Adapting Koryu

[Hissho]

In the Free Practice in Koryu thread Pg Smith asked a pertinent question that I would personally like to explore further.

Originally Posted by pgsmith

While it is entirely possible to transfer that training to modern weaponry and tactics, I don't think that you could then still call the resultant training koryu.

Can you adapt koryu? Make "gen-ryu?" or "ima-ryu" or gendai bujutsu while staying true to its principles and essence as a ryu?

I cut my teeth in koryu with Ellis Amdur, who has written and taught extensively on this, so I am predisposed to believe that this is the case.

I also think that historically this is exactly what happened: ryu were created by men who trained in one or more traditions, integrated their training and experience, and then started their own ryu, and the process just kept going.

Many kept their old teachings but added new ones in new sections of the curriculum to deal with new realities.

Today, you see headmasters re-defining, revivifying, changing and altering kata as their understanding changes or grows with their own practice.

Does ko-ryu necessarily mean "no more changing, adapting, progressing, or entertaining new applications for timeless principles?"

Is it the actual weapon type(s) that makes it ko-ryu?

Can you faithfully, and with integrity, still call something XYZ ryu if you change that weapon to a modern one?

For example: say I practice a jujutsu ryu: specializing in a short blade - say some 12 inches long.

But being interested in adapting it to modern application, I use a modern combat knife, and I do it wearing modern military kit, and I not only do my "old" kata but I work variations of those forms and principles in things I might likely encounter.

Am I still "doing" that ryu? Or do I have to be doing it in a hakama, with period weapons or facsimile, and in period situations?

Or is what I am doing based on that ryu but must be called something else? How much of the latter can I do before I have moved on from the ryu and started doing something else?

What if I do it wearing street clothes and with my Emerson CQC-7 tactical folder? Ryu or not the ryu?

How far can I diverge from the actual techniques in the kata, while still maintaining the principles, and still be doing the ryu?

[Ellis Amdur]

Hey Chris - we cross-posted. I'll move my post here, as we overlap so much.

Originally Posted by pgsmith
While it is entirely possible to transfer that training to modern weaponry and tactics, I don't think that you could then still call the resultant training koryu.

I emphatically disagree with that statement (sort of). It is certainly true that most koryu - define themselves that way. But not necessarily so.
The tension of koryu-budo (the bujutsu/budo dichotomy is, in fact, a non-issue in Japan - only in Europe and America, thanks to Donn Draeger's over-compartmentalizing) - (koryu should mean "something with old roots that is a current into the present") is that one maintains that <old> practice, with <old>weapons and possibly brings it into the present as well, with some contemporary practices. I am not suggesting that one make, for example, an "Araki-ryu gunfighting system." There already are fully complete gunfighting training systems, so that would be silly. (However, it is conceivable that one's Araki-ryu practice could contribute to one's practice with firearms, and firearm practice could - no, DOES contribute to Araki-ryu.

Beyond that, there is absolutely nothing within various ryuha ethics that precludes further research into its OWN parameters into modern times. For example, my Araki-ryu group in Greece trains in a BJJ school three times a week before their own practice. Within Araki-ryu practice, they train archaic torite and kogusoku kata, and then they BREAK the kata into randori - freestyle grappling with weapons, and every time they do so, it is different. They do not plan their waza, like they do in kata - but sometimes kata waza spontaneously emerge. So to others they learned in BJJ - some of which work, taking the blade(s) into account, and some would get them killed (that info is filed away). What they learn within BJJ -and also in their once a week open-mat, where they experiment against people from other disciplines in controlled freestyle as well - makes their koryu living.
They are not ready to do so yet, but in my young days in Japan, I did the same with bokken (both within dojo and against men from other ryu).
I've been working with a cane and a short stick and a flashlight - Araki-ryu parameters all the way. Some years ago, I was asked to participate in the development of using improvised weapons in the cabin of airplanes, and found several Araki-ryu techniques were "one-size, fits all" for whatever the flight attendant could hold in his or her hand. (the legal division of the airline decided the techniques were too violent).
Many years ago, I presented at a large martial art demo - other ryu-ha were there, and we did a very dynamic set of Araki-ryu kata - semi-live (breaking the kata right there, with sparring rhythms and steps. An outraged person in the audience blurted out, "that's not koryu." Chuck Clark, who's been around forever both in budo and on the battlefield, turned around and said, "no, it's just that's the first time you really saw koryu."
Anyway, come to think of it, I personally do not CARE if what I do is called koryu. That's a generic term, and ryuha are NOT generic. So, whether it's koryu is irrelevant. It's Araki-ryu. (I know I flipped on you from the beginning of this post - but not really . . .).
Best
Ellis Amdur

[Hissho]

Ellis

Thanks for the response.

I'd love to hear your current thinking on an aspect of this that I think is very relevant to this approach:

Legitimacy:

I believe that what has been called "the whole legitimacy thing" is somewhat important. In order to investigate an operating system that stems from a particular tradition and its approach, it is important to know that what is being transmitted is an authentic teaching. I do think that it is knowledge that gets transmitted, not skill. But with that knowledge, the kernels of truth that are deep within the ryu's DNA, as you might say, are testable and knowable, and it is not something that was devised from whole cloth out of an attempt to be "like" a koryu.

That is, built on a solid foundation versus one made of sand.

Fakery is getting to the point that it is highly polished these days. I am of the belief that the lessons that a genuine tradition may hold in its principles and strategies - descended from a professional, armed, warrior class - will be of a different order, if perhaps more subtle and less obvious, than you can get from a Fox in Tiger's Clothes such as a "faux-ryu" might be.

So in order to be adapting or embodying a ryu's principles in modern times it should first be based in a legitimate transmission of the ryu. That assumes a connection somewhere with Japan, through a teacher, etc.

This I do not question.


Experience in Japan:

What is a question is whether experience in the modern,very safe, Japanese culture is a necessary component to understand the ways of a ryuha that was borne and bred in a very different society.

Linguistically - as far as reading documents, understanding terminology etc. I get it, that of course makes perfect sense. One would necessarily need a background in Chinese, Japanese and maybe even Sanskrit studies, Shingon, Taoist and Zen terminology and ideas of mental concepts, etc.

But is, for instance, enculturation (if that's a word...) in what has been said is actually a modern "soke" system really the equivalent to how these arts were practiced traditionally? I know its not so with Araki ryu, but others?

Granted that is what many have become....but is that reflective of the "then" versus the "now?"

Is that just the way it is, and in order to get to the Good Stuff you have to go through that process despite how removed it may be?

This is not an attempt to "get around" what I believe many think is an absolute requirement to understand koryu - lots of time in Japan within the Japanese cultural milieu.

Is that not a requirement to understand how koryu is conducted as a modern Japanese approach to its classical warrior tradition...not necessarily how its warrior tradition was actually conducted in its own time?

[Ellis Amdur]

What is a question is whether experience in the modern,very safe, Japanese culture is a necessary component to understand the ways of a ryuha that was borne and bred in a very different society.

Two parts to the question: I managed to find the unsafe Japan, and I had a teacher who, as Meik Skoss put it, ". . .a man who must surely be one of the most interesting and unique people teaching and training nowadays--as close to a modern bushi as I've ever met or seen." It is probably fair to think of him as simultaneously with one-foot in early Meiji and one in modern times (and if it's possible, sometimes stepping back into Sengoku times). This flickering back-and-forth is what one could expect with an "authentic" koryu practitioner - similar to Kunii Zen'ya, Uchida Ryohei and Toyama Mitsuru of earlier times. So that, personally, is part of the DNA i inherited, and try to pass on.

However, the dislocation of Japanese culture and trying to understand it's rules may be a vital component. As a teacher, I've made some pretty florid mistakes - usually assuming that something was obvious, but my students simply have no idea. My mistake in each case was to try to convey information in a Japanese manner. These days, when someone does something wrong, I clearly explain it - but then expect it will never come up again. But I'm explicit.

The larger question of enculturation is huge. I think the question is if the ryu actually has its own culture, or if they ARE just koryu. The latter, far more common these days, would have only minimal interest to one like yourself. They are the equivalent of a museum that preserved some interesting stuffed animals. What they have is better than nothing, if the animals in question are extinct - we can learn <something> from them, but not the living beast. I can think of several ryu, and more particularly, several people, whom I would study from, to this day. I can think of far more - most - that I wouldn't study with - ever.

This is not an attempt to "get around" what I believe many think is an absolute requirement to understand koryu - lots of time in Japan within the Japanese cultural milieu. Is that not a requirement to understand how koryu is conducted as a modern Japanese approach to its classical warrior tradition...not necessarily how its warrior tradition was actually conducted in its own time?

There is no doubt that we go to learn the modern Japanese approach, not the original - but that's not all, if the lineage is alive. I have a sense of - not communicating with Araki Muninsai - but rather, embodying him, and each of his successors, like a multi-leveled overlay. Each generation distorts/overlays/improves the original - but with the intact ryu, we can still get a sense of the founder. To some degree, I know internally what it felt like to be him.

So what happens next, so to speak? The enculturation is person to person, in large part, not based on living in the country One of my Greek Toda-ha Buko-ryu students moved to Japan, started training in the Japanese dojo - and I hear good things about him from the shihan there. He may still be learning aspects of Japanese culture or language, but he got Toda-ha Buko-ryu culture - and the language there is how well you cut and thrust with the weapon within the ryu's parameters.

I've never been big on the LARP aspect of koryu training (which is huge). I refused to buy a kimono, dressing at embu in just my practice uniform. I think it is conceivable that I may have a successor or two who never go to Japan. They may learn Araki-ryu culture without being versed in Japanese culture. I would expect that over some generations, it will change, but as long as they keep the basic operating system, they are doing Araki-ryu or Toda-ha Buko-ryu.
Best
Ellis

[Hissho]

Ellis

Thanks - very good stuff to chew on.

Perhaps it is destined to pretty much be an individual pursuit for people that want to go that far, rather than a group practice thing.

[pgsmith]

Thanks for starting a new thread Kit.

I feel like I need to clarify my thoughts in making my original statement. It was made in response to one by Johan about modern combatants, LEOs, military, etc ... While I agree whole-heartedly with Ellis that the koryu should be living entities, they cannot remove themselves entirely from the past and still be considered koryu.

Koryu, by their very definition, are based in the past. In order to still be koryu, they have to remain true to the weaponry and ideals of that past. If you were to utilize the teaching methods and ideals promulgated by your particular koryu, but purely in a modern format with modern weaponry, it could no longer be considered a koryu art as far as I can figure. While I can easily see how the methods and strategy of a koryu could be transferred to the utilization of modern weaponry, I feel that you would first have to learn the methods and strategy of the school through the traditional weaponry that they were created for. I don't see how it would be possible to transmit the essence of the school strictly using modern weaponry.

Perhaps it is destined to pretty much be an individual pursuit for people that want to go that far, rather than a group practice thing.

I think that's exactly true, and why the koryu are still as small as they are. There just aren't that many people willing to put in the effort required to learn it properly.

Those are my thoughts on it, for what they're worth. I readily acknowledge that I don't have nearly the koryu experience that Ellis does, nor the writing skills that both of you have shown to clearly share my thoughts and ideas, so I hope I haven't muddled them too badly.