What is really yours to teach?

[Nathan Scott]

Hello all,


The recent uncomfortable discussion regarding the NC/Roppokai split recently has brought up an interesting topic that I'd like to get some responses on:

When you are being taught a tradition, how much of that is "yours" to keep if you leave the tradition?

For instance, licenses to teach are similar to a drivers license - it is a privilege, not a right, and you do not "own" the license. You will be asked to at least cease teaching (regardless of the conditions for the withdraw), and may be asked for the actual certificate back, if the separation is bitter or the issuing agency is concerned of misrepresentation.

However, dan/kyu ranks and menkyo/mokuroku are earned based solely on accomplishment, and are yours to keep. Even if the issuing party decides to void the rank in their books officially, you can still claim to have earned such a rank, IMHO. I don't believe it is fair to ask for such ranks certificates/makimono back.

But, what about the intellectual property of the tradition?

Many koryu used to require keppan (blood oath) in order to express their strong position regarding the representation of their tradition. Some ryu-ha would not even let you accept challenges unless the student had achieved Menkyo Kaiden level (diploma).

Okamoto Sensei has been criticized for by some for giving away Daito ryu teachings and secrets to the general public (via video and open seminars). Daito ryu is generally considered a somewhat conservative style, hence the lack of authoritative contributions from senior ranked members of Daito ryu (though many do lurk here!).

Angier Soke has also had a problem in the past with people taking advantage of his open attitude towards teaching core principles to seminar participants and new students.

So, how do ya'll feel about the NC group continuing to teach the principles and (I assume?) techniques of Daito ryu Aikijujutsu Roppokai under their own authority? When you've trained in a style, it is expected to change your approach to martial arts. But do you have a right to continue teaching what you've learned under a different name? Is that ethical?

Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to daily exposure at the honbu.

On one hand, they may have been told that they have all the tools they need to master the style they were affiliated with. On the other hand, nobody trained directly long enough to reach a Menkyo Kaiden level, so now that they do not have a senior Daito ryu instructor to supervise their progress, we'll never know if they are progressing along the same path (principles and strategies) as Daito ryu or not.

Before you answer - indulge me for a minute:

Imagine that you are the head/founder of your own system, or a senior ranked representative (say of the international branches) of a respected ryu-ha.

You create a study group/branch system so as to carefully foster your art in areas that presently do not have training opportunities. One study group splits off ("how" is irrelevant to this scenario), and decides to continue to teach your principles and techniques under their own name against your explicit wishes.

How does that sit with you?

Disclaimer:

I'm not trying to take sides, or point fingers. This situation has nothing to do with me. But this debate does bring up an interesting situation that is developing as we speak.

Thanks in advance for your restrained, polite response!

Regards,

[Ramirez]

Hi Nathan,
My answer to your question is that it would not sit well with me if I was the head of a system and a group decided to splinter off and form their own organization.

This is human nature, however as long as they were honest and up front on who they were, where they came from and what their history is I think it should be tolerated.


I don't want to get in the middle of the roppokai controversy but the North Carolina branch have so far been up front about everything except the reason for the split which is good, it is a private matter.

Something to think about ,almost every major martial art today , Aikido, Judo etc. could be considered a splinter group of a previous martial art.

[Nathan Scott]

Mr Young,

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

I guess it would really be necessary to know how much and to what degree the style is being borrowed from.

For instance, are the techniques the same? Are the names of techniques the same? Are the strategies and principles the same?

As I mentioned, it is understandable and expected that a Budoka will adopt some of the principles used in one style incoroporate them (sometimes subconsciously) into another style. This is kind of like what your mentioning in your example.

But what about techniques and the names of techniques? Is that fair game?

Regards,


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 08-31-2000 at 07:36 PM]

[Walker]

My initial thoughts on this come from my training as a photographer. I learned it almost as an apprentice fresh out of college with little prior training and a BA degree. On the first day my boss told me that while I was working for him if I paid attention I would get much more out of this than he would. He would get labor and I would get (a really small) paycheck. If I applied myself I would learn photography and he would teach it to me. He would get a better employee as I used the knowlege, but in the long run it would be much more valuable to me than to him. He was right and it has become my career and he got good service from me in exchange, but I got the better deal. I think the student always gets the better deal in a real teaching situation (meaning something of value is taught in exchange for compensation).

I really think that there is not much to the claim of “intellectual property” and it’s really impossible to enforce so a teacher must make peace with that in their own heart because it really is not theirs either. If they wish to keep it for themselves then there is no real need to be a teacher at all. A teacher who holds back information is a teacher with students who are not performing to their fullest potential and reflect poorly on that same teacher.

One part of me thinks that the “professional” martial teacher is the cause of many problems because then you need an organization and must keep it in line. There will always be the case where someone is going to spin out of that and you have a situation we have seen so many times. On one hand I think it is right that people who tow the line have authorization to teach and use the name of the art, but if someone leaves and has no authorization then as long as the are open and don’t use the names or claim things that are not theirs then it is up to the student to figure out what the teacher has to teach and proceed accordingly.

To return to the initial example I could have opened a studio next door to my boss and he really couldn’t do anything, but I couldn’t call it My Boss Photography, it would be Me Photography and let the market decide. As a student of MA I am going to want to take advantage of whatever I can find and would rather a “disgraced” sensei who has the technique and character than no sensei at all.


[Edited by Walker on 08-31-2000 at 07:51 PM]

[MarkF]

No one can remove grading/licensing to what you know. It matters not whether you stop training in something and go on training in another, or if you stop training altogether.

As to forms, techniques, and approaches to either, they just are. How many different arts use the same technique and call it something else, different words, same way. It happened in the past and it will continue to happen. Ryuha would "take" from one another and use it against those from whom they were taken.

You cannot build a mind and body, and just declare that it no longer exists. It does and no matter what is said or how many times someone says "you can't do that," it generally turns to ridicule.

I don't know the story behind the breakup of the NC-Roppokai but it really doesn't matter. But one thing is known. Someone is accusing another of doing the very same thing which is at the heart of this, and it appears only one party decidedly slandered the other.

I wonder how many ryuha sued Prof. J. Kano of doing the same thing.:bandit:

Mark

[Ramirez]

Good point Mark, perhaps Kano did get accused of plagiarizing techniques from older forms of jiu-jitsu but how do we know that the jiu-jitsu that Kano developed Judo from weren't themselves plagirization of even older arts.

It is like the argument that Eric Clapton ripped off Robert Johnson for his version of Crossroads. Who is to say that Robert Johnson did not steal it from some street corner blues man.

[Tom Campbell]

The list of potential examples is long, and could include Ohbata from Nakamura, Funakoshi from Itosu, Yamaguchi from Chojun Miyagi, Ueshiba from Takeda, Tohei from Ueshiba and Tempura, Tomiki from Ueshiba, Islam and Christianity from Judaism, etc. I seem to be getting rather far afield. Sorry ;-].

[Nathan Scott]

Thanks for the contributions.

So, it sounds like people are saying:

As long as an instructor is willing to teach "openly", it is o.k. to take the teachings and use them freely in your own style, regardless of how the instructor feels about it.

This sounds like a pretty familiar attitude here in the West, but I wonder if it is embraced as enthusiastically in the East?

Japanese that I've known who have moved to other countries tend to be rather trusting, until they get burned a few times. There are publishers, imigration lawyers, and various other characters out there that make a living off of suckering Japanese when they first relocate (at least here in America). $$,$$$.$$

Anyway, perhaps it is safe to say that those instructors who do not wish to risk having their art "plagerized" should be selective in who they teach, and pace the instruction over a course of years to ensure a stronger bond and sense of loyalty and obligation between the student and the Instructor.

Interestingly, this is how things used to be done and still are in many koryu.

Thanks for the input. Again, I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone by discussing this topic. My personal motivation was to see what the prevailing attitude was regarding this subject in general. Any futher contributions are welcome!

Regards,

[Tom Campbell]

Hmmm . . . I'd like to offer just one further refinement of this thread. I think in all fairness it is important to distinguish between the "prevailing attitude" (if indeed it is) of openness in teaching that Mr. Scott refers to in the last post, and what individual students and teachers believe. I for one would not necessarily learn a little bit about a traditional koryu and then jump out on my own to teach. One of the reasons I'm interested in traditional koryu is the true seriousness with which the teacher and students approach the art, considering it a gift that has evolved over generations of sincere and diligent practice. This is very different, obviously, from the more commercial approach with which many modern gendai budo are marketed, as well as some of the older martial arts. Here, I'm talking about the attitude behind pay your monthly dojo fee, study as hard or as little as you want, you'll earn rank as long as you pay your fee, easy-come-easy-go . . .

At the same time, arts do evolve, and occasionally students go deeper and become better at an art than their teachers. And the art changes/evolves in the hands of such students. We certainly would not have nearly so many traditional ryuha in the kobudo arts if that were not the case. And did all of these superior students depart on good terms with their teachers? No.

One of the traditional reasons I've heard for the conservatism and secrecy in Japanese koryu is heard more often in connection with Chinese martial arts: that the master is afraid to give away all of (generally) his martial secrets for fear of being killed by a student who learns them and can apply them more effectively than the master. Thus the master's concern with developing trust in a student over a long period of time, before revealing the "inside-the-door" secrets/principles of his art.

I'd like to make one last remark, this one in connection with the NC Roppokai group. Mr. Scott admits that he does not know much about or practice Roppokai, but characterizes the level of technical skill of Dean Stewart and/or members of the group as not being that great, and then asks why any one would want to learn from someone of lesser technical skill. That statement is not based on knowledge, only on presupposition. Additionally, Mr. Okamoto's philosophy is to introduce students to aiki principles and applications early on and have them intensively practice it, in order to take the student deeper into the art faster. That is the whole distinguishing feature of Roppokai when compared with the approach of its parent Kodokai or to Daito Ryu generally. I imagine that Mr. Stewart probably went deeper faster into the art then students of other Daito Ryu schools, simply because of the approach of his teacher.

[Dan Harden]

As principal of an architectural firm I "do" believe in intellectual property. While plagiarism is unavoidable it is certainly not desirable. Several good points have been made. One is that it is the "nature of man to plagiarize." My response to that is that man has several other things in his nature that I find equally repugnant, like lying, stealing, adultery, ETC.
The examples of “other people” ripping off others is simple "back of the alley" justification. These people did it… so it’s ok to lower the standard for everyone and in all cases? Not in my book.
What is wrong with just stating this is where it came from and this is what I did to change it. If you cannot say that openly, then there is something wrong with either your character or what you are attempting to do. In either case you will never be able to get the smell off of you.
In these arts you have a much more difficult situation in which to discern right from wrong. I suspect that very often it is not a question of blatant wrong doing as much as “ hurt feelings” and “imaginings” that lead to exaggerated responses………

On the whole if there exists a relationship with a teacher and student in these somewhat obscure arts, and that relationship relies on an understanding of the students limits and responsibilities, then that is a binding contract in my book. If the student should leave and break the relationship then the use of the name and the lineage should not be used. He has no rights to use them. Should he then give up the use and practice of the techniques? Perhaps not but he should not be awarding rank and affiliation by inference either.
There are several people who have trained in Koryu and had there Sensei’s or themselves get displaced or for what ever reason they are unable to train in the art. I have known and also have personally been involved in this type of predicament. No where do I think that gives someone the right to be awarding rank in that art. The group at hand, are not using the name or even the styles generic name. That speaks of integrity to me. Should they siese and desist from practicing the techniques among themselves? That gets complicated.
What if their group grows?
What do they do if asked what the techniques are and where they came from?
I wish for compassion and forgiveness on both their sides.


At the end of the day we are not left with much as men, that will withstand the test of time.
Money doesn’t cut it.
Neither does power.

Love will cover a multitude of mistakes
Integrity will always win out in the face of lies and subterfuge
And Character will stand in the face of adversity

The first two can be gained by many. They can be had through nefarious means by misbegotten men.and they will lost by everyone at the end.
You can’t buy the last three. In fact they will cost you far and away more than mere money. But they are sweet and will last beyond a life time.

Since it appears that there has been no fraud or blatant misuse of an arts name here. We should all do these men the honor of staying away from drawing sides and possibly inflating the issue.

Nathan’s excellent question is a challenge for us all

Dan



[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-01-2000 at 01:05 PM]

[Nathan Scott]

Mr. Campbell,

Thanks for the post, but please don't change my words. My post is still in print above, and it would save much confusion to simply quote sections than to try to guess as to what I'm saying (in this case, incorrectly):

In my first post, I wrote:

Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to daily exposure at the honbu.

On one hand, they may have been told that they have all the tools they need to master the style they were affiliated with. On the other hand, nobody trained directly long enough to reach a Menkyo Kaiden level, so now that they do not have a senior Daito ryu instructor to supervise their progress, we'll never know if they are progressing along the same path (principles and strategies) as Daito ryu or not.

Mr. Campbell, you claim that I said:

Mr. Scott admits that he does not know much about or practice Roppokai, but characterizes the level of technical skill of Dean Stewart and/or members of the group as not being that great, and then asks why any one would want to learn from someone of lesser technical skill.

As you can see, this is not true. I haven't got the slightest idea how skilled Mr Stewart is, and I do not know of tne NC/Roppokai split. My statement is based mainly on the status of the NC group as having been a "Study Group", and the statement that "everyone sent back their brown belts". Even if Mr. Stewart had attained Shodan or Nidan, I don't think most Budoka (or those in Daito ryu) would consider them "high ranks".

I wish Mr. Stewart and his students all the best - my above comments were not intended as an insult, simply an observation that the group did not seem to have matured to a full shibu status, and to the public knowledge, Kyoju Dairi was not issued. Take it for what it says, and not as an inuendo please. Mr Stewart may be a highly skilled martial artist.

I tried to word these posts as carefully as possible, so that we would not have inflammatory resonses or bad feelings. The question is a ligitimate question, and I only bring up the NC example because it fits perfectly within the context of the question, and everyone already knows what spawned this subject anyway. But for the purpose of this question, it is not necessary to discuss the NC group at all.

Nice post, Mr. Harden.

Regards,

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Nathan,

Very thought provoking questions and interesting topic.

You wrote that a license ‘is a privilege, not a right, and you do not “own” the license.” and you wrote “You….may be asked for the actual certificate back, if the separation is bitter or the issuing agency is concerned of misrepresentation.” This cuts to a very important definition, that of a license. Is a license the permission to understand and use the knowledge/skill or the permission to use the organization’s name and reputation? Once given, can knowledge ever be taken back? I assume that your parents taught you how to walk and talk, does that mean that they can revoke that knowledge and tell you that you no longer have the right to walk or talk and that you are not allowed to teach your children how to walk or talk? Can the school that taught you the skills for reading, writing and arithmetic come back at a later date and tell you that you can no longer use these skills because they own the intellectual property to these skills? Certainly when one leaves an organization they are no longer associated with said organization and should not claim or false advertise otherwise, but the knowledge learned is a part of them and theirs to use.

“Okamoto Sensei has been criticized for by some for giving away Daito ryu teachings and secrets to the general public (via video and open seminars).”

I have heard this from many different source and chuckle each time I hear it. IMSHO, it is impossible to ‘give away’ secrets to aiki, one can not really even teach the secrets of aiki. Each student must struggle and learn aiki from their own frame of reference. At best a good Sensei develops an environment that fosters and aids each student in learning and shares his or her experiences to assist the student in their quest for knowledge. But in the end, each student learns or fails to learn based solely on their own ability, desire and dedication to learn. A master of aiki can spell it out to everyone with books, diagrams and lectures and still no one will get it unless they learn it for themselves. (Originally I had a long, boring post about learning aiki but I feel asleep proof reading it so I cut it to the above.)

“Technically, none of the NC group reached a particularly high rank, and even if they had, the exposure to Okamoto system was limited to occasional training sessions; as opposed to the daily exposure at the honbu.”

I had the same concerns until I visited the Roppokai Honbu last year. I think it is best to leave the rank issue alone since in reality rank means very little unless you are in the military. When Okamoto came for his first visit he explained to us in detail ‘how to learn’ the principles of aiki, how to develop the dojo community and how every student had a responsibility to assist others without egos. He told us if we trained this way in between his visits we could learn very quickly. Secondly, he said within 7 visits he would be able to impart the needed knowledge to the point that we could learn on our own, provided we followed his learning process. When we questioned him about this amazing number he told us that when he visited he was only demonstrating the potential. Kind of opening our minds to the possibilities, it was while he was gone that we would have to struggle to understand what he demonstrated and actually begin to learn. Okamoto Sensei visited the NC dojo 6 times, plus Dean visited Okamoto twice in Japan and once in Santa Cruz for a total of 9, which is far more than anyone else in the US in the last several years (I am jealous because I only got 8). While you make light of our ‘occasional training sessions’ I would like to point out that this method is exactly how S. Takeda Sensei trained his students. He was constantly traveling and very few of his students spent long periods of time training with him in person. My trip to Japan only confirmed that we were more than on the right path.

During my trip, I talked with a few of the senior students and they asked how we trained and what our dojo was like. Those that had been with Okamoto Sensei for close to 20 years commented that they used to train like us 17 or 18 years ago. Being away from the honbu kept us away from the politics (three distinct sub-groups that all do technique differently) and cultural hang-ups that keep students there from being honest and helpful with each other. The senior students only help white belts, brown belts and foreigners; the rest are left on their own. Furthermore, it would be unthinkable for a junior student to make a suggestion to a senior student or even describe what they felt as uke. My belief is firm that to successfully learn aiki a GROUP must openly and honestly share as much as possible without egos. No one learns aiki alone and this type of feedback network eventually helps everyone. The community and unity of the NC dojo have made this possible.

mark

[Mark Jakabcsin]

"My statement is based mainly on the status of the NC group as having been a "Study Group", and the statement that "everyone sent back their brown belts". Even if Mr. Stewart had attained Shodan or Nidan, I don't think most Budoka (or those in Daito ryu) would consider them "high ranks". "

Let's slow down a minute here. Seems like a few of my posts have been misunderstood. The NC dojo was not a 'study group'. We were the only full time Roppokai dojo in the US and the organizational flag that Okamoto Sensei gave us clearly reads (in Japanese) East Coast Main Branch. Secondly, when I mentioned the brown belts I was discussing the general students not Mr. Stewart. You are correct that Mr. Stewart did not attain what many would consider a 'high rank' but he is of dan level and rank is meaningless. Roppokai ranking is set-up solely on attendance and longevity until 4th dan, after that supposedly ability comes into play. At least this is the written rules, but for students outside Japan the rules are not applied, just ask Mr. Keen, none of his students have ever been ranked (unless it has happened recently). Secondly, students in Japan can attain higher rank much more rapidly by doing favors and holding special status. Nathan, I am sorry for being unclear and leading you into an incorrect assumption.

mark

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Mark-san,

Thanks for clarifying a few points. It looks like I did mis-speak on a few points - sorry.

However, my pointing out the limited amount of training opportunities by the NC group was not meant as a criticism. We all do the best we can do and learn as much as we can during that time. Experienced instructors can learn alot in short periods of time, as you pointed out with Sokaku S. method of teaching others.

It sounds like the atmosphere at the Roppokai honbu may be different from those I've known. I can see your point in this example, if these conditions are the case.

However, generally the student learns more by day to day interaction with the headmaster than by occaisonal training sessions. I've seen this in our organization, and in many otheres. Your situation may be unique (for the better!)

Love those politics

I'm not a big fan of ranks and licenses either, except that they seem to be (at the very least) useful in cases where you need to instruct others. But they surely do not reliable or consistenly indicate skill level. I think everyone knows that.

But for lack of easier terminology, we can assume that someone of Kyoju Dairi or Menkyo Kaiden level would theoretically have attained a certain percentage of the traditions teachings, as well as hopefully a reasonable amount of skill. This ideal is what I was referring to, as opposed to a measure of ability.

There are many people in arts like Tae Kwon Do (as a random example) that have a great deal of athletic ability and skill, but have not learned the underlying tactics, strategies, historical context, philosophy etc. of the art because they simply have not been "initiated" into these levels yet. This may or may not be the case with branches like the Roppokai - I don't know, but it is a consideration in reference to this subject in general.

As far as ranks and licenses, ranks like dan/kyu and Menkyo/Mokuroku represent your level of initiation, and to some degree your skill (generally). This is the teaching you are referring to, and nobody can ask for your knowledge and experience back! These are things that students and instructors both accumulate.

A license to teach; shidoin/shidoshi, kyoju dairi, shogo (renshi, kyoshi, hanshi, shihan) etc. are titles/licenses that specifically give the holder permission to teach the system under the authorization of the Honbu dojo/Soke. It has nothing to do with skill (though a level of achievment is implied by the corresponding license).

These are licences that are issued and maintained for the purpose of headquarters administration, and they have the right to discontinue the further use of the license if they wish.


If you were to quit a group as a Shihan, it is likely that the group would not wish to shame you by voiding your shihan license out, asking of it back physically, or erasing it's entry in the schools records.

In this case you may be permitted to say "I hold a shihan rank in XXX (even though you no longer teach it)", or "I was a Shihan level instructor in XXX)".

If you were to be fired, or leave on very bad terms, the group may publicly void your license, ask that you do not use the title any longer in other martial arts dealings, ask to have the license physically returned, and may choose to delete your license, ranks and name - or all of the above.

Most people agree that rank (what you've learned and earned) cannot rightly be revoked or asked to be returned. That does not mean some groups will not try, if they are upset enough, but most people do not feel obligated to give them up.

But licenses allow you to teach under another groups/instructor's authority, and as such they can choose to not recognize or void out your license if they wish. This is the reason for having licenses seperate from ranks.

Of course, you can choose to follow these policies or not, depending on your sense of fairness and morals, and some groups use different names for their licenses and ranks, and may operate on slightly different definitions and usages.

But the above definition represents a pretty common organizaiton, in my experience.

Hope this clears up my thougts a bit more - thanks for the relevant insight to your specific situation. Things are never simply black and white!

Regards,

[Sheridan]

Plagerism is the highest form of flattery.