Bujinkan/Koryu question

[Roger Conant]

This may seem more appropriate for the Ninjutsu thread, but since the question of Hatsumi’s Bujinkan's relationship to koryu was begun here, could we continue the discussion?

A question: We are told that at least some of the number of arts taught under the auspices of Hatsumi’s Bujinkan are koryu. They are defined that way because they have scrolls that go back several generations. Okay. Let’s say one of these is Y ryu. Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

[Robert Miller]

Bujinkan dojos use the methodology of the organization's head, Masaaki Hatsumi. Hatsumi doesn't jive with koryu...
I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though. Besides, there aren't any menkyo kaiden who aren't Japanese in the Bujinkan, so I think you're out'ta luck. You might try Genbukan Ninpo, as I believe they train within the ryu-ha.

[kabutoki]

Hi,

I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though.

That would be Hontai Yoshin Ryu under Tsuyoshi Inoue.
Please keep in mind that these two are related to the schools in the Bujinkan but barely the same.

Karsten

[DWeidman]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed?

No. At least not with Hatsumi's permission (as far as I know).


Originally posted by Roger Conant
If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu?

No.

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Not applicable - see above.

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Thank you in advance for your responses.

No problem.

-Daniel Weidman

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs? Would the manner of instructing me in Y ryu differ from the way in which the “non-koryu” aspects of the Bujinkan are taught?

Just to elaborate a bit on Dan's responses, for some years now Hatsumi sensei has been trying to disseminate certain concepts and principles Bujinkan-wide through his teaching each year, generally using specific ryuha as vehicles to get them across. In 2002 it was Takagi Yoshin ryu, before that Gyokko ryu, before that Koto ryu, etc., etc. (Last year and this have not really been ryu-specific.) He hasn't been trying to teach the ryuha as such, and you wouldn't be able to get him to do so now as it would be antithetical to the direction in which he's been trying to lead us as budoka. He'd regard it as a waste of his time, focusing on where he came from rather than where he's going.

Some of the Japanese shihan, however, did receive menkyo in various specific ryuha from him in earlier years, and it might be possible to learn a specific one from one of them if you paid them enough to justify their taking the time to indulge you. :p

[poryu]

Hi

Originally posted by Robert Miller
don't know about TYR, though.

Aside from hatsumi and Tanemura who both claim Soke of a branch of Takagi Yoshin ryu.

there are several other branches of Takagi Yoshin Ryu in Japan all with legitimate Soke, all claiming there own lineage.

One lineage still has in the sokes poccession documents and makimono written by ishitani (IshiYa) sensei over 100 years ago.

i think I know of at least 6 different branches of TYR

[Roger Conant]

So given that the above responses are accurate and informed, aren’t the questions of Hatsumi’s status in the koryu world and the Bujinkan’s supposed teachings as being koryu kind of moot?
Hatsumi may or may not have licenses in one or more ryu which have historically verifiable roots. But what does that matter if he is not teaching them or if he is teaching some of their aspects in a way that is inconsistent with the way koryu are traditionally taught?
“Hatsumi doesn’t jive with koryu.” I think the guy might have meant “jibe,” but his point is taken. If this is true, I don’t see why so many practitioners of the Bujinkan and other types of ninja-related arts continue to be concerned with defending their stuff as koryu.
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Hatsumi has this or that license or ranking in some koryu. But all here have stated pretty clearly that he is not teaching any complete koryu. So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?
And can we say that consequently, the Bujinkan’s relationship to koryu bujutsu is about the same as modern American baseball’s relationship to 19th century cricket?

[Peter Carlsson]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Hatsumi has this or that license or ranking in some koryu. But all here have stated pretty clearly that he is not teaching any complete koryu. So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?
And can we say that consequently, the Bujinkan’s relationship to koryu bujutsu is about the same as modern American baseball’s relationship to 19th century cricket?

NO !!!!

You can NOT say that Bujinkan is this or that and not that...if you have not been training in the Bujinkan for so long that you actually have first hand knowledge about what is being taught and not. Internet is not a source to be used as validation in that kind of matters.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

[Robert Miller]

In koryu you have a set of waza. Let's take one. In the Bujinkan, you have that same technique, (shown like once..if you caught it) then an !!! load of variation or "henka". Maybe your opponent swings a gnarly roadhouse punch, or a fudoken straight punch, or a wushu hammer-fist...er whatever. The feel, or intricacies as I prefer, are explored in henka, (as opposed to regimented, standardized kata). You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect. He's probably already done it. And he could do it in a bujutsu 'sorta way.

[poryu]

HI

Originally posted by Robert Miller
You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect.

I am going to strongly disagree with this stement.

the average Bujinkan practitioner hasnt a clue what Koryu is. Many of them have never seen any Koryu practise or demonstrate.

As for doing it straight perfect - not a chance many cant do there kihon right let along formal kata.

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?

Definitely not.

As I mentioned earlier, different ryuha are in fact focused on from time to time for particular reasons. All have their own characteristic kamae, footwork, methods of generating power, use of distance and space, overarching strategies and tactical applications: Gyokko ryu, for example, doesn't look or "feel" anything like Takagi Yoshin ryu.

But Hatsumi is trying to get more across than just the specifics of any given ryuha, and while his teaching could be considered an "amalgam", the "of his own creation" part definitely does not fit: You'd have to blame Takamatsu for that. :p I've heard him express the things I'm recounting here many times over the years, but perhaps it's best to let his own words speak for him. . .

In a 1998 Black Belt Magazine Interview (http://www.winjutsu.com/bbtaikaiarticle.htm) with Josh Sager, there was this:

BB: How has the art evolved since Takamatsu Sensei passed it on to you?

MH: It has not evolved. Its just alive. It has just survived. Its like two things being the same; they seem to be changing, but they are keeping the same form. Isomorphism. Many people talk about evolution, and there was a time when the theory of evolution was all the rage. But what is actually underneath human life has not evolved at all; it has not changed.

More recently, after largely avoiding it for years, Hatsumi has begun using "the N-word" again, and has just published (JAN 2004, Kodansha International) a new book, The Way Of The Ninja: Secret Techniques. On page 36, he says,

Some people see the techniques I perform and call them Kamiwaza, divine techniques. They call me a divine warrior. Yet if these techniques were something I had produced myself, there would be nothing special about them at all. I never perform "my" techniques. Even at my age, I am still merely carrying out techniques as I was taught them by Takamatsu sensei. Otherwise, techniques that have been polished and handed down over generations, for hundreds and thousands of years, would actually deteriorate. As techniques are transmitted, life itself is received.

Some other passages shed some additional light on what he's getting at, however. In the two paragraphs preceding the quote above, he says:

In the martial arts, the basics are of supreme importance. In general, students start by learning forms or techniques. Beginners have to train initially with "visible" movements: this is inescapable, as otherwise they simply will not understand any further complexities. Visible movements are studied first in Ninpo Taijutsu too -- but soon you have to progress to a world which is invisible to the naked eye. It is important that this training be natural. It may be a truism to say that all things in nature are natural, but most people live and are "educated" in the narrow world of human beings, and end up thinking of things in an excessively complicated way, thereby losing their ability to see things straight and naturally.

Ninpo Taijutsu did in fact vary greatly depending on the period, and from area to area. In each variant, however, there were both basic forms and progressive forms. There were also key points found in the forms of all the different schools, while each form would itself exhibit infinite variations. . .These variations should be treasured. I really want people to understand this feeling. A single form may end up appearing totally different as a result of these variations.

And why might this last be considered desirable? From page 178:

The techniques of Budo are all highly polished masterpieces. However, if you 'learn' or memorize them, everything stops: you end up feeling trapped, and it has the opposite effect from that intended. Once you have learned a technique, you need to forget it. If you remember it and recall it, it loses its authenticity. Learning a technique is not an end in itself, it merely indicates where you need to start. It is only by discrding memorized techniques, stripping them down, that you can discover a way forward to the next masterpiece.

In genuine Budo, any conventional 'common sense' about martial arts (fighting) that you might have learned in the past can actually get in the way. This is because common sense prevents you from changing. In real life, people who live beyond the bounds of common sense attack you suddenly, with scant regard for any rules of combat. You can hardly call yourself a martial artist if this throws you off balance.

Over the years, I've often heard Sensei remind people that they do have to have forms before those forms can be "broken" in a way that produces life rather than death. He does have a cautionary note concerning this on page 30:

The Ninja view of the universe contains not only three dimensions but four. The fourth dimension is that of the world of Mu -- nothingness -- a world haunted by death, a world of spirit only. It is a world with no physical existence, where everything simply disappears. That is why in that world you must not let an apponent see or sense your form -- you must wipe it out entirely.

The vast majority of Ninjutsu practitioners are, however, stuck at the third dimension, or even the second. Some people are in fact still in the first dimension -- maybe even some 'minus' level!. . .

I hope this helps to illuminate the issues a bit further. Bottom line: Hatsumi feels that he is teaching in the spirit of Takamatsu sensei and the way Takamatsu would want him to. Takamatsu's own approach appears to have been strongly influenced by his decade of traveling, killing, and surviving in China:

Having waded through carnage, he returned to Japan in 1919, and commented on this episode as follows: "My training in Japan, followed by my experience of ten years of actual combat in China, enabled me to understand the essence of the martial arts and the importance of Ninjutsu". (p. 27)

[Roger Conant]

So, Mr. Carlsson, is it your position that there can be no definition of the Bujinkan vis-à-vis its status as a koryu unless one actually has “firsthand knowledge” of it as a practitioner? That is unique. One does not have to be a member of Katori Shinto ryu, for example, to look at its lineage and records, to observe the training, and to see the structure of the ryu and its conventions, to conclude rationally that it is a classical koryu. Is the Bujinkan beyond rational objective analysis in a similar way? Again, I am not asking about its effectiveness or the scope of the curriculum.
That last comment would apply to Mr. Miller as well. I have no reason to doubt you, Mr. Miller, when you tell me the average Bujinkan practitioner could instantly reproduce the technique, intent, neurological responses, and psychological frame of mind that takes ordinary koryu practitioners years to develop. What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.
Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?
I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan? It does not seem fair to the Bujinkan for “spokesmen,” no matter how well intentioned, to be responding to questions like this.

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.
Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?

Nope. No more than, for example, Ueshiba was perpetuating Daito ryu when he created Aikido. On the other hand, Hatsumi has also claimed to be the only instructor today who is teaching martial arts from the Sengoku Jidai era the way they were taught in that period.

Even looking at specific ryuha within "the Booj", I wouldn't say that Hatsumi's approach fits the "typical koryu" method of transmission. In a post of mine from another E-budo thread (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25825&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) I made some comments about his teaching a Takagi Yoshin ryu waza some years ago. If for no other reason, his extrapolation into contemporary situations and weaponry would make his approach "not koryu":

Originally posted by Dale Seago
I remember Hatsumi sensei covering a technique from Takagi Yoshin ryu once, years ago. . .It's what you might call a "transitional" samurai jujutsu system formalized in the 1600s: Still strongly influenced by the Sengoku Jidai but with more of an "indoor" and unarmored than a "battlefield" and armored orientation. Anyhow, Sensei was showing some waza or other involving an unarmed counter against someone attempting a iai- or batto-type sword draw and cut, and he first showed it as an armored technique: "Here's how it was done in the Sengoku Jidai. Then the style of armor changed in the Edo period and it was done like this. . .Without armor it's this way. . .And today, if someone were trying to draw a concealed pistol from a shoulder holster and shoot you, it would be this." But the fundamental concepts behind all the variations were the same.

Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan?

Well, that would be me.

[Roger Conant]

Mr. Seago,
I’m having difficulty understanding two of your points.
You have noted a couple of times that Hatsumi draws on one or another ryu, concentrating on them for a time to educate his students. 2002, you tell us, was the “Year of Takagi ryu.” Okay. But ryu are remarkably sophisticated structures, aren’t they? In Amdur’s “Old School” he takes care to explain this: “By now my readers surely understand how much more depth there is within each ryu than mere sequences of techniques.” He goes on to talk about a wide spectrum of behavioral manifestations. He notes too, of the ryu’s “’layered’ pedagogical methods,” that “specific skills must be learned at each stage and only when that stage is mastered is one qualified to comprehend the meanings inherent in the next level of forms.”
Amdur’s definitions here are pretty much in line with what other writers say about the nature of a koryu. That the ryu’s worth is far more than its catalog of techniques seems to be the generally accepted idea. And learning it doesn’t come quickly. Additionally, each ryu is a discrete entity, with its own patron deities, its own ethos, its own way of responding to combative situations and perceptions of strategy. As you observed, the “feel” of one ryu is not at all like another’s.
Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend “a year” teaching a ryu, then moving on to another? He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the “heart” of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore. Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?
If you wish to become a Biblical scholar and begin by studying Introductory Aramaic for a year, then Advanced Hebrew for a year, then a year of Modern Latin, would you be developing a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible’s history and meaning? Or would you just have a mish-mash of disparate information?

Yes, I understand your point about Uyeshiba and Daito ryu. Neither Uyeshiba, nor any of his followers,however, claim to be perpetuating a koryu. He gave every indication of wishing to break with a feudal past, not embrace it. None of his followers today claim to be practising a koryu, unlike some followers of Hatsumi—which is what this thread is all about. Uyeshiba did not claim to be teaching his art exactly as it was taught during the Sengoku jidai, as Hatsumi does. There is a pile of evidence that this is not so; very little, apparently, that he is correct.

Secondly, you note that Hatsumi is teaching as Takamatsu wished and Hatsumi you quote as saying he is “merely carrying out techniques as I was taught them by Takamatsu sensei.” So Takamatsu told Hatsumi to teach one ryu for a year, then go on to another? Or told him what aspects of this ryu to teach and what aspects from that one? Are we to assume Takamatsu left this kind of detail or has Hatsumi told us that this was done?
I think we all understand that Hatsumi appears devoted to transcending technique and being free of the alleged restrictions imposed by kata. We understand that he wishes to impart certain principles that are applicable in any era. This has been discussed at enormous length. I am asking, however, about the validity of claims made that the Bujinkan is a repository of classical koryu. If it is, I am wondering which one and how it is taught in accordance with every other known ryu.

[Peter Carlsson]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
So, Mr. Carlsson, is it your position that there can be no definition of the Bujinkan vis-à-vis its status as a koryu unless one actually has “firsthand knowledge” of it as a practitioner?

At least, my position is that it can not be defined out of an internet discussion...

There must be some more substance behind such a conclusion than just what can be found on a discussion board on internet.


One does not have to be a member of Katori Shinto ryu, for example, to look at its lineage and records, to observe the training, and to see the structure of the ryu and its conventions, to conclude rationally that it is a classical koryu.

I happen to have a friend who has taken Keppan at Katori Shinto ryu, so I know that it's not that easy as you get it to sound. They are not allowed to disclose anything about the actual training. It requires a lot more research than just a discussion on internet to come to the conclusion about what it is or not, too.



Is the Bujinkan beyond rational objective analysis in a similar way? Again, I am not asking about its effectiveness or the scope of the curriculum.

But the scope of the curriculum is of course one of the most important aspect of determining if it is a koryu or not???


That last comment would apply to Mr. Miller as well. I have no reason to doubt you, Mr. Miller, when you tell me the average Bujinkan practitioner could instantly reproduce the technique, intent, neurological responses, and psychological frame of mind that takes ordinary koryu practitioners years to develop.

But I seriosly doubt it..... :D

What I am trying to discover, however, is on what basis the Bujinkan could make to be considered a koryu in the standard definition of that concept.

Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu can not be considered koryu by any "standard".
Bujinkan consists of nine traditional schools (koryu), but it's a moderns construction to gather them under the same roof, teach them as a package, to give out kyu and dan grades etc.

Is this a conclusion that you can buy?

BUT, if we start discussing each of the nine different schools, then it's not the same conclusion as above, and here our opinions will most probably vary.

Members here have just explained that no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices. They suggest he may draw on this or that element from one koryu or another to explain or educate on his own aims. But is taking techniques from different ryu, cafeteria style, the same thing as perpetuating a ryu?.

All members have not explained that "no single cohesive ryu is taught under Hatsumi’s auspices". Here are one of those points I'm arguing about that you can't take an internet discussion as foundation for an overall conclusion about that.

There are Shihans in Bujinkan in Japan that has received Menkyo Kaiden in separate ryus. It might be that it's not for every general member, but you can't make a conclusion one way or another if you have not done some very serious research first.


I am sure there are many positive and interesting contributions to be made here, but could we please hear from those who are licensed by Hatsumi to teach and/or speak on behalf of the Bujinkan? It does not seem fair to the Bujinkan for “spokesmen,” no matter how well intentioned, to be responding to questions like this.

As far as I know, there are noone "licensed" to speak on behalf of Bujinkan as organisation except Hatsumi sensei himself. As far as my own experience, I'm licensed to teach in Bujinkan and has been training in it for almost 20 years...if that's not enough for my opinions, then maybe you should read what Dale Seago has written...

And, you seem to be knowledgeable about what is koryu and not, and also seem to have some knowledge about Bujinkan. It would be interesting to know a little bit more about on what experience you draw from when you make your conclusions?

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

[pete lohstroh]

You could show a bujinkan practioner any koryu kata, and he could pick it up, and do it straight perfect. He's probably already done it. And he could do it in a bujutsu 'sorta way.

Mr. Miller,
very idiotic! Why you haven't been spanked harder for this proclamation, I honestly do not know. Thank goodness you and I are not spokesmen, yes?

Mr. Conant,
you asked some interesting, probing questions and got some straight-forward answers from Mr. Seago and Mr. Carlsson. It's a little difficult for me see where your line of questioning is heading since you seem to be arguing from both sides of fence (as it were) on the "koryu" issue.

I agree that it might help if you describe your perspective,as Mr. Carlsson suggested.

[Roger Conant]

Katori Shinto ryu meets the definition of a koryu in that its pedagogical methods, independently verifiable history, and organizational structure are all consistent with those of other martial koryu. There is no reasonable doubt it qualifies as a koryu and one not need be a member in order for that to be ascertained. The same can be said for Maniwa Nen ryu, Yagyu Shingan ryu, and many others. I am trying to find out if the same can be reliably said of the Bujinkan.
Contrary to your assertion,the scope of curriculum does not seem to figure prominently in the definitions of koryu about which we read from those considered authorities. Instead, it is the age (predating the end of the feudal era in most cases), the legitimacy of the iemoto-type successorship (an independently verifiable past) and the aim of the curriculum (devoted to martial combat during the feudal period) rather than its scope that all seem to be mentioned as the most reliable indices of authenticity.
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions. I do not know how the Bujinkan operates or teaches; that’s why I’m asking.
You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each.
What happens to these ryu when he dies? Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke? All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students. Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these? It is as if Hatsumi is the only one with a card from which to draw books from this koryu library, which he does at his discretion. But the library will collapse upon his death since no one else has access to all of it. Because he has not passed it on.
And please read my earlier posting to Mr. Seago regarding the distinct “personalities” of ryu. You would agree that ryu are more than just techniques, right? They embody, as Amdur has pointed out, a wide range of psychological and behavioral components that have to be incorporated over time. Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?
Thank you.

[Peter Carlsson]

Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions. I do not know how the Bujinkan operates or teaches; that’s why I’m asking.

Then, is it strange that we react when you start out with "So can we conclude that Hatsumi is teaching an amalgam of his own creation that may have some koryu influences, the exact flavor of which have been blended so thoroughly in the Bujinkan curriculum as to have lost any of their original identity?"

In my eyes, you ask the questions with your cup filled up, and have already made up your own answers.

You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each

Yes and no. He draws from the different ryus to teach certain aspects of combat...but, that's one part of the training. If you stay around in Bujinkan for some time, specially if you live and train in Japan, then you will get a more indepth knowledge about the ryus too.

What happens to these ryu when he dies? Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke?

Good question! Next....

All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students. Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these?

I'm quite sure Hatsumi sensei feels the responsibility for maintaining the traditions he inherited from Takamatsu...


And please read my earlier posting to Mr. Seago regarding the distinct “personalities” of ryu. You would agree that ryu are more than just techniques, right? They embody, as Amdur has pointed out, a wide range of psychological and behavioral components that have to be incorporated over time. Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?

The way he has taught the different "themes of the year", Hatsumi has put more focus on the "personalities" of the ryu, than on the physical techniques.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo

[DWeidman]

Well - I am up and will take a stab at this:

Originally posted by Roger Conant
I am not making conclusions, as you suggest. I am asking questions.

First - this is incorrect. You do draw conclusions (look for the phrases, "Presumably" and "...are we to assume"). You then ask questions based on those premises...

Now - on to the questions!

Originally posted by Roger Conant
You note that the actual koryu exist somewhere in the Bujinkan but that they are not taught comprehensively or as distinguishable systems. Presumably—please correct me if I am wrong—Hatsumi draws selectively from these to reinforce certain lessons he wishes to teach. So he picks and chooses from the curriculum of each.
What happens to these ryu when he dies?

I don't understand your question - do you think we have a crystal ball to predict the future? This is something that can't be answered fully. To get a straight answer - you will need to ask him directly (and even then, you probably won't get a straight answer).

I understand that the question is considered rude, however, so you may want to hold off on making the trip to Japan...

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does the lineage die out with him in the instances where he is the soke?

***If*** he doesn't appoint another Soke(s), it would appear that way... I am not sure about those who hold Menkyo Kaiden in specific Ryu-Ha...

Originally posted by Roger Conant
All that will remain are the selected pieces he elected to share with his students.

That is quite an assumption. I will explain more at the end of this post...

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does anyone in the Bujinkan feel any responsibility for maintaining these?

That is an odd question... and probably drives to the heart of this issue with you Roger.

Originally posted by Roger Conant
It is as if Hatsumi is the only one with a card from which to draw books from this koryu library, which he does at his discretion. But the library will collapse upon his death since no one else has access to all of it. Because he has not passed it on.

Says who? Do you KNOW he hasn't passed it on?

Originally posted by Roger Conant
Does Hatsumi make any effort at passing along these vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan?
Thank you.

The very start of this conversation you asked some direct questions - and then made assumptions based on the answers. You didn't ask the RIGHT questions to where you are currently headed, in my opinion.

For example - you asked:

Let’s say I go to Hatsumi or one of his affiliated dojo and ask to learn Y ryu. I do not want to learn any of the other connected arts, just Y ryu. Is this allowed? If so, will I eventually get licenses for Y ryu as are usually given in koryu? Is Y ryu, taught exclusively to me, taught in the normal manner as other koryu, i.e., through a thorough and largely unvarying adherence to kata done as the teacher instructs?

The answer to this is rather arrogant question is, "No". If ***YOU*** walked into Hatsumi's dojo, and asked him to teach you "Y" ryu - he wouldn't. He has 150,000 people in his organization, and about 1000 instructors under him. He isn't accepting personal students that demand a specific Ryu-Ha (again, this is an assumption on my part - but I am willing to go out on a limb on this one). He is heading into the later years of his career, and I doubt he would suddenly change direction, just for you. The rest of his organization, save a VERY select few dojos - are not licensed to instruct specifically in XXX ryu. So the answer to your question was, and still is, "No".

The question that hold bearing on your assumptions (and subsequently derived statements) is closer to this: You didn't ask if he COULD teach that way or if he HAS taught that way (or IS teaching that way to select few right now). As was mentioned earlier - there are Japanese Shihan who have Menkyo Kaiden in SPECIFIC Ryu-Ha... You would have to ask them for the specifics about what they did to get it, as I don't know...

Dale Seago did bring up an interesting point. There are a few Japanese instructors who hold Menkyo Kaiden in specific ryu-ha (they are the select few dojos mentioned two paragraphs ago) I suspect that if you threw, say, several billion dollars at one of the Shihan who have Menkyo Kaiden, you may get what you are looking for... :)

The Bujinkan in general trains in Budo Taijutsu now. As such - your average practitioner in California (for example) - is not striving to reach Menkyo Kaiden in "Y" ryu. And we don't pretend to.

None of this, however, has any bearing YOUR questions.

Ask Hatsumi Sensei directly if you want better information. I am afraid there are maybe a handful who will have direct answers to your questions - and even fewer who would waste their time with it. (and none of which frequent E-budo...) :)

Dale / Peter / Paul - is this pretty much correct???

-Daniel Weidman

PS. Instead of being PC (like Paul was (Paul - you are a better man than I am)) let me just say:

Robert Miller is an idiot (or, more accurately, his statement was).

Please do NOT assume that your average Bujinkan member could perform Koryu Kata "straight perfect". You are right as to the amount of time it takes to get things like that correct. His ignorant statement is a poor reflection of the organization - most of us are smarter and more sophisticated than that.

[poryu]

Hi everyone

I think everyone needs to really look at what Peter and Dan have been saying here.

I have met and trained with Peter many times and his knowledge is quite extensive, I havent met Dan yet but he is being very straight with everyone here. Take note of what they have said.

The main reason the Bujinkan has not joined the koryu organisations is because as an organisation the Bujinan it is not a koryu. as it was formed in recent years it is classed as gendai Budo just int he same way as Aikido and Judo are also classed as Gendai Budo. Both stem form koryu arts but they are not Koryu in there own right

The ryu independently may or may not be koryu that is not for us to decide, that is between the soke of any ryu and the Koryu organisations to decided between themselevs, we are not at anytime taken into consideratin when this is discussed.

Yes I will agree with many scholars that the history of some bujinkan ryu is a bit sceptical and not 100% provable, however to take just two Bujinkan ryu - Kukishinden Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, they can within the Bujinkan and outside of the Bujinkan prove that these two are 100% koryu. The history for both is readily available via other none hatsumi/bujinkan sources, and if need be cross referenced with these sources.

Now just because Hatsumi does not choose to teach in the koryu style today, this is his personal choice and we are not even as instructors in a position to quesiton his decision. His postion in the Bujinkan is absolute.

We do know from contact/discusion with many shihan that the original 6 Bujinkan shihan recieved menkyo kaiden in some of the ryu and that a few others after these 6 have recieved menkyo kaiden in some of the arts. Hatsumi has maybe chosen to only grade Japanese to this level, but as no gaijin has come forward and stated they have got MK does not mean that some one has not recieved it (I am not refering here to the amatsu tatara medicine stuff just the 9 ryu). In some Koryu, members just dont talk about what they have recieved, it is a very private matter between the student and the soke.

The way the bujinkan teaches/trains its art is not in the koryu style - that is an absolute statement. I have travelled extrensively in europe and USA training with some of the most senior ranks in the Bujinkan and also with many Japanese teachers some of whom have MK in the different ryu. I have also had the oppotunity to sample some Koryu training. We just dont do it the koryu way. The reason is because we havent been taught the koryu way and have no experience in it (with the exception of a few know who currently also belong to a valid koryu)

However, many instructors that I deal with have looked towards Koryu training and have adopted this into there own training to try and improve there own standards. Personally i like this approach and feel it helps towards understanding each form.

I think a lot of people here are making comments regarding bujinan training when they themselevs have no knowledge of Koryu and maybe even have limited time in the Bujinkan. I know Peter has been around as long as I have not sure about Dan.

So I suppose to summeries what we have tried to say we are

A gendai Budo consisting of koryu

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by DWeidman
Dale / Peter / Paul - is this pretty much correct???

Pretty much.

Mr. Conant said earlier,

I am asking, however, about the validity of claims made that the Bujinkan is a repository of classical koryu. If it is, I am wondering which one and how it is taught in accordance with every other known ryu.

I'd take particular issue with the idea that "every other known ryu". I'd accept "most", perhaps; but not every koryu is a member of the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai/Kobudo Shikokai organizations -- and some of those who aren't, if they weren't already accepted as koryu, could have doubts raised about their validity due to their structure and training methods.

Mr. Conant appears to be suggesting that:

a) arts which do not conform to a particular approach to training and transmission of material are not koryu, regardless of their antiquity; and

b) that if the Soke of a koryu art makes changes in the approach to training and transmission, then his art or arts cease at that point to be koryu. Perhaps, perhaps not. Such issues are not at all relevant to me personally.

I know that Hatsumi sensei is passing on everything that he, as Soke of several arts, feels it is important for us to understand, the things that he considers the "vital aspects of the koryu contained in the Bujinkan"; and I trust his judgment in this regard. I also know that he has passed on the material of various ryuha to some of the Japanese shihan in what Mr. Conant would consider classical koryu fashion. And I'm aware that this material can be learned as such from them. . .provided the one learning it develops the right sort of relationship with the one(s) he wants to learn it from. (Someone just walking in off the street wouldn't have a prayer, nor would a Bujinkan instructor who's never even been to Japan.)

[El Guapo-san]

Originally posted by Dale Seago
I also know that he has passed on the material of various ryuha to some of the Japanese shihan .... And I'm aware that this material can be learned as such from them. . .provided the one learning it develops the right sort of relationship with the one(s) he wants to learn it from. (Someone just walking in off the street wouldn't have a prayer, nor would a Bujinkan instructor who's never even been to Japan.)

I think that's a highly important thing for people to keep in mind about the Bujinkan. It is very open and modern, but it is also very Japanese. These two currents may seem to oppose each other, but they don't (in what some people might call a Zen kind of way). In my experience, if you know your basic basics enough, then you begin to see the individual flavours of the individual ryu.

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

[David Maynard]

Hello,

This is an interesting discussion. It is frustrating to read because it appears to be based on false or misguided assumptions from the outset. First of all, trying to define koryu is a real problem. Using the end of the Edo Period is the most common defining characteristic I suppose but I personally find this definition problematic. If you ask around I think you'll find that most academics familiar with this subject will agree that this topic is not so easy to define as some here would like to believe. If Don Draeger had any idea how much gnashing of teeth his definition would ultimately cause he probably would have edited this whole topic from his books out of embarrassment. Why? Many of the schools founded at the end of the samurai era were indeed “old school” in their thinking and philosophy while others clearly were not. This phenomonon exists into today. There are gendai schools formed near the very end of the Edo Period that are like throwbacks to a previous era while there are others founded a bit earlier that are almost totally gendai in how they operate today. So, this black & white definition of koryu or not koryu based on a date is kind of irrelevent. What is relevent is teaching methods, philosophy, organizational elements and the overall "feel" of the ryu. I might also add that change does not necessarily make a ryu “new school” This depends on exactly what changed? Does the change effect the soul of the school? Does it effect that hard to define "feel" that a koryu has? The above is just a simplified example of the criterior one should use when attempting to make such a distinction.

As a longtime student and instructor of classical bujutsu I am well aquainted with this controversy. It is actually a delimma of various shades of gray as opposed to one of black and white. I personally define a school as “old” if it’s teaching methods, psychological approach, philosophy and attitudes reflect those consistent with a different era. By this definition the Bujinkan is most decidedly not “old school”. The extensive issuing of dan ranks, the broad acceptance of students without intense scrutiny and the hodge podge quasi mixied / quasi separateness of the curriculum make the Bujinkan a distinctly modern and eclectic animal when compared to an art most experienced practitioners would define as “old school” This is not a criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a “new school” Some of the gendai arts I am familiar with are impressively effective and valuable in their own right. The freedom afforded these systems has allowed them to adapt to the modern age and foreign cultures in a way impossible for a tradition bound “old school” to do.

So, old school, new school, what’s the big deal. Pick what you think meets your needs. Getting too caught up in such semantics as the word "koryu" doesn’t help one necessarily find what he desires. Only experience and an open mind will be of benefit in such a quest.

[Jim_Jude]

Excellent discussion. At this point, I would listen to Dale, he seems the least "charged" over this matter. I also personally value his opinion over anyone else presently involved.
Mr. Maynard, you have an extremely Mature & Realistic attitude concerning this subject. I applaud your... flexibility of mind.
Dale is right on point. A few of the Bujinkan Ryuha are Koryu, or at least branches of Koryu arts. Others are not, or may not, be koryu according to the admission requirements of the Koryu Organizations in Japan, & in my opinion, it is irrelevent. Because they are, or may be, KUDEN.
Sean Askew, who is a Bujinkan Shihan that lived in Japan for years, & has as good a standing & personal relationship with Hatsumi-sensei as I believe possible, presented that fact/opinion a few years ago & it certainly make alot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I can not find his "WE ARE NOT KORYU!" article. So, we will have to settle for the words of Hatsumi-sensei.

http://www.nybujinkan.com/articles/nmn.php

I see the passing on of Kuden as a transmission of Truth, not tradition. We all know that even if you have the densho of a Koryu art, you cannot guarantee you will glean all the secrets from them. They may be, for lack of a better word, coded in a certain way. & Heaven forbid something happen to the densho, such as a fire :)

When oral tradition/Kuden are passed on, sometimes, I'll grant the peanut gallery, some things may be skewed, confused, or just incorrect. But in a martial tradition, often, if someone was that far off, they didn't last long, especially in the Sengoku Jidai. A master of Kuden passes on HIS Truth. "This works". & with Kuden, since it is word-of-mouth from the start... well, lets just say a measure of trust in involved. We may never know. & I don't believe that we will know until the next generation, the children of today's Bujinkan, are still alive & kicking will we know the Truth. Takamatsu-sensei may have documented, for the first time, some of the oldest kuden traditions still in existence. Merely because he saw that some of his wisdom maybe could do some good. & even considering all of this, maybe he had the foresight to see that most budoka would not believe unless they experienced it for themselves, & even then, some would still walk away. As Don Roley put it, some people need an "800-year old security blanket".

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17634&perpage=15&highlight=sean%20askew&pagenumber=2

An aquaintance of mine, Ryuichiro, found out that I trained in "Budo", & wanted to "trade techniques", as he put it. So, we emptied out the kitchen & played. The Kihon Happon & other techniques that I showed him prompted him to purchase Sensei's "What is Budo?" vid. & in Ryuichiro's words to me after watching it,"Hatsumi-soke's technique is absolutely magical! I love it!" Incidently, he's a sandan in Daito-ryu :cool: As one of my translators, Ryuichiro was one of the most exacting & deliberately perfectionistic individuals that I've ever met, & this was one of the first times I'd ever seen him get really excited about anything.

Another of my friends, Mizuho, who had dan ranks in Judo & Kendo, was, in her own words,"frightened" by watching me train at Ayase. She said,"My brother has done kyokushinkai karate for years, I've watched him spar & in tournaments, & I've never been scared watching budo like I was tonight. Hatsumi-sensei's budo is really dangerous! Be careful." Funny, I thought, how many times I've heard that from Sensei himself.

Yes, the Bujinkan could be seen as an amalgam of ryu-ha, Koryu AND Kuden. But the question is, why does Sensei teach the way he does? Why did Takamatsu-sensei teach the way he did? How can they be so different & yet have respected each other so? It's all there.... in the training.

[Dave Lowry]

I haven’t a dog in this fight. I take exception, however, to the suggestion that because the definition of a koryu is flexible it is therefore so malleable as to be meaningless—a false premise that often leads to the conclusion that because we cannot say precisely what a koryu is, we are similarly impuissant in determining what one is not. A variation of this threadbare explanation gets hauled up the flagpole almost every time the subject of koryu arises.

A ryu, martial or not, is a distinct kinship cohort sustaining a monopoly in a skill or art and in a particular manner. The ryu is a direct outgrowth of the social arrangement of the ie, the “extended household” of pre-modern Japan. Does not matter whether the ryu is devoted to tea ceremony, ikebana, or No theatre or martial art. The ryu imparts skills through:
a) hereditary leadership exemplified by a central authority
b) a veneration for common ancestors
c) a conformist discipline demanding sublimation of individual goals or interpretations for the overall benefit of the cohort
d) a corpus of lore and rituals transmitted personally to a limited number of members, primarily for the continuation of the group, and secondarily for vitiating it.

All of which results in a unique and distinguishable approach to a skill or art that is successfully transmitted from one generation to the next. It is invariably characteristic of the ryu that its technical aspects are superceded by a complex and sophisticated ethos that affects the member fundamentally on a spectrum of levels: emotional, physio-neurological, philosophical, and intellectual among them.
If you can cite a ryu in any art that does not meet all these qualifications and produce these results, please tell me. And not the vague, tired schtick about how some “old schools have lost their efficacy and some new schools have a ‘definite old feel’ about them.” Yes, I know there are cases of innervated ryu traditions. And cases of abuses of the iemoto/ryu system. I know there are modern systems that attempt, in good faith and with varying degrees of success, to replicate a classical ryu structure. I also know the typical traditional ryu is an extraordinary institution of continuity for preserving and conserving arts, more deserving of respect than the potshots of the equivocating sniper.

The ryu has its own “personality.” That, far more than the catalogue of techniques, is what animates it. The process of inculcating that personality successfully into the individual is an obviously time-consuming and painstaking task and it is a major factor limiting the growth and numbers of a ryu. It is true that some ryu have compromised their pedagogy, i.e., ikebana ryu that have thousands of “members.” In one way or another, however, actual membership and indoctrination into the ryu is signaled by the awarding of licences or other symbols that are directly intended to distinguish those admitted to the ryu from those who may be learning some cursory details of representative technique.
The thought that any one man could embody all these “personalities” by actually having mastered the psychophysical complexities galvanizing multiple ryu is far-fetched, in my opinion. Those who wish to believe it are free, of course, to do so. I do not care, other than to say I would be insulted if my ryu were considered so superficial as to have been completely and competently absorbed, along with half a dozen or more other ryu, by one person. It would be like my saying I can absorb the essence, know all the mysteries and unique aspects of your family—along with those of every other family on your block. And further, that I can transmit significant aspects of all of these to strangers in “seminars” or even if one is willing to make a commitment to coming and learning from me for a few years.

There is also a reasonable objection to the implication that those for whom historical authenticity and an established provenance in an art are somehow misguided or are preoccupied with such matters and need the buttressing of their egos supplied by a grand long lineage. Bulls**t. This is another tattered anti-intellectual quodlibet.
I don’t know what motivates you to do what you do and would not presume to guess. I do know that people are drawn to the classical koryu because they wish to test themselves against some standards of another age, because they come to feel an obligation to preserve an object from the past, and because such preservation can reveal and reflect timeless qualities. If such is their aim, they have every reason to investigate the historical lineage of an art and to satisfy themselves it is being honestly represented.

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by Jim_Jude
A few of the Bujinkan Ryuha are Koryu, or at least branches of Koryu arts. Others are not, or may not, be koryu according to the admission requirements of the Koryu Organizations in Japan, & in my opinion, it is irrelevent. Because they are, or may be, KUDEN.

Again, I personally don't care whether someone wants to think of Hatsumi sensei's budo as koryu, or as gendai budo based on koryu. I do think your comments regarding kuden are germane to this discussion, however.

Some people have made remarks to the effect that there are no scrolls of our various ryuha in existence which predate Takamatsu sensei. That just isn't true. On the other hand, as examples, Gyokko and Koto ryu appear to have been "kuden-only" transmissions until a Soke actually wrote down scrolls for those in the mid-Edo period. I'm not going to go into great detail about this, as I've been asked not to; however, a friend of mine has personally seen those mid-Edo scrolls. The style and usage of language, particular forms of kanji which are no longer in use today, etc., are all consistent with that period. As far as I know no analysis has been done of the paper or the ink used, but I think there's a strong probability that they're genuine.

However, this whole kuden thing also gets back to something Mr. Conant asked earlier:

Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend “a year” teaching a ryu, then moving on to another? He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the “heart” of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore. Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?

I'll take those in reverse order.

"Is it his contention he is able to distill the principles of several different ryu in so short a time?"

I don't have a direct answer, but I can recall an indirect one which Sensei gave my friend/sempai/first Bujinkan teacher Jack Hoban once on a time. Jack had asked how Takamatsu had managed to teach all the wisdom of these nine ryuha to Hatsumi sensei in 15 years. Sensei's response was along the line of, "I can teach you in ten years -- but you have to trust me, do as I say and train the way I tell you to train."

"He cannot possibly be teaching the entire curriculum. He cannot possibly be imparting the 'heart' of the ryu, i.e., all its traditions and lore."

It's already been established to death that Sensei, for at least some years now, has not been teaching the entire curriculum of any of the ryuha to the general membership of the Bujinkan. As regards the "heart" of a ryu, it appears we may have a fundamental difference in our understanding of what that means. Clearly, Mr. Conant is using the term to mean "all its traditions and lore". I think it is equally clear that Hatsumi, as Soke of our nine ryuha, regards the "heart" of it all as something other than these things; and as Soke, that is his determination to make.

"Given all that, how effective is it for Hatsumi to spend 'a year' teaching a ryu, then moving on to another?"

First of all, he doesn't do that, and I never said he did. I said he has been using the ryuha as vehicles for the things he wants to get across to us. And actually, there has been a "larger" sort of progression in his teaching than a mere sequence of annual themes; more reflective, in fact, of the Shoden/Chuden/Okuden (or other comparable terminology depending on the system being discussed) progression of many commonly accepted koryu arts.

Since I began training a bit over twenty years ago, Sensei has "cycled through" various ryuha several times. I thought the Gyokko ryu I learned 17-18 years ago was incredible stuff. Some years later we were going through it again, and I thought, "WOW!! I never knew all this was in there!!" (Not just in terms of previously-unseen densho material, but in terms of the concepts involved.) Then in 2001, here we go again -- now with all sorts of esoteric stuff added (geomantic energies and "tactical Fu Sui", etc.); "new" kamae and how they can be used; "new" waza. . .and the movement and the approach to even "old, familiar" waza were such that a person who had only learned Gyokko ryu on the level I was at 17 or 18 years ago would probably not even have been able to recognize it as the same art.

The same sort of thing applies to the other ryuha as well.

Now, regarding "effectiveness" of transmission. . .Again, I suspect we may have some differing views of what that means. It's been "effective" enough that I and my (currently nanadan) wife have found it invaluable in our professional lives with the company we work for, The Steele Foundation (see article (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SECURITYFIRMS-03-29-04)). Last summer at the final Tai Kai, the last training event at which Sensei will teach outside Japan, I was in charge of security, including his personal detail. My team members, all "Booj" people, included a NYPD detective, a US Marshal, an FBI agent, a Secret Service agent, military veterans of Afghanistan combat, and my wife. . .all people with concerns about effectiveness from a professional standpoint. And I could tell stories of a number of current and former students of mine who feel the training has literally saved their lives.

So from that standpoint, I'd say Hatsumi sensei's transmission is "effective".

It's eerily effective in another sense as well. I make a point of spending time training with Sensei (and some of the shihan) at least twice a year (actually managed three times in the last 8 months), and I also train periodically "between times" with other instructors who go to Japan (or in some cases, non-Japanese who live there and occasionally travel abroad); and a number of my students go over at various times between my own trips and share what they bring back. What I've found over the last several years is that, even with the "themes" or emphases changing each year, I've been able at the beginning of each year to make at least some accurate projections of "where Sensei will be going" in the coming year and begin preparing my students accordingly so they will "have the eyes to see" more of what they're being exposed to. I've literally lost count of the times people returning from Japan have told me things like:

"Remember when you showed us X a couple of weeks before I left? We worked on that while I was there!"

"Hatsumi showed what you just demonstrated the last night I was at Hombu and emphasized the same key points."

"Where'd you get that? Nagato (or in other cases Noguchi) was showing this to us last week!"

Happens all the time: There's just something about "being in the flow" of the training.

And by the way, I have no copies of any densho. I don't even have written notes from any of my own training.

[Robert Miller]

I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

[El Guapo-san]

Originally posted by Dale Seago

It's eerily effective in another sense as well. I make a point of spending time training with Sensei (and some of the shihan) at least twice a year (actually managed three times in the last 8 months.... What I've found over the last several years is that, even with the "themes" or emphases changing each year, I've been able at the beginning of each year to make at least some accurate projections of "where Sensei will be going" in the coming year and begin preparing my students accordingly so they will "have the eyes to see" more of what they're being exposed to. I've literally lost count of the times people returning from Japan have told me things like:

"Remember when you showed us X a couple of weeks before I left? We worked on that while I was there!"

Happens all the time: There's just something about "being in the flow" of the training.


Yup, that's what I found a couple of years ago learning from one of the European shihans and then going to Japan. There was a similar "thread" running through things. Haven't been anle to make it to too many seminars or regular classes out in Appeldoorn so far this year, so I'll be flying a little bit blind when I'm in Japan next month. (Going first to visit the family and then do a little bit of training on the side.)

As for the koryu question, I'll hazard an answer with a question. -> Unmon said "Look! This world is vast and wide. Why do you put on your priest's robe at the sound of a bell?"

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

[poryu]

Hi

Originally posted by Robert Miller
I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

a damned sight quicker than you could that I can make a humourous guess at

[DWeidman]

Originally posted by Robert Miller
I don't think Mr. Lohstroh or Mr. Richardson have any clue what I was trying to get at...how many times would Masaaki Hatsumi need to be shown a koryu waza before he could get it? Just speculate...humor me..:kiss:

It seems they knew EXACTLY what you were trying to get at.

Robert - Shut your pie hole. You are still an idiot, and you are embarrassing us.

Just take your whipping for opening your mouth out of order and go to your room (take it like a man).

-Daniel Weidman

PS - Nice post Dale.

[Peter Carlsson]

Originally posted by Dave Lowry
I haven’t a dog in this fight.

I have no axe to grind with you, neither a dog, about what you wrote, since your experience are way way ahead of mine in this matter...but I have a few questions....

The thought that any one man could embody all these “personalities” by actually having mastered the psychophysical complexities galvanizing multiple ryu is far-fetched, in my opinion. Those who wish to believe it are free, of course, to do so. I do not care, other than to say I would be insulted if my ryu were considered so superficial as to have been completely and competently absorbed, along with half a dozen or more other ryu, by one person. It would be like my saying I can absorb the essence, know all the mysteries and unique aspects of your family—along with those of every other family on your block. And further, that I can transmit significant aspects of all of these to strangers in “seminars” or even if one is willing to make a commitment to coming and learning from me for a few years.

The text above triggers my curiosity on your point of view on some matters. I know that there are more "ryu-collectors" in Japan than Hatsumi sensei of Bujinkan, but since I have my experience from Bujinkan I'll take my examples from there.

In short, according to what we know today in Bujinkan, Hatsumi inherited nine ryu from Takamatsu. He had previosly experience in other koryu, Asayama Ichiden ryu, Bokuden ryu and others, but he does not claim any title or anything like that from those teachers he had before Takamatsu. Takamatsu, in his turn, inherited six of the ryus from one teacher (Toda), three from another teacher (Ishitani), and one ryu from (whom I always forget the name of).

When it comes from the six ryu from Toda, there seem to be a lot of historical connections, developed out of eachother, passed along together etc. Same with two of the ryu from Ishitani (kukishin ryu and Takagi ryu).

That was the bakground I wanted to set up for my little question....

Now, what I wonder is, as you described it, a ryu has its own personality, and I certainly agree on that, but, how much do you think the personality of the ryu depends on the soke?

How much will the ryu change each generation because of the flavour put on it by the inheritor? For example, are actually Kukishin ryu and Takagi ryu inherited from the same teacher, two different ryu, or are they maybe two sides of Ishitani-flavoured methods? And then in next generation, when Takamatsu passes them on to Hatsumi sensei, are they more like Takamatsu-flavoured methods, then with the additions of another bunch of ryus?

Because, then the, no I would not say degeneration, but the change of the flow and personalities of the traditions have started way before today. In that case, how many ryus in Japan are there that have been passed along during history, without being affected by interactions with other ryus, and in some way or another have had a "personality-change"?

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

[El Guapo-san]

I may not have a dog in this fight either, but I have a kitty!


http://doragon2002.hp.infoseek.co.jp/nyanmage.jpg

(Nyanmage)

J. Vlach, Amsterdam

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by Dale Seago
And by the way, I have no copies of any densho. I don't even have written notes from any of my own training.

That was perhaps misleading. It's not that I don't have any reference materials whatever, just that they're in electronic audio/visual form. I do have videos out the wazoo, both commercially available stuff and otherwise. . .

[Dave Lowry]

Mr. Carlsson,
Not only do I not have a dog entered in this contest, I have little to gain and a lot to lose by incurring the enmity of those in the Bujinkan and other related groups. Given the current dismal record of my beloved Georgetown Cricket Club, I have sufficient grief in my life right now. Further, the answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson, is not simple.
As succinctly as possible and as politic as I am able:

Mr. Hatsumi is a man of enormous charisma. His personality is an essential adhesive for the Bujinkan. This is quite characteristic of a modern budo. Tohei K. has done it for his faction of aikido; Nakayama M. did it for the JKA, which collapsed immediately after his death. Gogen Yamaguchi and Oyama M. are other good examples. Less recently, figures like Yamaoka Tesshu inspired deep loyalty at a time when martial activity was moving into a post-feudal era. An argument could be made, in fact, that this transition, from fealty to the group to a more individualised sense of loyalty to a person, was a significant hallmark in the evolution of modern budo.

From a classical perspective, however, the loyalty and commitment was (is) always to the group. As I noted, the ryu is a direct fruition of the concept of the ie (household) that was the basic kinship group in pre-modern Japan. The iemoto (literally the “source” of the “ie”) is an embodiment of the group’s common ancestry. But loyalty to him and recognition of his authority is almost entirely an expression of loyalty and submission to the authority of the lineage of the group. Big difference. If you are a judoka and think about your “ancestors,” you think of Kano. After that, it is fuzzy. In part, that’s because judo is a modern budo. Similarly, while Bujinkan websites display multi-generational keizu or lineages of the different koryu of which they are putatively derived, I don’t think any members have a connexion back directly to those people. Their loyalty is to Mr. Hatsumi. This is not a criticism; only an observation that in this fundamental distinction and as readily acknowledged by some contributors here, the Bujinkan reflects a modern sensibility.
Oh, but, but, but!! We’re derived, you see, from these koryu. No, you’re not. You may have some techniques, a lot of them. You may have some strategies. And those may be precisely exactly what you want and need and they may make the Bujinkan the greatest budo organisation ever developed. But you lack the sense of common ancestry that is essential to the classical ryu that allows that specific ryu to continue. It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.” The Bujinkan, through the extraordinarily talented Mr. Hatsumi, has dipped buckets in different ryu, perhaps, allowing members to drink from these streams. They are not, however, swimming in any of those streams. Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth. I am just explaining that from an ethnological perspective, the ryu has characteristics beyond the scope of modern budo training as conducted by groups like the Bujinkan and many other worthwhile groups.

In a more specific answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson,
Aside from Gewurztraminer and spaetzle, the principal Germanic contribution to civilisation has been the word “umvelt.” If you don’t know it, umvelt refers to the particular “world-view” or cognition of an individual or a species. Our perception shapes, in large degree, our world and certainly our reaction to the world around us. A fundamental goal of the ryu—and this is completely missed by those on the outside of the ryu—is to formulate a more or less specific umvelt in the member. It isn’t brainwashing. It is rather a method to organise perception and reaction on a neurological and psychological level sufficient to accomplish the acquisition and perfection of skills monopolized by the ryu. In some ways, a Takeuchi ryu exponent, well-trained, “sees” not only combat but life itself, in subtly or dramatically different ways than a member of the Tatsumi ryu. The Ikenobo ryu flower arranger (kadoka) sees a distinctly different potential in a container and flowers than an Ohara ryu kadoka does. They come at it from different perspectives.
It isn’t just a matter of, well the Takeuchi guy would go for a joint lock here while the Tatsumi ryu fellow would employ a strike. No. The Takeuchi guy venerates different ancestors, has a different—or at least in some ways distinctive—umvelt about conflict and life in general.

It is true that a ryu’s unique perspective, the corporate umvelt of it, can be leached away when it is subsumed in some way. Certainly this has happened with the Shijo ryu of etiquette, which has been almost entirely assimilated by the Ogasawara ryu. All that remains identifiable of Shijo ryu are the kata for cutting food in the kitchen and a method of hakama sabaki and a few other extraneous waza. There are still ceremonies conducted, rituals of Shijo ryu. But it really cannot be considered an extant ryu. It has been virtually absorbed by the Ogasawara ryu.
There are martial ryu like this. So it is possible the koryu named by the Bujinkan as among their formulative inspiration were all similarly denatured in one way or another, leaving the husk of technique but no underlying vitiation. In that case, I suppose the “headmaster” who inherited them could impose his own personality on them. But that would undermine seriously the contention by some of the more strident members of Bujinkan who insist that each of these ryu are separate and distinctive, wouldn’t it?

It is also true that an inheritor can seem to work some alterations that would modify the collective umvelt of the ryu, based upon, as you suggest, his own personality. This, however, is almost always a case where it is just that, a modification and not a fundamental change in perception.
Lots of people made a big deal out of how the fifth headmaster of Urasenke ryu tea, Joso Fukyusai (1673-1704) had worked radical changes into the aesthetics of that ryu. He used vermillion lacquerware and added a different kind of candle holder, and it was supposedly because of his dramatic personality during the flashy disco days of the Genroku period. But there is a famous dialogue recorded with Itto Yugensai (1719-71), the eighth headmaster, in which he explained and demonstrated how Joso’s “changes” were exactly in line with the aesthetics of the founder, Sen no Rikyu. I don’t think it has been translated, but it is a forceful and convincing argument that the original umvelt of Rikyu’s was transmitted to Joso and it was that perception Joso was faithfully and authentically maintaining.

A basic, though difficult to describe reason why the personality of the individual headmaster does not significantly alter the umvelt of the ryu is because of the restrictive and conformist process of the ryu’s training.
There are a lot of arrogant jackasses out there who think that a ryu is just a collection of techniques. That’s why they make ridiculous arguments for ryu “sharing” their stuff to the uninitiated. Hey, you show me the okuden (inner teachngs) from your ryu and we’ll see how it compares to mine. They don’t get it. The techniques of the ryu are only a manifestation of its underlying collective perceptions. The ryu is remarkably constructed. Viewed from the inside, one begins to see the complexity of organisation. Rituals and traditions, the arrangement of the kata, the steps in teaching them, the etiquette; these are all aimed at producing a comprehensive umvelt. Note that one of the definitions I used for a ryu was the veneration of common ancestors. This is enormously, enormously critical in any classical ryu. And it plays an intimate role in shaping the umwelt. By the time a person has reached the level necessary for receiving the headmastery, he has been shaped, literally and figuratively, by the ryu. It is extremely intense and very much isshin-denshin—direct transmission from teacher to student. I am not, Mr. Carlsson, trying to adopt a “I been there and you haven’t” tone. I am trying to explain how unusual and defining is the nature of training in a classical ryu. To be sure, the personality of the headmaster will have some influence on the ryu while he is in charge. Vastly more influential will have been the collective umvelt of the ryu on him, which is probably a major reason for the continued existence of the ryu itself.

Probably the windiest answer ever given to a question posed on e-budo and even more probably it will be met by an emeute of outrage from those who wish to believe their Bujinkan teacher is a direct descendant of Amaterasu, and further denunciations of me as the ne plus ultra of “koryu snobbery.” But it is the truth.

Cordially & With Malice Towards None,

[Arman]

Dear Mr. Lowry,

My question has a lot to do with your posts on this thread, but nothing at all to do with ninjitsu/bujinkan/genbukan/ninpo, etc., etc. If my question picks up a commentary, I can move it. If not, it can just wither on the vine.

Perhaps you are acquainted with Ellis Amdur's article in Keiko Shokan, "Renovation and Innovation in Tradition" ? In that fine essay, Mr. Amdur makes an interesting comment regarding the primary, or fundamental, purpose of a traditional ryu. He writes,

"I believe that the sword [in martial ryu curriculum], to some degree, served a symbolic purpose. . .its larger value was in the creation and maintenance of the bushi themselves as a ruling class."

IOW, the ryu's principal purpose was not found in the transmission of combative techniques, but rather in the maintenance of a ruling class: i.e. politics.

Now, perhaps I'm putting more emphasis and analysis on this comment than it was intended to sustain. My question, however, is whether or not you would tend to agree that the fundamental teleology of a ryu was politics [in an inter-social scheme, i.e. politics focused outside the ryu] or combative efficacy? Both certainly were elements of the organic clan. But do you think that over time the political character of a martial ryu took precendence over the "professional," psychological/neurological training?

It's something I've been chewing over, and I've corresponded briefly with Mr. Amdur about it. Just wanted to get some other "koryu snobs" opinion on the matter, and since you may very well be the ne plus ultra of said snobbery [ :) ], was wondering what you thought.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

[Dave Lowry]

Dear Mr. Partamian,
Yes. While that was not their purpose, a component of the ryu’s function was political. Japan, historically, was marked by a near-constant struggle for political power and for a legitimacy of authority. (Two motivations abundantly to be seen in present-day Japanese budo organisations.)
Martial ryu played a role in that struggle. In some cases, the ryu was directly involved; in most, it was indirect. That is, if my ryu prospers or gains a reputation, it is reflected in the prestige or power of my daimyo or my fief or han. And that comes back to me in financial or political rewards. For obvious reasons, martial ryu were big players in this game. But tea ceremony ryu and even the ryu for No theatre were often hip-deep in politics. It might be a bit extreme to say that their role as political devices was primary. It was, though, a factor.
That is why it is so ludicrous to hear of “secret ryu.” A secret ryu would have been politically powerless since nobody knew of it. Its members, provided it was technically strong enough, might have benefited from success in war. But nobody fought that much or that often. The ryu had to maintain its viability other than on the battlefield. That viability was, in part, usually achieved in one way or another, through the acquisition of social or political power—which in feudal Japan were pretty much synonymous.

Cordially,

[Arman]

Mr. Lowry,

Thanks for your response to my question. Very interesting. I suppose the difference between your position and Mr. Amdur's is one of degree. The political factor raises so many interesting questions regarding traditional ryu that so often get ignored in our common discourse on the matter.

Thanks again, and I do appreciate your time in replying.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

[mheiler]

Originally posted by Dave Lowry - Edited for content

From a classical perspective, however, the loyalty and commitment was (is) always to the group. As I noted, the ryu is a direct fruition of the concept of the ie (household) that was the basic kinship group in pre-modern Japan. The iemoto (literally the “source” of the “ie”) is an embodiment of the group’s common ancestry. But loyalty to him and recognition of his authority is almost entirely an expression of loyalty and submission to the authority of the lineage of the group.

It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.”

If you don’t know it, umvelt refers to the particular “world-view” or cognition of an individual or a species. Our perception shapes, in large degree, our world and certainly our reaction to the world around us. A fundamental goal of the ryu—and this is completely missed by those on the outside of the ryu—is to formulate a more or less specific umvelt in the member. It isn’t brainwashing. It is rather a method to organise perception and reaction on a neurological and psychological level sufficient to accomplish the acquisition and perfection of skills monopolized by the ryu.

It is also true that an inheritor can seem to work some alterations that would modify the collective umvelt of the ryu, based upon, as you suggest, his own personality. This, however, is almost always a case where it is just that, a modification and not a fundamental change in perception.

A basic, though difficult to describe reason why the personality of the individual headmaster does not significantly alter the umvelt of the ryu is because of the restrictive and conformist process of the ryu’s training.

Rituals and traditions, the arrangement of the kata, the steps in teaching them, the etiquette; these are all aimed at producing a comprehensive umvelt. Note that one of the definitions I used for a ryu was the veneration of common ancestors. This is enormously, enormously critical in any classical ryu. And it plays an intimate role in shaping the umwelt. By the time a person has reached the level necessary for receiving the headmastery, he has been shaped, literally and figuratively, by the ryu. It is extremely intense and very much isshin-denshin—direct transmission from teacher to student.



Hmmm. It seems that you could just as easily be describing aikido with these statements.

[chrismoses]

Aikido loves to portray itself as a very "classical" style more akin to the older traditions than say Karate or Judo. This view is held only by those without experience in the kind of arts that Dave was talking about. One need only look at the extreme variation between techniques, syllabi and intent of the myriad of factions and styles of Aikido to see the analogy fall completely apart. If for no other reason, the sheer number of students, teachers and dojos preclude its consideration as even koryu like. It simply isn't so.

[mheiler]

Originally posted by chrismoses
Aikido loves to portray itself as a very "classical" style more akin to the older traditions than say Karate or Judo. This view is held only by those without experience in the kind of arts that Dave was talking about. One need only look at the extreme variation between techniques, syllabi and intent of the myriad of factions and styles of Aikido to see the analogy fall completely apart. If for no other reason, the sheer number of students, teachers and dojos preclude its consideration as even koryu like. It simply isn't so.

My point was not that aikido is koryu, or anything like koryu, but rather that Mr. Lowry's statements do not adequately differentiate koryu from modern budo.

[David Maynard]

Hello,

I have followed this thread with interest. The post's by Mr Lowry are a detailed explaination of the points I attempted to make in a much more simple fashon in my earlier post. I'm not sure if we totally agree or if we just disagree on some of the fine print but for the most part I completely agree with his presentation here. However, judging from an e-mail recieved from a 3rd party, it is obvious that at least one person has totally misunderstood my position and seems to believe that I do not make a real distinction between koryu and gendai traditions. I will attempt to clarify this.

At the end of the Edo Period the changes to Japanese society were both drastic and subtle. Likewise these changes affected budo traditions in uneven and hard to generalize ways. The tradition I have devoted more than half my lifetime to studying (Shindo Yoshin ryu, not to be confused with older Shin Yoshin ryu) was founded at this critical juncture in time between the feudal & modern era in Japan. As such it presents challenges when defined as koryu or gendai. It lives in that gray area between. Most people familiar with koryu find it recognizable as such. It embodies many but not all of the defining characteristics liad out by Mr Lowry in his excellent post. Does that make it koryu? Sort of, but it still lives in this gray area between. In Japan Shindo Yoshin ryu is definitely defined as a koryo purely based on its founding in 1864. But as both me and Mr Lowry pointed out, that kind of simplistic definition can be inadequate. Several arts I am familiar with founded long before the beginning of Japan's modern era have adopted aspects of modern budo that we in the Shindo Yoshi Kai have strictly escewed. The issuing of dan, rankings, the lack of issuing keppan's, etc.... Adopting aspects of modern budo like these make me ask, " Is an art still really koryu if it adopts modern aspects that seem to alter the deeper the spiritor character of the ryu?

I guess that's a question for the academics to ponder but I think such consideration is pertinent to the discussion here. In my opinon whether or not some of the arts practised in the Bujinkan are koryu, the Bujinkan itself is not. It just doesn't act, feel or behave like a koryu. Most of the characteristics I have come to assiciate with koryu are simply absent in the Bujinkan.

I must say this again. My opinion is not a criticism but just an observation. There is nothing wrong with gendai traditions and my conclusion is not based on effectiveness or value. It simply has to do with a difference in history, feel, structure and perspective.

Respectfully,

[Okashira]

Originally posted by Robert Miller
Bujinkan dojos use the methodology of the organization's head, Masaaki Hatsumi. Hatsumi doesn't jive with koryu...
I take it you are refering to Takagi Yoshin and Kukishinden ryu. You can learn kukishin elsewhere. don't know about TYR, though. Besides, there aren't any menkyo kaiden who aren't Japanese in the Bujinkan, so I think you're out'ta luck. You might try Genbukan Ninpo, as I believe they train within the ryu-ha.

Actually,
There are european Bujinkan instructors that have Menkyo Kaiden, Arnaud from France is one of them, and I think Fleitas from Spain as well.

Nikos Kalantzis

[poryu]

HI

Originally posted by Okashira
Actually,
There are european Bujinkan instructors that have Menkyo Kaiden, Arnaud from France is one of them, and I think Fleitas from Spain as well.

Nikos Kalantzis

those are bujinkan ranks not menkyo kaiden in the individual ryu they are different ranks

[chrismoses]

Originally posted by mheiler
My point was not that aikido is koryu, or anything like koryu, but rather that Mr. Lowry's statements do not adequately differentiate koryu from modern budo.

Appologies for misunderstanding the true point to your post. I would only say that while I can imagine an Aikido practitioner seeing their art in what Dave wrote, I cannot imagine a koryu practitioner also seeing how Aikido can fit into the description that you quoted.

[Peter Carlsson]

Originally posted by Dave Lowry
Mr. Carlsson,
Not only do I not have a dog entered in this contest, I have little to gain and a lot to lose by incurring the enmity of those in the Bujinkan and other related groups. Given the current dismal record of my beloved Georgetown Cricket Club, I have sufficient grief in my life right now. Further, the answer to your question, Mr. Carlsson, is not simple.
As succinctly as possible and as politic as I am able:

First, I'm sorry not to have replied to your eloquent post before, but I've been away to a seminar during the weekend. Also, please accept my deepest sympathy for your grief over your Cricket Clubs results.

I'm very grateful for your response, and do very much appreciate your straight response, even if the question in itself is not easy to deal with.

But I have to start to make a comment over the last paragraph in your post:


Probably the windiest answer ever given to a question posed on e-budo and even more probably it will be met by an emeute of outrage from those who wish to believe their Bujinkan teacher is a direct descendant of Amaterasu, and further denunciations of me as the ne plus ultra of “koryu snobbery.” But it is the truth.

I certainly hope that there will be no outrage from any Bujinkan-practitioner, because it may be that we have a disagreement in our beliefs, but lack of respect towards another practitioner of the martial ways, are not included in the curriculum of Bujinkan.

If we start with an overall comment about the content of your post, I do not disagree with anything that you wrote about the characteristic of what a koryu are and not. Firstly, I don't have the experience to argue about that, and secondly I believe in what you have written.

Similarly, while Bujinkan websites display multi-generational keizu or lineages of the different koryu of which they are putatively derived, I don’t think any members have a connexion back directly to those people. Their loyalty is to Mr. Hatsumi. This is not a criticism; only an observation that in this fundamental distinction and as readily acknowledged by some contributors here, the Bujinkan reflects a modern sensibility.

Most probably, for the major part of Bujinkan, you are right. No question about it. However, there are still a bunch of people, i.e. Hatsumi senseis first generation of students, who have met Takamatsu, and most probably also feel a connection back to that. Further back, no I don't think so.


Oh, but, but, but!! We’re derived, you see, from these koryu. No, you’re not. You may have some techniques, a lot of them. You may have some strategies. And those may be precisely exactly what you want and need and they may make the Bujinkan the greatest budo organisation ever developed. But you lack the sense of common ancestry that is essential to the classical ryu that allows that specific ryu to continue. It is not a coincidence that the character for ryu is the same one meaning “to flow.” The Bujinkan, through the extraordinarily talented Mr. Hatsumi, has dipped buckets in different ryu, perhaps, allowing members to drink from these streams. They are not, however, swimming in any of those streams. Again, please. I am not attacking, not suggesting a lack of combative vitality or worth. I am just explaining that from an ethnological perspective, the ryu has characteristics beyond the scope of modern budo training as conducted by groups like the Bujinkan and many other worthwhile groups.

I agree with you, and MAYBE I disagree with you...

First, I think the question parts into two here. One is what Bujinkan members get part of and not, and second, what are the stream(s) that Hatsumi sensei "guards".

If we take the first question first. For the major part of Bujinkan, yes, you are straight on. Hatsumi sensei has let us get the taste of the streams, sometimes a trinkle, sometimes a bathtub or two, but you are right. None of us ordinary Bujinkan members are swimming in it. We may in many instances believe we do, but from an outsiders perspective, specially from someone involved in koryu the traditional way, we are just dipping our big toe.

And now to some speculation from my side....

Sometimes I get the feeling that there are an Omote and Ura side to the Bujinkan. I certainly belong to the outside, therefore, this is only speculation out of some indications I sometimes believe I see....and as you can see of my wording, it's very vague...but, I get the feeling of that a small part of those training on a very high level in Bujinkan, could be said, belong to an Ura side of the Bujinkan. There are, what I belive to be some signs that they more and more take part in a transferation of something more than just techniques and strategies.

I just came from a seminar with the one instructor, who I've been training the most with in Bujinkan, and he belongs to those training on what I would call high level. I trained extensively with him during a couple of years, and then he moved to Holland, so now I see him more seldom. But maybe that's an advantage sometimes, because it's easier to see change. And sometimes, I discern more changes than can be understood just by new techniques or strategies, more like he was moulded in a "new" way. I've also seen examples of what Dale wrote about that they are on the same track as Hatsumi sensei, without having visited Japan etc.

It maybe that this is not in the lines of the shaping according to what is done in traditional koryu, but I don't dare to say it's not either. There are some moulding going on on higher levels in the Bujinkan, that's for certain....

Now we come to the other part of the question....What are the stream(s) or ryu of Bujinkan?

I follow everything you have written about the nature of ryu in your post, and I accept it as fact and will not argue about that. The question then is, what is Bujinkan, or rather what are Bujinkan built on...

That Bujinkan as an organisation is a modern construction, that I think we can agree on. But I also recall a discussion with one instructor who lives and train in Japan, during a seminar last year. He told us about how Hatsumi sensei had talked about that he (Hatsumi sensei) was only a connection for the flow of traditions. He sees himself as totally "re-made" during his training with Takamatsu, and that his task is to provide a "pipe-line" and passing on the flow of traditions he received from Takamatsu toward next generation.

If he is only passing on what he feels as the traditions as he received them, then the fault of "diminishing" the traditional ryus lies behind him and he cannot be blamed for that...maybe the inner circle of Bujinkan are then training in Takamatsu ryu? Not bad that either, but of course not as intriguing as nine ryu where some claim 800 year old ancestry...

As far as I know, Takamatsu has at least been acknowledged as the one who restored Kukishin ryu to the Kuki family, and as a master of Takagi ryu as well, so some flow from old times should have been transferred, but maybe not in the way koryu normally are transferred...or maybe it has?!?

And maybe Bujinkan as an organisation is the vehicle Hatsumi sensei uses to find those able to receive the flow for next generation...who knows?


But that would undermine seriously the contention by some of the more strident members of Bujinkan who insist that each of these ryu are separate and distinctive, wouldn’t it?

And this does not bother me the least. Not much about the ryus in Bujinkan have been verified as "truth". As long as this has not happened, I think the best thing is to acknowledge that we (the Bujinkan) live in one world, and that is not necessarily the same as your world.

There are a lot of arrogant jackasses out there who think that a ryu is just a collection of techniques.

Some japanese too, I think....I have seen other examples than Hatsumi sensei with a lot more ryus under their name than only one or two.


I am not, Mr. Carlsson, trying to adopt a “I been there and you haven’t” tone. I am trying to explain how unusual and defining is the nature of training in a classical ryu. To be sure, the personality of the headmaster will have some influence on the ryu while he is in charge. Vastly more influential will have been the collective umvelt of the ryu on him, which is probably a major reason for the continued existence of the ryu itself.

You have certainly been there more than I have, and I bow to your effort to share your wisdom. It has been a pleasure to read your post, because it's always good to get another (outside) point of view
on something you are involved in....helps to keep the feet on the ground. Once again, thank you for your input.

Best regards

Peter Carlsson
Malmö Taijutsuklubb - Bujinkan Dojo
Sweden

ps. and it's a long time since I studied the german language, but I think the word umvelt is translated to omvärld in swedish....

[pete lohstroh]

I realize I am not adding anything to the discussion but I really wanted to thank Mr. Lowry and Mr. Carlsson for the interesting posts.

I am sure this will come up again and again.

[mheiler]

Originally posted by chrismoses
Appologies for misunderstanding the true point to your post. I would only say that while I can imagine an Aikido practitioner seeing their art in what Dave wrote, I cannot imagine a koryu practitioner also seeing how Aikido can fit into the description that you quoted.

Actually, I don't practice aikido, but do practice koryu (mugai-ryu).

[Earl Hartman]

Dave:

Just thought that I would say, concerning Gewurtztraminer and spaetzle, that while things Teutonic have come into some disprepute as a result of the, ah, European unpleasantness of the late 30s to mid-40s of the last century, that Gewurtztraminer, while fit for certain situations, perhaps, can't hold a candle to a good Reisling. If you would care to specify the circumstances in which you believe Gewurtztraminer deserves such particular consideraton, I will consider revising my opinion. An excellent aperitif or desert wine, perhaps, but I can't imagine trying to have it with dinner.

Also, a few other halfway decent examples of Germainc kultur, just off the top of my head:

Bavarian beer

Saurbraten

Shinkenflecken

Veal schnitzel

Elke Sommer

I'm sure there are others.

[ghp]

EARL!!!! You surprise me more and more. You forgot to insist the Riesling be an Auslese or Eiswein!

Shame on you!

I shall drink no wine of lesser quality than Auslese! ....But, if only a Spaetlese is available ..... oh, decisions, decisions, decisions.

And the Bayerisch bier must be Weitzen (at least for me now that I'm an old man).

Oh ..... :D yes, Elke is some dish! :o

Spaeter, Gator
Guy

[Earl Hartman]

Well, Guy, I am not a big fan of sweet wines in general, and sweet white wine, in particular. Unless its an aperitif or a desert wine, I like my whites light, dry and crisp and easy to drink, like a Sauvignon Blanc or a Pinot Grigio. I have never developed a taste for Chardonnay. Too fruity and perfumy.

This is probably bceause I have long felt that the first duty of a wine is to be red. Since Germany makes little if any red wine, I never paid that much attention. Over the years I have shed this prejudice little by little and have come to appreciate white wine to a certain degree.

I have heard the legends of the spatlese, auslese, beerenauslese, and, the pinnacle of pinnacles, the trockenbeerenauslese German whites. Perhaps someday I will try some.

BTW, what wine would you recommend to go with a plump, mature, Elke Sommer?
:D

[Dave Lowry]

Dear Mr. Hartman, et alia,

Please meet me in the Food thread, lest this one become even more fizziparous than it is already.

[Mark Barlow]

I remember when the ninja craze began in the late 70s/early 80s and everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) not involved with it thought it was hilarious. Stephan Hayes and the black outfits, throwing stars and techniques to climb castle walls...it looked like the Trekkies had finally found an activity to get them out of their mom's basement. 25 years later and the assasin/spy connection is pushed into the dark corner of the dojo and the Ninjas (who often resent being called Ninja) are a major force in the martial arts world. Who'd a thunk it?

The few ninja/ninpo/taijutsu instructors I'm acquainted with are sincere and dedicated. I've had several attend Camps I've hosted and they interact and train as well as any other style and better than some. Is Hatsumi all he claims to be? Don't know, don't care. I'll deal with each individual ninja on their own merits and let them worry about their internal history/mythology.

I have enjoyed Dave Lowry's posts and the fact that he has the tsurigane to use impuissant on this board. We're fortunate that we have someone with his scope of knowledge participating.

Mark Barlow

[MikeWilliams]

Originally posted by Mark Barlow
everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) not involved with it thought it was hilarious.

Some of us still do. :D

[Dale Seago]

Originally posted by MikeWilliams
Some of us still do. :D

Yup. Even some of us in the Bujinkan. :p

[Mark Barlow]

I met Stephen Hayes at his old dojo before the Ninja stuff really caught on. During a visit to Atlanta, I saw the sign for THE HOUSE OF T'ANG in Decatur and couldn't resist pulling in. Hayes was just back from Japan and promoting or pimping (depending on your viewpoint) Togakure Ryu and touting the developement of "sixth sense" and the ability to become invisible. If you don't believe me, I've still got the brochure he gave me.

To be honest, at that time, Ninjutsu looked amazingly like TKD with bad falls and ineffective grappling. When the craze hit, I kept waiting for the punchline as I knew it had to be a joke. I think the change in techniques and focus has come about because people with experience in other styles and systems liked the concept of Ninjutsu and joined. Bringing their ability and viewpoint, they changed Ninjutsu from the "inside". Now there are a great deal more folks looking for Ninjutsu than there are Japanese Jujutsu and I sure as hell never made the kind of money teaching that Hayes did. Maybe I laughed too soon.

Still, I can't help smiling when I see those outfits.

Mark Barlow

[Juan Perez]

Originally posted by Dave Lowry
I haven’t a dog in this fight. I take exception, however, to the suggestion that because the definition of a koryu is flexible it is therefore so malleable as to be meaningless—a false premise that often leads to the conclusion that because we cannot say precisely what a koryu is, we are similarly impuissant in determining what one is not...

... If such is their aim, they have every reason to investigate the historical lineage of an art and to satisfy themselves it is being honestly represented.

Best point I've seen made on this issue by someone who lives and breathes koryu.

[Rei Ho]

All I can say is, close to 4 thousand views? Man, I thought you ninja were suppose to have 3 wives, live in 2 states, have 4 occupations. How do you have time to post on E-Budo? LOL!!! Just kiddin Ningers.
:laugh: Tracy Crocker