Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Ryuuha Bugei all soft and mushy, too!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ft. Laud., Fl.
    Posts
    604
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Ryuuha Bugei all soft and mushy, too!

    Contra the usual position that BUJUTSU is nasty and brutish; BUDO, soft and squishy:

    Article, "Off the Warpath" by Karl Friday, University of Georgia, From Budo Perspectives, edited by Alexander Bennett, 2005 by Kendo World Publications Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.

    Issai Chozan's eighteenth century martial art parable, Neko no myoojutsu ("The cat's eerie skill"), for example, portrayed a vision of ultimate martial prowess that entailed being in such perfect harmony with the natural order that one transcended any need or desire to fight.

    But Issai and his mid-Tokugawa contemporaries were scarcely the first to contend that martial training can and should reach beyond physical skills and technical expertise. Sixteenth century instructional writings, as well as early 17th century texts...suggest that this notion was already well established during the late Sengoku era. Careful consideration of the circumstances, under which the ryuuha bugei first appeared, moreover, strongly suggests that these arts were never meant to the straightforward tools of war—that, visions of martial art as a vehicle to broad personal education shaped and characterized this phenomenon from it's nascence.

    It is clear, first of all, that ryuuha bugei could not have accounted for more than a tiny portion of 16th century military training. Estimates based on surviving documentation from the period suggest that there were at most a few dozen ryuuha around during the 16th Century. Armies of that era, however, regularly mobilized tens of thousands of men….

    Ryuuha bugei must, therefore, have been a specialized activity pursued by only a minute percentage of Sengoku warriors.

    Nor did the skills that late medieval bugeisha concentrated on developing have a great deal of direct applicability to 16th century warfare. In fact, even the earliest ryuuha bugei were, at best, anachronistic in this regard….

    Thus, ryuuha bugei, which focused on developing prowess and personal combat, emerged and flourished in almost inverse proportion to the value of skilled individual fighters on the battlefield. Moreover, the weapon that played the most prominent role in this new phenomenon--the Sword--played a decidedly minor role in medieval warfare. Swords never became a key battlefield armament in Japan. They were, rather, supplementary weapons analogous to the side arms worn by modern soldiers. While they were also employed in combat, they were used far more often in street fights, robberies, assassinations and other (off battlefield) civil disturbances. Missile weapons--arrows, rocks and later bullets—dominated battles throughout the medieval period. Scholars and popular audiences alike have shown a remarkable reluctance to accept this reality and have attended instead to confound the symbolic importance of the sword to early modern bushi identity with prominence in medieval battles….

    Why did ryuuha bugei emerge when they did--at a time when generalship, the ability to organize and direct large forces was rapidly coming to overshadow personal martial skills as the decisive element in battle, and the key to a successful military career? Why were there so few ryuuha bugei around during the Sengoku period and why did they proliferate so rapidly during the early Tokugawa period after the age of wars had passed?....

    All these questions become much easier to answer if one sets aside the premise that ryuuha bugei originated as instruments for teaching workaday techniques of the battlefield. And indeed, there is little basis for that hoary assumption, beyond the fact that war was endemic in Japan when the first martial art schools appeared. The received wisdom rests, in other words, on post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy.

    A growing body of evidence, on the other hand, points to the conclusion that ryuuha bugei and the pedagogical devices associated with it aimed from the start at conveying more abstract ideals of self-development and enlightenment. That is, there was no fundamental shift of purpose in martial art education between the late 16th and mid 17th centuries. Tokugawa period Budoo represented not a metamorphosis of late medieval martial art, but the maturation of it. Ryuuha bugei itself constituted a new phenomenon--a derivative, not a linear improvement, of earlier, more prosaic military training….

    More importantly, however, the martial and other arts also shared a sense of ultimate—true—purpose defined in the medieval Japanese concept of michi or path. This construct, born of implications drawn from a world view common to Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, saw expertise in activities of all sorts--from games and sports to fine arts, from practical endeavors to religious factors--as possessing a universality deriving from its relationship to a common ultimate goal. It held concentrated specialization in any activity to be an equally valid route to attainment of universal truth asserting that all true paths must lead eventually to the same place and therefore complete mastery of even the most the trivial pursuits must yield the same rewards as can be found through the most profound. Ryuuha bugei, emerging in this cultural and most philosophically milieu, took its place alongside poetry, composition, incense judging, Noh drama, the tea ceremony, and numerous other michi….

    It fostered character traits and tactical acumen that made those who practice it better warriors, but it's goals and ideals were more akin to those of liberal education than vocational training. That is, bugeisha, even in the Sengoku period had more in common with Olympic marksmanship competitors--training with specialized weapons to develop a esoteric levels of skill under particularized conditions--than with Marine riflemen. They also had as much—perhaps more--in common with Tokugawa period and modern martial artists than with the ordinary warriors of their own day.

    Viewed in this light, the prominent role of the sword in medieval ryuuha bugei is much easier to understand. For, their secondary role in battlefield combat notwithstanding, swords achieved a singular status as heirlooms and symbols of power war, military skill and warrior identity….

    This representational functional reflected in the popularization of the term hyoohoo (or heihoo)--which until late medieval times designated military science or martial arts in the broad sense—as a synonym for kenjutsu….

    Specialization, formalization, and idealization of ryuuha bugei were not inherently deleterious to military preparedness, because this form of martial training had never been about readying troops for war. Military science writ large continued in the guise of Gungaku, while hyoohoo continued to focus on personal development ....

    By the 18th century, bushi who had not made and even trained seriously for war in generations, had lost sight of any separation between martial art and military training. Indeed ryuuha bugei had long since overshadowed and supplanted other kinds of soldierly drill. For the bushi of the mid Tokugawa period and later, there was but one form of sophisticated combative training: the individual-centered, self-development oriented arts of the various ryuuha....

    [This resulted in] the conviction that swordsmanship and other martial arts of the day descended directly from instruments of war, and that ryuuha bugei originated as vehicles to train warriors for battle….

    Ironically, the martial arts today are closer in role and character--particular in their perceived role and character--to their remote medieval progenitors than to their late Tokugawa parents.
    Interested in comments...
    Don J. Modesto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    ------------------------
    http://theaikidodojo.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Guelph Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    312
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Late 1500s Japan:

    Trench warfare

    Volley firing in 3 ranks of 1000 guns each rank

    A battlefield with more guns on it than existed in all of Europe at the time...

    Whatever would make anyone think that the koryu were to train people for war? You don't need, nor have you ever needed the kind of skills you learn in a koryu for a battlefield. Even Musashi had to stretch it a bit more than it should ever be stretched when he suggested that an individual fight was somehow analogous to a battlefield.

    The schools of sword in Europe that rose at about the same time were pretty much analogous to the ryuha I would suggest, and the fact that Japan took a couple centuries off from war had much more to do with the survival of the koryu than their inherent value as warfare training. The loss of the European schools would also be a function of those schools' usefulness on the battlefields of the west.

    Martial arts are for self-development? You won't find an argument from me on that one.

    Kim Taylor

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Personally I can't stand the use of "oo" to transliterate the "double o" (or rather "o" + "u") sound in Japanese.

    I mean, what the hell is "hyoohoo"? A martial system or a camp greeting?

    Not the kind of comment you were after I know...

    b

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    I don't doubt Dr. Friday's conclusions at all, and it's quite interesting in light of the history of Yagyu Shinkage-ryu I've been reading (basically, from the Sengoku period to early Edo, none of Yagyu Sekishusai's scions were cut down in battle, but many sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons were shot and killed; ditto Kamiizumi Isenokami's son).

    That said, while the sword is a part of many Sengoku period ryuha, if enlightenment/michi is the primary purpose, why were virtually all of them sogo-bujutsu? I'm no expert on history, but really isn't Shinkage-ryu the only sword-only school? And even that is sogo-bujutsu in the Hikita line... Also, why restrict the otome-ryu? I'm not trying to poke holes in the argument or anything; I'd just like to hear Dr. Friday's (and others') thoughts on these questions.

    Would it perhaps be accurate to say that they were akin to advanced training, a la Rangers, Seals, Special Forces? Certainly not meant for mass training and indoctrination, but to develop a smaller group of elite warrior/officer corps, generalists with training in multiple skills, strategy, and with a judicious measure of philosophy thrown in?
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, ţonne he ćt guđe gengan ţenceđ longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearađ. - The Beowulf Poet

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ichibyoshi
    Personally I can't stand the use of "oo" to transliterate the "double o" (or rather "o" + "u") sound in Japanese.

    I mean, what the hell is "hyoohoo"? A martial system or a camp greeting?

    Not the kind of comment you were after I know...

    b
    "Hyouhou" isn't much better. Oh, it's fine here, but then you get a name like "Shouta", and it looks all wrong again.

    Hyoho and Shota look nice, but then, they're not very good guides to correct pronunciation.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, ţonne he ćt guđe gengan ţenceđ longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearađ. - The Beowulf Poet

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Guelph Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    312
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    One art or many arts, it's the process that's the key to what you're trying to do, not the particular art.

    For example, it's the concentration on what you're doing that provides the meditative benefits of practice, not the specific movement. You could be counting breaths, arranging flowers, making tea or tapping sticks together, as long as you're being mindful of what you're doing right now, in the moment, you aren't cycling through useless and destructive thoughts about the rest of your life.

    So learning kata after kata of different weapons, or doing a single kata with deeper and deeper understanding would both be about equal for keeping your thoughts about the job and the wife to a minimum.

    Another aspect though would be to consider what the "founder" knew... if he knew a little about a lot, he'd teach that, if he knew a lot about one thing, he might teach that.

    Third would be strictly "commercial", Musashi made cracks about Katori Shinto Ryu being flashy "to attract students". Why wouldn't this be a simple statement of what actually happened back then, it happens now. Students like learning lots and lots of different kata and weapons, it gives the illusion of learning (stay on the steep part of the learning curve) and it's more fun that doing the same boring thing over and over again. Let's face it, those who choose martial arts for their self improvement over, say, zen sitting are probably a bit ADD to begin with, want new stuff all the time to distract them rather than just counting breaths and staring at the tip of their nose for hours, days and years.

    Unemployed warrior, knows lots of moves with spear, sword, staff, and has no other job... lots of time to practice it all.... sogo bujutsu.

    Later on you get a fellow with a job, wife, kids, Chamber of Commerce meetings, he may decide to concentrate on the sword since he likes that best... kenjutsu and the rest of it is "lost".

    A generation or so later, a headmaster finds sword students a bit rare, and stick fighting becoming popular... hey we just decided to start teaching the ancient stick arts of our school! Battlefield tested!

    In other words, why would the martial arts world of 1607 be so different than that of 2007? Students show up to learn how to be bad-butt fighters, and end up staying because.... well they're never really sure why but they do.

    Along the way they may 1. become better people because martial arts make them better people or 2. become better because one becomes a better as one gets older. Who knows?

    Kim Taylor

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kagoshima
    Posts
    124
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I agree almost entirely with what you say Kim, but I think it's important that we remember that people were killing and being killed while these schools were being formed.

    Sword techniques may use a weapon which was not used as a key tool on the battlefield, and the goal of the training may have taken on a neo confucian bent, but there is nonetheless a very strong combative curriculum underlying some bugei training.

    I always wondered what the point of bayonet training was with the advent of modern warfare. I suppose you could say aggression training and pushing forward, even though you would rarely use the weapon itself. (I know nothing about the army BTW).

    In this vein I would argue that some "ryuha bugei" could teach various useful attributes for engaging in real combat.

    Remember some ryuha saw their members use their swords as late as the late 1800's. To forget about the combative basis for the training we do and treat it as purely "medatative " practice seems a little trite, despite the fact we don't use swords for killing people anymore.

    In addition to this I know there if a great amount of deference for one's own teacher/school/whatever, especially in Japan. This kind of muddies any honest critique of this kind of thing as everyone has their own agenda in that respect.
    Alex Bradshaw

    bradshaw.jp

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    320
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I always wondered what the point of bayonet training was with the advent of modern warfare. I suppose you could say aggression training and pushing forward, even though you would rarely use the weapon itself.
    Mindset training is certainly important, but there are still practical battlefield skills to be gained from bayonet training. For example, back in 2004, some British troops fixed bayonets to charge the positions of some Iraqi fighters that had been harassing them. Also, bayonet training came in handy in the Falklands, particularly in the close-quarter fighting around Goose Green.

    Fighting men will always have to have a way to deal with close quarters stuff and what's better than a sharp pointy thing that can attach (or not) to a boom-boom stick?

    Kevin Cantwell

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    91
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I read somewhere that simple mass oriented drill schools were called sen ha while the more detail rich and strategically more profound oriented toward the individual were the ryu ha. Never learned more about those sen ha.

    Now sword may not be a first line weapon on the battlefield, but to say it saw no use at all is a bit extreme. What would you do if caught in a mele or a broken line? Your 5 metre yari is of no use. What if your regimen trains in O dachi or nagamaki (Takeda had a couple) to break pikemen formation from the side (ŕ la zweihander). Or you just want to infiltrate a camp to take prisonners and gather intelligence, you surely don't bring your matchlock. And what if you are waiting for orders in the backcountry, drinking with your buddies at the sake house, things become a little tense and someone draws a sword? Again no place for a yari and no time to load your arquebuse. I think that's why kenjutsu saw so much popularity in ryu ha, hard to learn (so not that much teachers, so instruction is pricey, so only for the elite, who happens to be have more interest in intellectual and philosophical topics in general) compared to a lance or a gun, and much more polyvalent.

    And after the war? I don't think the notion that war is over, so everyone is calm happy and no need for weapons is correct. Now we all know that at some points duels became very hard to organize with all those laws prohibiting or restraining it (didn't bothered those guys though: http://www.mudthang.com/samurai.html), so it must have been a serious problem to necessitate such means. But that guy dates your ex-wife, stole your job, has something you want (maybe youre an hungry ronin or just a plain burglar) or youre just a plain psychopath. So you just wait for him at night on a bridge, kill him and drop him in it. Another flaoting corpse, that is if they ever find it or can identify him, and practicaly no means to find who did it. Now attacks aren't that common today (depends where you live I might say) but they do (happenend to me just this summer), and self defense is a very important aspect to many. I don't think it would have been different then. You basically have to carry a sword, better to learn how to use it best than the other guy. And visibly many people did (weren't the streets of kyoto full of blood in the Meiji revolution as some contemporaries refered?).

    I think just like today people learned martial arts for a variety of reasons. One of them being self-perfection (wich I can't deny), another plain practicality, others just because their parents force them to. I'd say it depends from which class you hail and your level of education, that would explain also the differences between rural ryu ha and urban ones. A key to anthropology is that you can never pretend to grasp the way people think as a whole. There are always some groups who think differently, even within a group wich seems homogenous.

    But this article is still very informative about the way people viewed martial arts at different times.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ft. Laud., Fl.
    Posts
    604
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ichibyoshi
    Personally I can't stand the use of "oo" to transliterate the "double o" (or rather "o" + "u") sound in Japanese.
    Quote Originally Posted by Josh Reyer
    "Hyouhou" isn't much better.
    Yeah. My dilemma. How would you get a line over the "O" using ascii? I don't like the double "O", either...
    Don J. Modesto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    ------------------------
    http://theaikidodojo.com/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ft. Laud., Fl.
    Posts
    604
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Taylor
    ....they may 1. become better people because martial arts make them better people or 2. become better because one becomes a better as one gets older. Who knows?
    Concise, that. Nice.
    Don J. Modesto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    ------------------------
    http://theaikidodojo.com/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Having neither the qualifications nor the personal background to disagree with Dr. Friday in his research and viewpoint, I would still respectfully suggest that the koryu contain a rather hefty amount of methods and specific techniques designed to end human life with great speed and effectiveness--that points--at least to me, that there are perhaps multiple views of what the koryu are/were "for."

    Also given the fact that at least few koryu were teaching things like fortification, asassination techniques, signal techniques, swimming in armor schools/training etc.
    It suggests--again to "me", that practical skills were being taught for their use in keeping their practitioners alive.

    That of course does not mean that it was the "only" things being taught.

    Even in todays military recruits study MORE than just how to kill.
    Indeed physical, emotional and mental conditioning is part and parcel of bootcamp.
    The discipline and habits that its seeks to impart is designed to effect all aspects of the recruits life--on the battlefield and to an extent off it as well.

    I doubt that it was much different back then.
    Last edited by cxt; 21st September 2007 at 21:26.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  13. #13
    Samurai Jack Guest

    Default

    I was a bit perplexed after reading "Off the Warpath." I am not sure if I am convinced of the relevance of either side of the argument that spurred "Off the Warpath." Whether the Bugei where harden combat soldiers of lore, or fat cat aristocrats indulging in the fantasies of military life, I think has little or no significance on today’s practitioners, other then an academic benefit.

    My comment, I think it would be good to eliminate the broad sweeping generalization of the argument that all ryuha’s went from “hard” to “soft” etc. It is reasonable to consider that not all ryuha had the same path. We know that ryuhas where not universal. Each ryuha was earmarked by individual characteristics of each clans’ identity. It would be hard then to think that all ryuha would make the same transitional shift from combat to insightful aspirations. Reason would dictate that some ryuha must have had maintained their combative integrity despite having interjections of esoteric pursuits to various degrees. I am sure other ryuhas may have been completely overwhelmed by the influence of esoteric pursuits. These ryuhas may have under gone complete philosophical changes and purpose. Finally, the most recognizable path taken would be the splitting off into to different ryuhas from one ryuha as a result of the rejection or acceptance of esoteric influences.

    Finally, the ryuhas of old are just that of old. Today’s ryuha are not effective in today’s world, the are outdated by light years. Ryuha- being pure combat skills of old or otherwise- have lost their original utility and purpose that now in modern times are purely pursued for recreation and of fancy as dictated by our modern times.

    If anyone is really concerned of the validity of their ryuha being of actual applicable combat techniques of feudal Japan or not, I would say to them, it only matters as the weight of a small square of rice paper. Because, today ryuha- no matter what it is, where it comes from, or what it contains- it is an art and it is practice as such for enjoyment etc. And I think that is ok.

    I think the problem with the argument highlighted by Dr. Friday’s text is it creates more harm then good when focused upon, because it has little or no significance of the modern day practice of a ryuha today.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Its also possible that in at least a few cases the focus on what might be viewed as "softer" aspects represented somewhat of a departure for study---as much of a response to what the founders saw as the current state of the matter..ie too much focus on the overt violence as anything else.

    Again, just thinking outloud--here.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ft. Laud., Fl.
    Posts
    604
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Jack
    ....Whether the Bugei where harden combat soldiers of lore, or fat cat aristocrats indulging in the fantasies of military life, I think has little or no significance on today’s practitioners, other then an academic benefit.
    I think the founders were grizzled old vets. I don't think that seeking something sublime is the same as indulging fantasies.

    My comment, I think it would be good to eliminate the broad sweeping generalization of the argument that all ryuha’s went from “hard” to “soft” etc. It is reasonable to consider that not all ryuha had the same path. We know that ryuhas where not universal. Each ryuha was earmarked by individual characteristics of each clans’ identity. It would be hard then to think that all ryuha would make the same transitional shift from combat to insightful aspirations. Reason would dictate that some ryuha must have had maintained their combative integrity despite having interjections of esoteric pursuits to various degrees. I am sure other ryuhas may have been completely overwhelmed by the influence of esoteric pursuits. These ryuhas may have under gone complete philosophical changes and purpose. Finally, the most recognizable path taken would be the splitting off into to different ryuhas from one ryuha as a result of the rejection or acceptance of esoteric influences.
    I follow your logic, and it's hard to argue absent Friday's piece. I think what Friday is saying, though, is that the RYUUHA were precisely the venue for esoteric exploration. Military drill was a different problem undertaken in different places by different people.

    It's probably significant that the "martial" RYUUHA developed alongside RYUUHA of other pursuits such as poetry, drama, or tea. The express purpose of these MICHI was to sacralize the mundane, ie, read universal truth into everyday activities. This reading in (or out) is what "esoteric" means. (for a quick summary of this, see the paragraph beginning "Fabio Rambelli's "Honji Suijaku and Everyday Practices: Religion, Economics, and Social Ideology"' at http://www.h-net.org/~buddhism/aar-b...reportA072.htm. The HONJI SUIJAKU discussed means ‘original nature and provisional manifestation’ denoting a way of relating the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Buddhism to the kami, or divinities, of the native Shintō religion (http://www.answers.com/topic/honji-suijaku).

    Finally, the ryuhas of old are just that of old. Today’s ryuha are not effective in today’s world, the are outdated by light years. Ryuha- being pure combat skills of old or otherwise- have lost their original utility and purpose that now in modern times are purely pursued for recreation and of fancy as dictated by our modern times.
    Friday's point being that this was always the case, no?

    If anyone is really concerned of the validity of their ryuha being of actual applicable combat techniques of feudal Japan or not, I would say to them, it only matters as the weight of a small square of rice paper. Because, today ryuha- no matter what it is, where it comes from, or what it contains- it is an art and it is practice as such for enjoyment etc. And I think that is ok.
    A modern attitude. "And I think that is ok." But history is used to justify what we do and how. When the foundation shifts, this has relevance to us now.

    I think the problem with the argument highlighted by Dr. Friday’s text is it creates more harm then good when focused upon, because it has little or no significance of the modern day practice of a ryuha today.
    Clarity?! Creates more harm than good?! The raison d'tre or pursuits staunchly proud of tradition has little significance?!

    ...well, I'm still listening...

    Thanks for posting.
    Don J. Modesto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    ------------------------
    http://theaikidodojo.com/

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •