Is Togakure Ryu older than 1868? yes or no?

[Shinobi]

That wannabe dragged out spewage was full of holes, speculation and opinionated nonsense.

New rule should be,

If you want to attack the Takamatsu-den, site your sources in Japanese, Romaji and full English translation with page numbers so we don’t have to rely on your lame opinions and hearsay of what you think is the truth.

What he said about the daijiten was extended truth and lies. I'm sick of wannabe koryû guys like him attacking something he has no clue on. He wrote as if he knew everything about koryû, Japanese history, Takamatsu, ninjutsu and Hatsumi, clearly which he doesn't.

In rebuttal I am going to post what the daijiten says about Togakure-ryû and have it as a "sticky" so people with smearing agenda's such as him can read it till a shuriken hits them in the retina.

Posts like that should be deleted in any forum regardless of the topic or person. His personal smear campaign against Takamatsu-den can go up his saya.

[El Guapo-san]

Ditto.

Josef Vlach

[william northcote]

When people start saying how can this be 1,000 years old and the scrolls were written by Takamatsu ETC, people are not seeing the one thing that was done.

For instance (this coming from a conversation with my instructor last night regarding this threads context), Bruce Lee developed JKD from Gung Fu. So that is one fighting system. Done in a style that is known. Yet Takamatsu seemed to have developed 9 schools in 1 lifetime, all different in feel and in style. So either Takamatsu is a fraud and developed a history with 9 schools, or all the 9 schools are real and have history through oral transmission. It is also known that Takamatsu wrote the Kukishinden scrolls from memory for that school after WWII.

So if we compare Lee to Takamatsu, Lee invented 1 style/system. If Takamatsu invented 9, then he must have been the greatest MA guy ever.

Now let us look at Tanamura. Tanamura-san has linage going back to Koga. He clims to teach Koga schools in his system. So either (again) Tanaemura is lying or he has oral transmissions from past instructors like Takamatsu. Genbukan has 18 schools (or there abouts), so is Tanamura-san lying as well? Or is Tanamura another great MA instructor to develop the schools with different feeling and change of style.

So who is to say that what Togakure Ryu is when someone that has transmission through the correct teachings (oral) and has written documentation, Takamatsu must be the greatest liar ever in Japanese history. But somehow, all these Koryu guys are not going to Soke Hatsumi and Tanamura-san saying they are liars. Why should they when their keyboard warrior skills are quite adept at making accusations when they have no idea of asking face to face their views to the holders of the transmissions.

[niten ninja]

There was already a long long thread on this, and the article seems to simply condense some of it. Nothing particularly new.

[MikeWilliams]

Well, hopefully Roger will post it up elsewhere on the web.

Speaking as an outsider, it would have been very interesting to have the original article and Eric's rebuttal in the same thread.

[Ron Beaubien]

Hello,

New rule should be, If you want to attack the Takamatsu-den, site your sources in Japanese, Romaji and full English translation with page numbers so we don’t have to rely on your lame opinions and hearsay of what you think is the truth.

To be honest, I would like to see this as well. However, in all fairness shouldn't members of the Bujinkan be required to post the same kind of citations for their information?

When I asked Don Roley just a few weeks ago if he could give me the citation for the "evidence" that Nishina Daisuke actually existed he wrote:

"Koyama Ryutaro about 1991 (I am going by memory here) found a reference to the founder of the Togakure ryu in a book called the Genpei Seisuiki. This book was a variation of the popular Heiki Monogatari. An oral transmission put down into the written word at some point... I can't find the damn book right now, but the most accesable reference is one of the first entires in Hatsumi's book on hanbojutsu/juttejutsu/tessenjutsu in Japanese by someone other than Hatsumi or Koyama in the introduction section." ( http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost...0&postcount=90 )

Now I have a lot of respect for Don and as I have a lot of books myself, I understand how difficult it can be to find a copy when needed. I tried to point out even with the lack of exact citations on his part that relying on a work of historical fiction (the Gempei Seisuiki) is not evidence of anything. Now, you took part in that thread and were supportive of Don's position. However, you didn't demand that he post with the same degree of accuracy as you are asking here.

As a matter of fact, even Hatsumi sensei is not known for including citations in his books. Doesn't the responsibility ultimately lie on his shoulders to cite his information in order to prove his claims?

Why the double standard?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Ron Beaubien

[MarkF]

Just a short comment as I do not hang out in this part of town. Moderating yourselves out of a problem is the easiest and best way to take care of such a problem (I did not see the original offending post so take this for what it is).

This is happening a lot in other sub-fora so keep it in mind when the need arises for whatever it was that set some of you off here. There are examples of this all over this forum.


MarkF

[niten ninja]

However, in all fairness shouldn't members of the Bujinkan be required to post the same kind of citations for their information?

Yes, they should, IF they are defending their position from someone else.

However, you didn't demand that he post with the same degree of accuracy as you are asking here.

I thought Don Roley used the source as displacing a possibility rather than as actual proof.

As a matter of fact, even Hatsumi sensei is not known for including citations in his books. Doesn't the responsibility ultimately lie on his shoulders to cite his information in order to prove his claims? Why the double standard?

Hatsumi's books are generally written to display his beliefs and opinions to his students rather than as a defense of his lineage. He at least in my opinion, doesn't seem to be trying to prove anything. Also probably alot of the sources will be "my sensei told me..." which is not exactly the greatest source.

[Shinobi]

To be honest, I would like to see this as well. However, in all fairness shouldn't members of the Bujinkan be required to post the same kind of citations for their information?

Yes as have I in the recent sticky and other posts I usually make. I always try to cite my sources as should others.

When I asked Don Roley just a few weeks ago if he could give me the citation for the "evidence" that Nishina Daisuke actually existed he wrote:

However, you didn't demand that he post with the same degree of accuracy as you are asking here.

I won't demand anything from anyone; I made a suggestion of a new rule. Whether you follow that suggestion/rule is your choice and whether you want your reply to be taken with some validity. If you don't cite your sources then you're reply is going on opinion, hearsay and speculation.

I hope Don does cite the exact source and even types up exactly what is written as I don't own the book, but I won’t demand it from him. It was my understanding that Koyama found records of Nishina's existence in Togakushi village via a family shrine. But that was via Don's ad-lib he posted a few years back via another forum. If he posts this info to clear up any misconceptions then "more the merrier". If not then it can't be taken into full account and we all understand this. I am hoping he does.

As a matter of fact, even Hatsumi sensei is not known for including citations in his books. Doesn't the responsibility ultimately lie on his shoulders to cite his information in order to prove his claims?

Why the double standard?

"As a matter of fact" Choose your words wisely when writing a reply. Re-read it a thousand times and try and see how others would interpret it when in fact it isn't a fact.

Strange how the other day I'm going threw some info from Hatsumi's "Sengoku Ninpô Zukan" book on page 206-207 in [ ] brackets, he cites a passage from the Shôninki and if you want I can include others from his works to prove there is no double standard.

Hope this clears things up.

[Shizen]

I made a copy of the initial post by Roger Conant (If that was his real name) before it got removed. I can provide it by private message to anyone that is interested.

For the record, I did find it quite disrespectful and speculative to the point of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theory, but otherwise I thought it was written well-enough and was an interesting story.

PM me (don't post a request on this thread) if you want to see it.

[Ron Beaubien]

Hello,

Regarding citations...

Yes as have I in the recent sticky and other posts I usually make.

Thank you, could you please use one of the standard formats? When citing written documents usually the authors, full title, place of publication, publisher, and date are also required. That would help a lot avoid any confusion later.

However, you only gave the English and Romaji, but not the original Japanese as you suggested that others should do. I know that you said it "can be tricky when post ing kanji" but then why not subject yourself to the same standard that you are asking of others.

I won't demand anything from anyone; I made a suggestion of a new rule. Whether you follow that suggestion/rule is your choice and whether you want your reply to be taken with some validity. If you don't cite your sources then you're reply is going on opinion, hearsay and speculation.

Yes, you "suggested" that only people who "attack the Takamatsu-den, site (sic) your sources in..." as written below:

New rule should be, If you want to attack the Takamatsu-den, site your sources in Japanese, Romaji and full English translation with page numbers so we don’t have to rely on your lame opinions and hearsay of what you think is the truth.

Again, why the double standard? Obviously members of the Bujinkan of post "lame opinions and hearsay" as well. I still don't understand why you suggested to include a new rule that only applies to one group of people and not the other.

"As a matter of fact" Choose your words wisely when writing a reply. Re-read it a thousand times and try and see how others would interpret it when in fact it isn't a fact.

Strange how the other day I'm going threw some info from Hatsumi's "Sengoku Ninpô Zukan" book on page 206-207 in [ ] brackets, he cites a passage from the Shôninki and if you want I can include others from his works to prove there is no double standard.

That is a matter of fact as I was referring to the history of Togakure-ryu. Shoninki is a document on ninjutsu. However, it has no established relationship to any of the schools Hatsumi sensei is teaching. It could be information on ninjutsu from any school for that matter. It also does not give any support for the lineage of Togakure-ryu whatsoever which is the subject of this thread. Hatsumi sensei is not known for citing historical sources besides what Takamatsu may have told him when referring to the history of Togakure-ryu. Again, we are looking for sources of information that mention Togakure-ryu from the Edo period and before that can be independently verified.

Now, I admit that I may not be a very good writer, but it is quite ironic that you criticize what I wrote and then immediately follow it with: "Strange how the other day I'm going threw some info..." At least what I wrote was grammatically correct. I'm not even sure what you were trying to refer to... Is that sentence supposed to be past tense or future? I really have no idea what you were trying to say.

However, if you could cite books that Hatsumi sensei wrote where he cited historical sources, something from the Edo period perhaps, that specifically mentions Togakure-ryu, then please do so.

The history of Togakure-ryu is largely unsubstantiated. That is a fact. In your own words that would be: "going on opinion, hearsay and speculation." Again, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on those questioning those claims.

Thanks again for your reply.

Sincerely,

Ron Beaubien

[niten ninja]

Yes, you "suggested" that only people who "attack the Takamatsu-den, site (sic) your sources in..." as written below:

The person he was talking about was attacking the Takamatsu-den therefore it would have appropriate to only talk about that.

Obviously members of the Bujinkan of post "lame opinions and hearsay" as well.

Alas yes.

I still don't understand why you suggested to include a new rule that only applies to one group of people and not the other.

He already said it should apply to both groups in his first sentence.

Hatsumi sensei is not known for citing historical sources besides what Takamatsu may have told him when referring to the history of Togakure-ryu.

That would be because he isn't a historian, his books are not there to prove any history, they simply state the history he's been taught.

The history of Togakure-ryu is largely unsubstantiated. That is a fact. In your own words that would be: "going on opinion, hearsay and speculation."

Without the original text now, it's difficult to say what he was actually refering to.

Again, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on those questioning those claims.

It really depends what you mean by claims. Yes it's taught as the history within the organisations, but I have doubts whether many people would actually try and claim them as a definite history without evidence.

[Ghost Cat]

Mr Beaubien,

As Niten Ninja said, Shinobi was talking about the person who started this thread. Please don't take offense because you think he was talking about you.

And as Ninten said, Hatsumi is stating things as he was told and clearly says things like that when recounting the tales.

This is getting confusing replying in two different threads to comments you made in answer to me.

[niten ninja]

To add to that this thread is on an article that has been deleted, making it difficult understand what was meant by comments made while the article was still present.

[George Kohler]

I will put an end to this "citing" business. It is not required to use one of the standard forms in this forum.