What is really yours to teach?

[Jeff Cook]

Hey, Cady! Welcome back! I don't know about anybody else, but I missed you!

You are absolutely right; I am certain that Brentley was referring to the situation you speak of. I threw my post out there to get other's opinions, and to also point out that the frame of reference has everything to do with how one is perceived. Some of the folks I mentioned have been and continue to be accused of being charlatans and frauds, as I think Popie was pointing out.

Just trying to poke and prod to get some more very intelligent and telling posts from the high-class of budoka (such as yourself) that have been posting to this thread.

I also appreciate the kind,gentle and respectful way that you folks agree to disagree. It is very refreshing compared to other threads on this board.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Dan Harden]

I am not sure anyone will reach a definitive answer for all sides of this issue. Enough has probably been discussed to raise more questions than to arrive at answers. Also, it gets too confusing to juxtapose the behaviors and actions of the obvious frauds and/or incompetents, to the qualified. Who, upon maturing, turn their backs on their teachers and go there own way.
I am somewhat in agreement that regardless of their vision and what eventually became of them. Perhaps the Ueshibas and Kanos of the world began their journeys under dubious circumstance.... Perhaps not. Of those that have "walked away with the goods," turning their backs on the teachers and fellow students who sweated it out with them; some have become infamous, some famous. Funny, how men talk allot about ethics and such, but in the end, so many will accept most any behavior under the guise of success.

I am reminded of the scene in Shogun (paraphrased) where Mifune says to Chamberlain.........

"You are committing treason against your sovereign lord!!"
"No I am not Sire" says Chamberlain.
"When is going against your lord not treason?" asks Mifune.

"When you win." says Chamberlain

If you doubt the sale of ethics, or the ability of people to actually accept it, go into Business. After twenty-two years I am still amazed at what men do. And even more amazed at what others will deem acceptable behavior or at least forgivable "foibles" in the presence of success.

Dan
"Who always wondered why supposed "Budo men" want to teach allot of people instead of train. Drawing attention to your technique just seems like bad Budo to me."

[Cady Goldfield]

A lot of the individuals on Jeff's list didn't "walk away" from their teachers. They simply had reached a level of developmental maturity at which point their teachers endorsed their going off "into the world" to do what they may do. Funakoshi had the blessings of his Okinawan teachers, and chose to make karate available to "the masses" of Japan, and later the world, by sportifying what he had learned and designing a school physical education regimen. Kano sportified jujutsu for similar reasons. Both men recognized that, with the Meiji Restoration, the fighting and combat arts of old would all but perish unless modified into something the "basic person" could learn and appreciate. In a sense, perhaps they were affected by the political climate of the day in making their decisions in creating new approaches to old systems.

Lee did the same thing in his own way, mixing principles from different systems and working with his Chinese martial heritage and making it accessible to non-Chinese. This, in my eyes, was as radical (perhaps more so) as Japanese martial artists of the samurai class (as Funakoshi was)making their arts accessible to students of humbler castes.

IMO, none of these men were dishonoring their teachers or ancestry by taking a new course with old knowledge. However, I cannot help but feel that the ancient knowledge and wisdom is slowly being lost forever when a gifted and well-taught student of an art chooses to withhold teaching and handing down principles he has mastered, so that future generations of an art's practitioners fail to learn the core and essence of what their art is all about. After all, they had their teacher's endorsement to pass on the art as it was given to them. They opted not to, and a chain of transmission was radically altered forever.

[Jeff Cook]

Cady,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You helped make my point. Your perception of Funakoshi is the commonly-accepted one today (in mainland Japan, but not in Okinawa).

First, a couple of historical corrections. Funakoshi was not Japanese, he was Okinawan (a much clearer distinction during his time), and he was not of the samurai class. He also did not sportify karate - Ohtsuka and Funakoshi's son did that. Gichin was adamantly opposed to sportifying - that's the main reason why Ohtsuka and Funakoshi split. Gichin's son radically changed Shotokan after his father's death.

Funakoshi had the endorsement of his Okinawan teachers and the Okinawan karate organization to go to Japan to teach karate. He had their unequivocal blessings. Unfortunately, Funakoshi's methods of instructing karate were entirely different than how he learned karate in Okinawa. Not initially, but over time he changed his methods drastically to make it more popular to the Japanese. Basically, he sold-out his teacher's training methods, and this is how it was perceived by the Okinawan karate community! The Okinawans do not consider Shotokan to be a "new approach to an old system," they consider it an entirely different system that bears little resemblance to an Okinawan system.

The same can be said of Kano (jujitsu), Ueshiba (aikibudo/aikijujitsu) and Lee (wing chun), but that is for another thread!

In your opinion and mine, Cady, Funakoshi did not dishonor his teachers or ancestry, but unfortunately that is not the view held by many Okinawan martial arts leaders. And that is my point. It is a matter of perception.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Edited by Jeff Cook on 09-21-2000 at 08:14 AM]

[Cady Goldfield]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Cady,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You helped make my point. Your perception of Funakoshi is the commonly-accepted one today (in mainland Japan, but not in Okinawa).

First, a couple of historical corrections. Funakoshi was not Japanese, he was Okinawan (a much clearer distinction during his time), and he was not of the samurai class. He also did not sportify karate - Ohtsuka and Funakoshi's son did that. Gichin was adamantly opposed to sportifying - that's the main reason why Ohtsuka and Funakoshi split. Gichin's son radically changed Shotokan after his father's death.
[QUOTE]

Actually, Jeff, if you read Funakoshi's autobiography, you will find that he does claim to be of samurai class, albeit of the lower eschelon. I believe that one of his ancestors was "raised" to samurai class by his superiors and was given lower level court duties. The early part of Funakoshi's memoire recounts the early days of the Meiji Restoration, in which his male relatives refused to cut off their samurai topnots in defiance of the new government's edict. Funakoshi, in order to get a job as a schoolteacher, went against his family's orders and cut his hair. There are also many telling remarks in the forward/introduction and in Funakoshi's own words describing the habits of his class and how it affected his daily life under a new regimen.

[QUOTE]
Funakoshi had the endorsement of his Okinawan teachers and the Okinawan karate organization to go to Japan to teach karate. He had their unequivocal blessings. Unfortunately, Funakoshi's methods of instructing karate were entirely different than how he learned karate in Okinawa. Not initially, but over time he changed his methods drastically to make it more popular to the Japanese. Basically, he sold-out his teacher's training methods, and this is how it was perceived by the Okinawan karate community! The Okinawans do not consider Shotokan to be a "new approach to an old system," they consider it an entirely different system that bears little resemblance to an Okinawan system. The same can be said of Kano (jujitsu), Ueshiba aikido/aikijujitsu) and Lee (wing chun), but that is for another thread!
[QUOTE]

Yes, that's pretty much my impression too, as I stated previously. After reading biographies of both, and Funakoshi's autobiography it becomes pretty clear that both men were going along with the changes in their society. Again, I suspect they felt that they were dinosaurs that had to give in to the "new ideas" and to serve the "greater Japan." The fact that Funakoshi removed his topknot to take a job as a civil servant/teacher indicates that he was not sealed to his ancestory. That makes him something of an iconoclast in his time and circumstance.

As regards your final comment that many Okinawan teachers had quite a different view than we regarding whether they and their arts were dishonored... Well, that ain't to say that I personally agree with what Funakoshi did with "his" karate, Jeff. I'm just saying that I do believe that as martial arts are "man-made," and not "God given," there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him. As you know, both Funakoshi and Kano renamed their arts to make that distinction. So did Ueshiba, although I don't see him as being as "pure of heart," at least not earlier in his career, as the former two men were.

I also sympathize with Funakoshi's Okinawan teachers, who spent years of their lives and great investments in their labors and personal concern for Funakoshi as their student... treating him like a son... only to have him not pass along their "karate genes" to the next generation.
Alas, it's the same lament that many a grandchild-less parent has...

On the other hand, there are many so-called "pure artists" who learn and study hard in their chosen arts without concern as to whether their knowledge is passed on. This is a whole 'nother topic, though.


[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 09-21-2000 at 10:09 AM]

[Jeff Cook]

Hi, Cady! Thanks for the reply.

I will concede the samurai claim that Funakoshi made. I read the same thing you did. Let me just say that I question his claim, for reasons that would make up another heated thread (I'm too tired to take that one on now!).

"...there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him."

Thank you for saying this; I was beginning to feel alone in my view. That is the point I was making; there are others that disagree with this view, for understandable reasons.

Again, thank you all for your intelligent and well-worded insights!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Hi, Cady! Thanks for the reply.

I will concede the samurai claim that Funakoshi made. I read the same thing you did. Let me just say that I question his claim, for reasons that would make up another heated thread (I'm too tired to take that one on now!).

"...there comes a point in time where they can become one's own, to do with as one sees fit... as long as (and that's a BIG "AS LONG AS") he doesn't claim to be passing down the same art that his teacher gave to him."

Thank you for saying this; I was beginning to feel alone in my view. That is the point I was making; there are others that disagree with this view, for understandable reasons.

Well like I said, Jeff. I suspect there was nothing "unkosher" going on with many if not most of the individuals you named on your list. Those that I know of -- Funakoshi, Lee in particular -- had their teachers' blessings or at least permissions to teach, and as far as I know, no oaths had been broken or trusts betrayed, despite the different directions the students had taken with the art.

However, as has been said earlier on this thread, if you make an oath, you are obliged to keep it. Without fail. There may be some on your list who did in fact betray a trust and an oath, and to me that is unforgivable. No amount of personal mastery or "possession" of an art gives one permission to break a promise made to those who gave it to him. Read Stanley Pranin's books and you will discover that such a thing seems to have occurred in at least one now-popular art.

I trained in a traditional art for 20 years before going in a different direction. I made an oath to my former teacher, upon reaching dan grade, that I would never teach what he had given me without his express permission. To this day, although I no longer study with him, there is no way that I will break this promise. If, some day, one of my nephews or nieces comes to me and asks me to teach him or her, I will have to ask permission of my teacher (or his descendent) first. If I am refused, then I can't teach without betraying a trust. That's the way it is. You might think that this is nothing more than a way for the teacher to maintain total control over an art for financial gain and/or ego and power. While for some that's true (although from what I've seen, their "art" isn't really worth protecting), there are those who do so to maintain the integrity of the art.

Promises are made for a reason.

[Dan Harden]

Has anyone noticed how many "hits" this topic has? Before its over it will be well into the three thousand + range. The questions raised, and opinions offered, are probably reflections of the unresolved issues many of us face within these arts. I have only one last thought to add here.
The notion of intellectual property and what you may have "earned the rights to" can be resolved (at least in my mind) by thinking beyond "your" efforts and "your" self-interests.
As I stated earlier “The art was there before you found it.” I would like to expand on that.

It has been my experience, that there are principles and techniques involved in some of these arts that are far deeper than the majority. Those principles and techniques still exists due to the efforts and the unity of the men involved. While it is true that some have departed “with the goods.” Setting up shop elsewhere. Enough have remained loyal to ensure the continuation of established schools. Perhaps people have not considered the totality of the sacrifices made by the men involved. We speak of the sweat equity and the “time in” of the student. But, that isn’t the total picture. What about the relationships and trusts formed? What of the relationships between you and the “other” students? It is more than just an individual involved here. Therefore, when discussing this topic we have to speak to the whole.
I am reminded of a scene in the Nick Nolte movie “Farewell to the King.” In it, there is a scene where a visitor to a dense jungle is shown a secret pass to a village of people called the “cloud people.”
The visitor asks, “Why do you keep it secret?
“So it will be here, unchanged for all of us.” He is told.

In my mind, it is much the same with many of these arts. Think beyond yourself to the sacrifice of the men before you.

The art is there
Men come and go……….
The art is there

Situation A.
Some men decide to stay. They sacrifice. They gain, and overall they contribute to the art, perhaps even improving it, but all in all they strive to ensure that is survives. “To be there for all of us”. So……….
The art is there.

We have to take our hat off to these guys. At times they may have felt the same as all the other ones in my little list here. They put up with demanding teachers, schedules, and much sacrifice. Yet they stayed and helped out

*******************************
Situation B.
Some men leave to pursue their own way. Taking some of the principle and technique.
But, they change the name and give it their own slant. Leaving the core art alone and pure so that others may come and study.
The art is there……………..

For those involved with situation B. What can be said? People change and want to go their own way. Did they say where “the goods” came from? Hopefully, these men have enough integrity to acknowledge where their technique came from. This helps the core art. Perhaps even encourages the student to pursue it. To see where his teacher go his stuff.
There are enough people who have done this, over the course of hundreds of years to keep the arts flexible and ever growing.
For those studying in Situation B, they look at their teacher and respect the skills. They may even go on to write books about him and applaud him to the four winds. But the essence of the man’s technique were not his. The honor belongs elsewhere.

This is a whole other topic. But! I think while many are sincere, and have gone on to create something of substance. Most were probably nothing more than disgruntled people who for one reason or another simply wanted to be on their own.

*****************************

Then it gets dicey

Situation C.
c. Some men train for many years and are quite accomplished but they leave and set up shop, Calling the art by the same name. These men have the goods, and our disseminating a true albeit, “altered” version of the art. But, More importantly, they left without the rights or the authoriy to teach it nor grade others in it. In essense they are NO LONGER part of the Ryu.

Have you ever noticed, how many of these men, upon leaving, say the same thing? They are "improving the art.”

**********************************

Situation D.
d. Some men with inadequate skills, decide their “own” efforts, and their “own” understanding, are more valuable. They leave. Set up shop. Use the name. And disseminate a watered down version equaling their experience.
When that happens often enough It hurts the art. Further, it hurts everyone involved. And this is the real key. IT HURTS EVERYONE. The damage this does can range from; minor and of little consequence to very damaging.

For those in situation D, they think they are learning “a specific art” when in fact, they are not. They have been cheated and played for fools. This hurts them, the ones who gave so much of their time effort, and of course money. Their teacher who felt he “needed” to teach has hurt his teachers, and his students. Whether teacher or student isn’t the point. It hurts people. Period.

***********************************

A bit simplistic to be sure, But it encapsulates the essence of the various arguments. The right or wrong of each individual circumstance is beyond me. I am hopeful that there are enough men around who will keep these arts preserved.
That way “They will be there for all of us”

Dan







[Edited by Dan Harden on 09-24-2000 at 11:21 AM]

[Jeff Cook]

Dan,

Thank you for your very eloquent and wise reply, and for your patience with my lack of skill with the written word. Sometimes I find it difficult to convey my point, and I do not make the necessary distinctions in the "big picture" as you did above.

Your "situation B" is the scenario I was referring to. There are still many, many people out there who are highly insulted and offended by the SitB folks that are doing absolutely nothing to sully the arts they studied, and have tremendous respect for their previous instructors. These are the people that I feel strongly compelled to explain their point of view and defend their position.

I see now that I do not need to do this with you. Thank you again for your wisdom.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Brently Keen]

Dan, my hat goes off to you for your latest eloquent contribution. I think that you have made some very astute observations that very accurately describe the various situations and the sentiments of many of us.

I can relate particularly to those in "Situation A" who think and act for reasons beyond just the betterment of themselves, to something bigger. There is dedication and commitment to the tradition, it's reputation, it's principles and ideals, but there is also personal sacrafice involved in the practice and preservation of such an art.
For me that loyalty stems not just from blind devotion to a teacher, a tradition or personal integrity to an oath, but rather from a sense of personal responsibility. Having been blessed with the opportunity to receive much instruction from my teacher in the methods of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, I am not only filled with sincere gratitude toward my teacher and the tradition, but I also have a responsibility, an obligation to give back and contribute as well.

As Dan stated before, the sacrafice does entail more than just time, sweat and effort. It involves relationships. My teacher has made a tremendous investment in me, and I in turn have made an investment in the art he teaches. As long as I remain loyal, then the investments remain mutually rewarding.

In addition to the student/teacher relationship, there are also other relationships such as those between dojo members, and the relationship of the school to the community or the country that benefit as well.

We must not forget the sacrafice of time not spent with our families in order to train and partake in the activities of the dojo. Our investment in the ryu should be for the benefit of our families not to their detriment. Sacrafice by definition must be for the gain of others more important than ourselves (if it is to be honorable).

With regard to what is yours to teach, I think an important question should be asked regarding the intent of the would be teacher:

Who or what has become more important when the choice is made to strike off on ones own?

Dan said, accurately (IMO) of many people in Situation B:

"I think while many are sincere, and have gone on to
create something of substance. Most were probably
nothing more than disgruntled people who for one reason
or another simply wanted to be on their own.

Has the teacher in situation B branched off to create something new because of natural growth or the necessity of change? Or because they were simply disgruntled? Or would a closer look reveal perhaps an overly ambitious need for personal validation in the form of some deshi of their own?

In the case of Situation C, is it also for the same reason or motives?

Certainly, throughout history there have been a few instances (or exceptions) where it was the "legitimate" headmaster or soke who was acting vain or from selfish motives, and it was the so called "unauthorized" teacher who honorably (and therefore perhaps legitimately) branched off to uphold and preserve the tradition. In my mind, the "legitimacy" question also involves the element of honorable and respectable intentions, personal responsibility and obligations to past and future generations as well as to ideals bigger than oneself.

Sadly, there are also some of those in Situation D who also pretend to be honorably in camp A, B, or C.

All of this suggest to me that when it comes to qualifications for leadership and the right to teach, character matters in addition to technical skill and competence.

For those few who are honorably (and thus legitimately, IMO) in situations A, B, and C they should be applauded or at least respected for their various efforts and contributions. For the others, well, let's not reward their behavior, but call them on it, and inform the public. Hopefully we can keep them honest, or at least restrain the damage they inflict.


Brently Keen

"The most effective refutation of error is to teach truth."

[Edited by Brently Keen on 09-24-2000 at 05:33 PM]

[Neil Hawkins]

I like Dan's list, it does allow us to categorise the groups well, but I think there might be one more group, we have discussed this before (though after six pages who can remember! ) but I don't think it fits any of Dan's outlines, and it is relatively common.

Two students study under the same master, they train diligently for many years attaining full mastery of the art. One leaves the area and is given permission to teach the art, the other stays at home. The master dies and leaves control to the student that stayed home.

Now this is where it gets tricky, the guy that went away who is teaching the system returns home to discover that the art has evolved away from what he is teaching, he doesn't believe that it is right, he feels that the master would not like what is happening, and so voices his disagreement. Ultimately there is a split, one teaches the art as he was taught, the other teaches an evolution, both use the same name, both claim to be right whilst the other is wrong.

Can the new master revoke the authority of the old master? Can the other teacher petition the students and remove the new master? How do you explain to the students of both teachers what has happened and why the same style is done differently?

It becomes a matter of perspective again, but when do we stop thinking about the continuation of the style. If the styles name is likely to be dishonoured by the nominal head, are the students still obliged to follow, or can they take control? Will this look like an ego driven struggle by outsiders, or will it be seen as justified?

I don't know, I'm asking for opinions!

Regards

Neil

[rossl42]

Firstly, Jeff, do not feel alone: I am sure that there are others, like myself, who believe that not all circumstances are easily judged.

The number of possible scenarios related to this topic is limitless and those discussed above include some reasonably clear cases. I would like to add a few more grey cases to consider.

Scenario X
A person signs an undertaking not to teach until they have reached level X. Their instructor later gives them permission to teach even though they are just a little short of being recognized at that level. The person concerned commences teaching a small class.

Scenario Y
A person has reached the level where he/she is an “authorized teacher” in a system, but finds that fundamental differences in philosophy have arisen between his instructor and himself. The senior suggests to him that if he is to continue to teach he should no longer claim to be teaching “My ryu” or to continue to claim any direct association. Out of respect, the “junior” teacher changes the name of the art he teaches and remains quiet regarding his association with his teacher’s tradition.

Scenario Z
A person has reached the level where he/she has become an “authorized teacher” in a system, but not yet an “acknowledged master.” Due to environmental circumstances (say, war) he loses touch with his seniors. A number of years later he tries to trace his seniors but finds himself to be (apparently) the only remaining holder of the tradition. He chooses to teach the tradition as he knows it, modifying it over time as his knowledge of associated arts increases.

Our view of each scenario will be contingent on our own value system and our interpretation of the limited facts available to us. If I have read the above posts correctly there are some who believe that, in each of these cases, the “junior person” has done something wrong. I would suggest that none have done anything for which they deserve reproach.

[Neil Hawkins]

So you finally decided to join in, welcome.

Neil

[Nathan Scott]

How about a situation in which a headmaster has several senior students that reach Menkyo Kaiden (or equiv) level, and have achieved full instruction in the ryu. They may assist with classes at the Honbu under the headmaster, but the perhaps the headmaster does not wish to open branch schools. Whatever nitch the MenKai (tm) can create for themselves will be it, since there is only one dojo and one headmaster (teacher).

In this scenario, one or two assistants might be beneficial, but 4 or more would MenKai's would be a waste of potential with no outlet for their skill and experience, and as such some might go out on their own to develop their own variation.

It was not uncommon at all for an experienced samurai to found his own ryu-ha (at least a family style if nothing else). I understand that most highly skilled Budoka did.

So anyway, judging from this discussion so far it could be said that there are alot of scenarios in which it would be considered understandable for a student to branch out his own.

I guess it comes down to a couple of things: What level of training did the student receive before branching out on their own, and how do they represent their styles and themselves as teachers?

It could be argued that the political situation between the student and previous teacher is private and irrelevant to the founding of a style, but the previously mentioned two areas would seem to be of concern regardless.

If the student leaves before reaching a high level of skill/license, and uses said style as the foundation for their own style, this seems a little strange and possibly inappropriate. Especially if they use their previous style and teacher as a way to validate and promote their own methods.

But if the student represents themselves honestly, that would definitely go a long way toward public/peer acceptance. New students could still decide for themselves if they think the instructor has a deep enough understanding of what they claim to teach, but have the correct background upfront. History is important for some people.

My main hangup is whether it is morally right to teach the techniques or a teachers style who does not wish you to use their methods anymore. It seems to me that any teacher is going to teach hoping that the student will be loyal and patient in their training. Teaching is mostly a thankless job, and takes a great deal of effort and energy. It is extremely frustrating to have students break off or quit just when they are starting to learn something!

I for one would not even teach anymore if I thought all my students would teach what I teach them without my permission. I believe there is a explicit or at least implied trust between students and instructors.

The Eastern way of teaching generally does not give you all the answers up front. The methods are designed to be learned over a given period of years, and often the waza/tactics are not fully functional and understood until one gets to "Menkyo Kaiden" ir equiv level. The teacher rarely explains why they teach the way they do or what is a "teaching method" (like learning body phisics) and what is real waza. You are largely reliant on your instructor to guide you through your training up to a certain point, and trust their knowledge and methods to get you there.

This makes it very hard to be confident of what you know until you reach that level, IMHO.

Good discussion,





[Edited by Nathan Scott on 10-09-2000 at 04:07 PM]

[George Ledyard]

I think that the traditionalists who want to keep their arts pure and limited only to the small number of people who will train in that style for many years and recieve a licebse to teach from the head of that syle are doomed to be disappointed. Globalization effects the martial arts just as much as it does every other area of our society.

It's not that it is impossible to maintain a pure form of an art using the traditional means of transmission. But is is increasingly impossible to keep the techniques of a style from being appropriated into the practice of people not certified in any way by the seniors of that style.

Just as computer folks have discovered that the only guarenteed way to have a secure network is to never connect to any computer outside the network, the only way to prevent people from taking techniques and concepts into their own arts is to not teach them. People who hold seminars open to all styles, who put videos out into the public domain, have to expect that what they show becomes public property and will be incorpoarted in many ways into people's practice. Even public demos are the same. The Founder of Aikido only showed the general principles of his art in public. He was always aware that people would take his techniques if he showed them publicly.

In my own case, I have made no attempt to inorporate any of the techniques from training in Araki or Buko Ryu under Ellis Amdur Sensei into my Aikido. I respect my former teacher and acknowledge that I have no license to teach anything from those styles. However there are a number of general principles that I learned doing classical training that I have used to influence how I do Aikido. I would say that that is inevitable. It's not like you get a mind-wipe when you stop training in a style.

I have a very eclectic style of training in Aikido. Like my teacher, Saotome Sensei, I'll incorporate anything into what I do if it fits and will benefit my own and my students Aikido. I have a friend who is one of Dan Inosanto's senior instructors. He is highly accomplished and I respect him very much. He let me know that he was upset with me because I was teaching techniques that were derived from Kali and I had no certification to teach those things. My reply was that I had two sources for the techniques, Instructor classes at the Police Academy which he taught and the many videos I have purchased from a variety of sources. If you go into a room of instructors who are not your students and don't even do the same art you do and show them things, what was your expectation about what they would do with the training? Did you think they attended the training as an academic exercise and would pretend they had never seen those techniques until they could train extensively in the style and get certification? Of course not.

Someone from Jeet Kun Do especially should understand picking up principles and techniques from any source available and putting it into a new form. Was it ok for Bruce but not the folks who came later?

My own practice is to get as much information as I can whether from video or seminars. I try to be honest about where I got my techniques. I am the first one to say to my students that I got something off a video or from a particular Sensei. I try to give credit to everyone who has helped me and I never pretend that I made something up that I got from elsewhere. I do admit that as I approach the 25 year mark in Aikido, there are a number of things that I am sure I didn't get directly from Saotome Sensei but I can't actually remember when I didn't know them. I have invited every teacher with whom I have trained over the years to teach at my school, in part as acknowledgement to my students of the debt I owe to them. But other than that I can't remove things I know from the whole because they derived from particular sources. If Angier Sensei hadn't wanted me to know about the principles he has identified in Yanagi Ryu, he wouldn't have taught them to a room full of strangers.

There are now a number of excellent Daito Ryu videos available to the public. It is my considered opinion that anything I see in those videos can be used to better my Aikido training without feeling like I am stealing someone else's property. In the old days the scrolls of a style were given only to members of of a style that were licensed and then even then they were in a sense coded so that they wouldn't be useful for a non-member of the school. That could still be done. I know of many schools that use videos for training the members of the school but do not make them available to the public and ask the students who do have the videos to promise not to copy them. But when you put your stuff On-line and sell it to anybody anywhere in the world, that stuff becomes public at that point. I will still point out the origins of what I do to my students so that they understand where my stuff come from, that I think is actually more honest than changing the name of what I do, setting myself up as the Founder, and acting like I either invented this stuff or that it was all taught to me by some currently unverifiable mystic source in my childhood in the East.

Never before in history has so much information been available to martial artists about the various styles that exist. Some of the top instructors in the many styles are putting their techniques out to the public in video form. I believe that we will find the "pure" style is an endangered species. They won't cease to exist but the numbers of people who are training in these styles will necessarily stay very small or they won't stay pure. And there will inevitably be influences that those styles exert on other styles outside their own. I can't think of a tiume when that wasn't true.

I expect people to be honest about what they do and how they represent themselves. If they aren't licensed to teach a style they shouldn't say so. If is a 4th Dan who thinks he deserves a 10th Dan I don't think joining an organization that grants him a 10th is legitimate. I don't think you should advertise that you teach things that you aren't licensed or certified to teach ie. don't say that you offer Aikido at your school when your are really teaching a couple of wrist locks and no one at the school even has a Shodan in the art. Always acknowledge the teachers that went before you from the various sources you derived your knowedge. After that if people are upset about what I am doing it's too bad but I don't feel any compunctions myself.

[Edited by George Ledyard on 10-07-2000 at 11:56 AM]