cady,
The reiho in most Iai systems is really not that elaborate. In fact no more so than any kenjutsu reiho that I have seen. However, quite a bit of emphasis is placed on doing it correctly. I think this creates a misconception among many non Iai-ka that so much of the art is ceremony. I would also be careful in saying that it serves no more than a ritualistic purpose, as that is the PRIMARY purpose of any method of reiho. I do agree, though, that any reiho should be performed with readiness for action. This can not always be seen by somebody that does not practice that particular system.

Hi Brian, thanks for your reply and comments. I guess I'm misinterpreting "rei" to include all protocols and actions with the sword between the stages of approaching the opponent and removing blood/returning the sword to the saya after use. From what I have seen, there is a "whole lotta stuff" going on in that flow of procedure in iaido --including some movements, body positioning and stances the purpose of which I haven't the experience to understand -- that you probably wouldn't see in kenjutsu systems (someone who has a clue: please jump in here and correct this if I'm wrong).

Also, it doesn't sit quite right with me that all reiho is merely ritualistic, at least not in "jutsu" systems. Ritual implies a symbolic play of actions or words -- physical metaphor that doesn't always have at its core a function anymore. Kind of like the ritual of the handshake. We all know it's original purpose, but in no way do handshakes today serve their original function in a direct sense.

In kenjutsu, to my eyes, rei plays a crucial role in both perceiving potential threat and in making and keeping oneself combat-ready. The ritual part is not breaking court etiquette (Goodness knows, you wouldn't to want look like you rudely assume that the guy sitting across from you has even a remote desire to lop your head off...Even though that's exactly what you're thinking). But the mindset is fully martial and potentially combative, and the actions and body/sword positioning appear to me to be specific and designed to promote the best mobility and facility possible for the swordsman to take up his weapon at the slightest twitch.

Anyway, just mullin' some thoughts that are really questions. Feel free to jump back in with more comments.

Cady

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-11-2000 at 10:07 PM]

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Earl Hartman
Cady:

Would you mind identifying the style of classical swordsmanship in which you train? Is it part of Daito Ryu or something else?

Earl


Hi Earl,
Nice to hear from you again. I'm sorry to sound evasive, but I can't give you a straight answer. We're just a small study group passionately pursuing a classical system that one of us was fortunate enough to have learned from a bonafide instructor of a ryuha. But, as none of us is certified to teach (although many might argue that all of us are "certifiable" in a funnyfarm institutional sense), we're not at liberty to make any name claims. We just keep jabbin' each other with pointed sticks in a small barn out in the woods. Go figure. :)

[Tony Peters]

admitedly I am a novice but I do train in both Iaido, Seitei & MJER, and two koryu arts, SMR Jodo and I dabble with Takeuchi Ryu ( iwish I had the energy to do more than dabble). What I have noticed is that there is indeed a great deal of "Ritual" involved in Iai that isn't in necessarily integral to the fighting part of the art but seems to be more like Zen which I find enjoyable especially since I practice Zen buddhism. The Reiho in both Koryu arts (to my eyes and what I've done myself) is much more preparatory to practice/training/combat and seems to only take place once instead of throughout training like Iai. Suprisingly the Reiho for both Takeuchi Ryu and SMR Jodo is similar in it's content and practice with only stylist differences as far as I have seen. This may be true for many Koryu arts. Just my $00.02

[MarkF]

Isn't this just another discussion in differences between "do" and "jutsu?" I had thought it might go away, but no, I suppose, as the arts change, so do the people involved. Possibly this is because of a change in the approach to them, or the changing attitudes (and they seem to change with the seasons). BTW: Go over to the thread "Draeger bashing" and read Ellis Amdur's post. I think it speaks for itself.

I don't think, however, that all have been totally honest in the manner of this argument, and indeed, some have changed in the more than six months, the last time this was discussed.

It just doesn't matter whether discussing iaido and iaijutsu, kendo and kenjutsu (OK, this is an exception to the rule), and any ryu of jujutsu to judo. The term judo was used well before judo existed, when jujutsu was sometimes referred to as yawara. Then, you must discuss the difference in bujutsu and budo. Most agree that the term budo was around even before, or at least at the same time as bujutsu, so is there a difference?

Maybe, as I think it was Cady who brought up the pragmatic or practical jutsu, and the more ceremonial DO. If this is the case then iaido and iaijutsu are the same thing, with only the pretense of ceremony and life-changing in the DO form of iai.

A long while back, BC, Earl made the point that the terms were on a continuum of sorts, and that basically, or even technically, they were the same thing. I don't see where this has changed any, and it is one thing I've agreed with, even quoting Earl (I usually give you the credit on this:) ).

So what I perceive as different, is as distinct as the school you practice or attend; in other words, it is what it is depending on instructors, attitudes of one school or dojo being whatever the teacher says it is. Even karatedo has jumped on this, with some even calling it karatejutsu (OK, these are mostly soakey-dokey dojo and whoever makes the "who's who in martial-soke" internet list).

I practice Kodokan goshin jutsu, but this is still judo. Does all the ceremonial stuff really count, anyway? Maybe, depending on the name of something in which you aspire to be as good as you can be, therefore calling it "iaido" or "iaijutsu." Again, it is what it is at differnt times and different places with differing meaning, if any.

Coming right down to it, is it really just the clothing you wear (or lack of approriate clothing) which differentiate the two (hakama V dogi, uwagi)? It may be, but fully one quarter of the students at my dojo wear Xtra large sweat shirts, as they cannot afford judogi, at this time. At the same time, a couple of them wear hakama, which is fine, as long as it doesn't get in the way or cause accidents (these are usually handmedowns from an older brother who does a "jutsu" which required the hakama, and others are wearing dogi which are used, as one the first thing students receive in there paperwork, is a request that if they do no want to continue, or they grow out of the dogi-not limited to children, btw:o That the judogi, or at least the uwagi, be left as a contribution to the next who cannot afford new dogi)

OK, long rant just to make the point that there may indeed, be no difference between the two, and mostly, with exceptions noted, there are not.

Mark

[Cady Goldfield]

IMO, the "ceremonial stuff" counts only if it serves a purpose. Ritual for ritual's sake is just form without function...like the 3 buttons you still see on the sleeves of mens' suit jackets. :)

It comes down to a matter of personal tastes, I suppose. Pragmatists place function first. To them, there is deep, meaningful beauty in a cogent principle and the refining of the waza that express it. A movement that serves no function in combat is superfluous and thus "unbeautiful" to such a person.

By contrast, an aesthete appreciates form whether it is cogent and practical/functional or not. He sees beauty in certain kinds of movements and customs. In a martial art or way, aesthetes, over time, may lose touch with the original purpose of various waza, and in so doing let their art evolve movements that, little by little, become ineffective as combat technique. IMO, there is nothing wrong with this art-for-art's-sake approach as long as the practitioner never intends to use the art "for real," and is concerned only with what is pleasing to his eye and sensibilities.

It's a big world full of people with different goals and values. Makes for an interesting mix, as well as a fascinating forumful of opinions.

Cady

[Earl Hartman]

There are a number of types of people involved in this discussion Perhaps we can summarize a bit.

Some people say that Do is more important than Jutsu. By this, these people actually mean that spirit, or the attitude with which a person does something, is more important than any practical effect, and that the physical actions or techniques are themselves meaningless in any practical sense, but exist primarily to instill a certain attitude or frame of mind. These are probably the people that Cady calls the aesthetes. It has been my experience that these people, in general, say quite frankly that budo is, or should be, a non-violent, peaceful way of self cultivation, divorced from any aspects of competition or conflict. For these people, it seems that the Do is identified as being synonomous with a definite (if nebulously defined) set of moral values having primarily to do with non-violence.

Others say that the Jutsu is the way to the Do and that they are both equally important. That is, they exist in a symbiotic relationship where they mutually reinforce each other. Thus, the techniques are seen as expressions of the underlying principles that define the Do. For these people, the Do is seen as something more practical, that which gives life to the Jutsu, not necessarily as a set of moral values.

Others say that the Jutsu and the Do are the same thing. This is the position of Yagyu Nobuharu Sensei of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and it makes the most sense to me. He does not say that the Jutsu and the Do are equally important or that you must have the Jutsu in order to understand the Do. He says that the two are identical. Thus, he often refers to what he does as "kendo", although most Westerners, who insist on differentiating between things, would find this exquisitely confusing. While I don't understand all of the imlpcations of what Yagyu Sensei says, this position has the real ring of truth to me, since it is not strained in any way and does not require the distortions that seem to accompany the attempt to put a round peg in a square hole (e.g., if budo is supposed to teach peaceful values, why are you hitting each other with sticks?).

I think the reason for this is pretty simple: if the Do is seen as the natural way in which the universe functions, then any art (jutsu) must also conform to these natural principles if it is to be a Do. Thus, everything in the universe, including a swordfight, follows the Do, whether the participants understand this or not. The swordsman who understands the Do, and whose swordsmanship is in harmony with the Do, must win in any contest. Thus the Jutsu is the Do.

As far as Reiho is concerned, people make far too big a deal of it. (In kyudo, particularly in the Ogasawara Ryu, there are many elaborate ceremonies of a religious nature that have Reiho which is very complex and involved. However, this is a specialized area of study and is not part of the regular curriculum, especially for lower-ranked archers.) In general, Reiho is proper manners, nothing more, nothing less. People make the mistake of thinking that since the bugei are supposed to be "natural", this means that anything goes and that people shouldn't be too stuffy about things. This is a mistaken idea. If the Jutsu is in harmony with the Do, which must conform to natural law, then the Jutsu cannot just be performed any old which way. It must be done in such a way that over time the practitoner's mind will become attuned to the natural principles which the Jutsu express. Thus, the need for formalization. This is primarily to settle the mind of the practitioner so that he/she can concentrate on the task at hand. When the mind is settled, it can become receptive to the realization of the oneness of Jutsu and Do. I think that it is at this point that you can start to talk about "nani-nani Do".

Earl

[Edited by Earl Hartman on 10-12-2000 at 01:02 PM]

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Tony Peters
admitedly I am a novice but I do train in both Iaido, Seitei & MJER, and two koryu arts, SMR Jodo and I dabble with Takeuchi Ryu ( iwish I had the energy to do more than dabble).

Geez, Tony. How the heck does one "dabble" in Takeuchi-ryu? How, in fact, can one possibly "dabble" in a koryu art? I thought that "dabble" and koryu were mutually exclusive terms.
Cady
P.S. I see it didn't take you long to make the transition from Guam to Hawai'i, Sailor. :)

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
IMO, the "ceremonial stuff" counts only if it serves a purpose. Ritual for ritual's sake is just form without function...like the 3 buttons you still see on the sleeves of mens' suit jackets. :)
...

Cady


Hello Cady, congratulations for being on the receiving end of my first post. I'm certainly no expert in this field, but your post did bring up a thought.

The life of the samurai was the life of a feudal courtier. He was expected to attend his lord both on the battlefield and at court. In either place he would be expected to know proper etiquette, as well as be prepared to instantly give his life to protect his lord. Considering how quickly a breach of etiquette could lead to fatal combat in feudal Japan, it would seem only natural that any school that taught how to use weapons restricted to the nobility, would also teach the students how to act politely and responsibly within that same noble culture.

Now perhaps it is the case, that the Samurai should have developed a sort of budo-charm school instead of teaching these matters in a fencing class, but they didn't, and so we're left with this charming anachronism in our classes. I would think that most anyone who would spend the time to study the uses of a historical weapon would keep in mind the context of the period in judging the art.

Formal dojo etiquette is perhaps not absolutely necessary in order to study any martial art. However it is considered by many (a great many I hope) necessary in order to show proper respect for your teacher, his teachers, your fellow students and the art that you pursue. For some traditions, the amount of effort spent in displaying this respect might seem excessive, but remember, it is a tradition. Traditions are only kept alive by the people who care about them, once we cease to care, it will no longer be a tradition but a quaint custom we can read about in the history books.

Dan

[Cady Goldfield]

Hi there, Dan. Welcome to the board. I'm, frankly, shocked...SHOCKED... that I would be singled out from the herd to be the first wildebeest you take down on this bujutsu safari.:)

To address your point, it is a very good one. However, I should have made it clearer in my original post that ritual is not "ritual for ritual's sake" if the practitioner *does not lose track* of the purpose and function, and practices it with full understanding and the intent to keep it as part of a complete and authentic (as authentic as possible, at least) system.

Let's face it: those of us who study classical systems are perpetuating an archaic form that has no functional place in this culture's modern society. We perpetuate it out of love and passion for what it is and what we do, because it captivates our interest. If we're goint to go that far, then we are obliged to keep the package intact.

For the purists, to perpetuate an art's methodology -- principles and their waza -- without also including the context in which it was borne by those who used it "for real" back in those times, is to lose a piece of the art. I agree with you fully there. I believe that we need to learn our system's reiho and the reasons for each protocol, even if we choose not to adhere to it formally and rigidly when training. (In fact, I would consider it a waste of time to conduct class using every detail of reiho. The ancient Japanese guys had no choice; we do, and I'd opt to keep the formal rei in a nice box to show to guests, but practice like "normal schmoes"...otherwise, we'd never get any training done!). That way, the system continues to be handed down intact. In that respect, it really isn't "ritual for ritual's sake." When I said that, I was referring specifically to practitioners who continue to carry out a protocol and its steps and movements, without understanding what it means. Yet, they have rigidly formal dojo and there is precious little technique to back it up. (As another Dan on this forum is fond of saying, "Where you find rigid formality, it is usually in lieu of substance.") In so doing, it gets corrupted a little bit with each handing-down, until the protocol is not only not understood; it's also done wrong!

There are a number of individuals on these forums who practice their arts with full intent as to their original purpose. That means "acting with the intent to kill" with every move. It's not because these people are cold-blooded killers, or even have a desire to kill to test their art's mettle. It's just that the mindset is also a part of the art, and to preserve the art's authenticity, you must therefore also practice and apply the mindset.

It's the whole package or you lose your classical art, piece by piece.

Cady

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Hi there, Dan. Welcome to the board. I'm, frankly, shocked...SHOCKED... that I would be singled out from the herd to be the first wildebeest you take down on this bujutsu safari.:)
...

Cady

Jambo Bwana,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Cady. One doesn't find that sort of character in a wildebeest on most days.

I'll throw out another thought, and I think it is especially true with MA, but I'll hope older and wiser heads (or at least wiser heads or anyone with more hair) will jump in and add to this point.

When I was 14, I took up working with leather and worked evenings and weekends for a local saddlemaker. I was sort of an apprentice, but no official saddlers guilds existed in California in those days. I remember doing a lot of things I was told to do and many of them didn't make a lick of sense at the time, but after learning how to do them, I eventually was able to see how it fit into the entire picture of saddle making. (For the record I never actually made a saddle which I guess puts me still somewhere in the kyu level).

The Japanese system of teaching is culturally rather less inclined towards lengthy explanations than most. In that regard, one could look upon learning MA more as an apprenticeship than as Western style classroom learning. Which means lots and lots of repetitive tasks that don't make a lot of sense, and with work and a good instructor, you find that you learn the meaning of the work through the work, and not through lecture. Sort of a guided tour of self-discovery rather than being handed a textbook full of answers that you didn't even know the questions to.

You mention "acting with the intent to kill" as the original purpose of the arts that some practice. I agree that this is the case of most martial arts, but I also believe (or at least want to believe) that a martial art that teaches killing technique also builds the character to allow the practitioner to know when to kill. Learning respect and patience would seem to be a huge part of that. Once the decision is made to kill, then the art "takes over" the mechanics of the process, but the decision to pull the trigger or draw the sword is to be made deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences of the action.

Good post, thank you.

Dan Beaird

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by dbeaird

I'll throw out another thought, and I think it is especially true with MA, but I'll hope older and wiser heads (or at least wiser heads or anyone with more hair) will jump in and add to this point.

When I was 14, I took up working with leather and worked evenings and weekends for a local saddlemaker. I was sort of an apprentice, but no official saddlers guilds existed in California in those days. I remember doing a lot of things I was told to do and many of them didn't make a lick of sense at the time, but after learning how to do them, I eventually was able to see how it fit into the entire picture of saddle making. (For the record I never actually made a saddle which I guess puts me still somewhere in the kyu level).


That's not what I meant, Dan. Of course a lot of newbies and apprentices get started out doing things they don't understand, just as you teach a small child by rote, knowing that he or she will come to understand the deeper meaning and purpose later.

What I'm talking about, is blind obeisance to tradition as it is handed from one "generation" to the next... with even the teachers not understanding the meaning or correct method, because their own teachers got it screwed up. That's what I mean by the piece-by-piece erosion over time. The students learn incorrectly from their incorrectly-taught teachers. Nobody knows what the heck is going on, they only parrot what they were told and shown.

There's that old story about the woman was teaching her daughter how to make pot roast. She taught the girl to always cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. There would be the roast lying in the middle of the big roasting pan, its ends lying next to it. One day, her daughter asked her why roast was prepared this way. The woman replied that it was because that's how her mother had always prepared a roast, and she assumed it affected the way the meat cooked. The next time the daughter visited her grandmother, she mentioned this. The grandmother replied that she had had to buy large roasts to feed her large family, and the roasting pan was way too small to accommodate the cut of meat. So, she'd had to cut the ends off to make it fit.

:)

Cady

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield

What I'm talking about, is blind obeisance to tradition as it is handed from one "generation" to the next...
Cady
[/B]
Okay Cady, I'll agree with you on this. Of course there also should come a point when the apprentice walks up to the master and demands an explanation of just why he has to wear a feather boa and how that will make him a better martial artist. Hopefully the apprentice will learn sooner rather than later that they are being taught by someone who doesn't understand the art (and suspect that there was a crossdresser in the ryu). Sort of like having to go through the entire seventh grade with the same substitute teacher I guess, you'll just have to hope someone will be there to correct their mistakes.

Barnum's Law tells us that there will always be a ready supply of students for people who teach this way. So maybe next time your doing that bow you might whisper a prayer to the good kami in hope that we're not among them.

Dan Beaird

[Edited by dbeaird on 10-16-2000 at 10:48 PM]

[Cady Goldfield]

I think I finally got the feather boa part figured out. But I'm still stumped as to why even the guys in my dojo gotta wear that funny-looking skirt!

Cady