First of all, I would like to thank Ron for confirming that the forward by the previous Soke was, in fact, authentic. As Ron is impeccable in his scholarship, I think his confirmation satisfies any doubt that Sugino Sensei was teaching without permission. That issue certainly doesn?ft need further discussion. Also thanks again to Mr. Kohler for finding those links.
You express yourself eloquently, but I think that passages like this are quite insulting.
That sentence had the intention of being insulting. Hopefully it will be so insulting that those who have lurked in the forum as a habit and who practice in the Sugino dojo will rise to the challenge and address my argument, and we can have some enlightening debate here, rather than the avoidance I have seen on this forum before regarding this issue. If my claims are false, prove it. Pick them apart. Kick them around. I welcome it. I look forward to it.
As to whether my "insulting" claim is fair or just mean-spirited regarding practicing a rogue form of KSR being a "lie," let's examine my argument and see:
1. The previous teacher, Sugino Sensei, had permission to teach by the previous Soke.
2. The title he was awarded is not a hereditary one, but dependent on the continued good graces of the Soke, which can be revoked at any time for any reason (much like the use of a copyright). The only title that is hereditary in the KSR is Soke. Not even Otake Sensei can pass down his title hereditarily by default without permission from Soke.
3. Sugino Sensei, the only member of his school recognized to have teaching permission by the honbu, passed away.
4. His offspring and students continue to practice using the name "Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu"
5. They are not affiliated with, or recognized by the current Soke, and thus do not have the right to use the name, which is the property of the Iizasa family, and has been for over 600 years.
6. They are using a name that they do not have permission to use, and are doing so knowingly. We can assume it is knowingly, because they would obviously know whether they had permission or not through regular contact with Soke. But wait. They do not have regular contact with Soke, because they are a rogue school which is shunned by the honbu. And if they are shunned, how could they possibly have permission to continue teaching under the KSR name. Just as in the day-to-day world, putting the Microsoft label on a non-Microsoft product is the equivalent to lying, their using the KSR name when, in fact, they do not have permission to.........is lying. If their students hold the same opinion, knowing these same truths (and if they?fve been around long enough they should be familiar with the points by now), then they, in effect, would be lying to themselves. If those same students teach, they would be lying to others. Now, if anyone would like to argue any of these points, be my guest. I look forward to your comments.
It is quite obvious that the "budo seishin" you might posess, do not rub of in your e-budo ranting.
Ah yes. "Budo Seishin." I word we often hear in Japanese martial forums. Although, in my 7+ years here in Japan, I wasn't aware that that word had been standardized in the Japanese public or martial worlds to have a specific meaning to all people all of the time. I would like to hear your definition of "Budo Seishin," Mr. Ulvestad. You see, there are probably as many definitions of "Budo Seishin" as there are people who care what it means. What does spirituality mean to you? I argue that it is the same problem of interpretation.
Part of my personal conception of "Budo Seishin" is to fight for what you believe is right, and to voice your protest against injustice or someone who is doing something you find to be ethically or morally wrong, even if it offends. That is why I am not offended by evangelistic Christians, because, at least they stand up for what they believe in and bring something to the public table of debate, rather than melting into a great wide ocean of apathy created by a moral relativity and ?glive and let live?h ethic in which even criticizing female genital mutilation is considered culturally bigoted. Perhaps you thought that my words were harsh, and thus believe me to me base and petty, argumentative, close-minded and intolerant of others, to name a few. So be it. But I will willingly take your criticism if you would in turn address the points I have raised here, and add something to the debate.
To continue, one notion of "budo seishin" that I have frequently come across in writings, especially by westerners, has been this notion that the "warrior" is above pettiness and conflict. That they are some sort of bodhisattva who is unflappable and doesn't quibble with day-to-day affairs. That they are flexible and indifferent like the Taoist, and calm and controlled (as I assume to include never saying anything that might offend someone, god forbid, whether it is true or not) like the Buddhist, and humble and loyal like a Confucian. That they must always seek harmony among people and never pursue a course that may lead to discord. These and other notions have been mentioned overtly or not in writings I have come across. I have also heard the word ?ghumility?h used in association with ?gbudo seishin,?h that we are all ignorant and working our way through improvement, so we have no right to judge anyone else. And yet, in reality, we make judgments of people and their actions every day, and rightly so, as judgments are necessary for us to function on a day to day basis and make proper choices and avoid calamities, and other applications. In reality, we must judge the actions of others if we are to maintain any standard of ethicality or morality. And if we cannot even do that, then matters of ethics and social norms become irrelevant, and one fiber of society is unwound.
If "budo seishin" to you means always being polite and nice, then so be it. But I contend that sometimes a person has got to come down hard and mercilessly at the right time when we see others defiantly continue a course of action we deem to be unethical and injurious to others, especially when the victim (or plaintiff) has the ownership or title to whatever is the source of contention. King had as much of my notion of "budo seishin" as someone like Morihei Ueshiba did, if not more. If you think my words here do not reflect "budo seishin," then perhaps they don't (reflect yours that is). But my conception of "budo seishin" can be compassionate and forgiving and tolerant, or it can be wrathful and staunch in support of the ?gright?h and ?gjust.?h But at least I have the courage point out when someone is doing something that, in a different realm of society like copyright, most of us could agree is wrong.
I, for one, do not believe in the "live and let live" philosophy if that philosophy condones what I consider to be unethical and unjust behavior. If I must use strong words to draw out those who would normally cower and avoid the issue, so be it. I will stand in judgment of any one, willingly, and hear their critique of how deplorable my actions are. Those who know me know that I will just as quickly abandon a faulty or unsupported argument I hold if a better one comes along by some one. I seek truth, if anyone other than me still believes in such things. And in this case, the truth as I see it is outlined in the points above. If anyone sees the facts differently, I anxiously await your response. And silence, by the way, is a passive conceding of my points.
I do not understand the time and energy spent on this crusade.
Then you do not understand what is at stake here, which is that a family with a lineage and tradition older than many countries of the world, should have the right to use that name and its sister name (KSR) as it chooses, and selectively bestow the right to use that name to whomever it chooses. If it is a crusade, so be it. But the crusade is beyond this infraction of morality or decency. The copyright law exists because mankind believes in the principles behind that law. Those same principles are at play here. If you think this is something personal, then think again. It is about principle.
Last edited by gmellis; 15th April 2004 at 14:45.
Greg Ellis
I like autumn best of all, because its tone is mellower, its colors are richer and it is tinged with a little sorrow. Its golden richness speaks not of the innocence of spring, nor the power of summer, but of the mellowness and kindly wisdom of approaching age. It knows the limitations of life and it is content.