# Takamatsu Toshitsugu - Anyone meet him?



## Rook (Sep 9, 2006)

I was reading through some of the ninjutsu information, and found out that Takamatsu Toshitsugu didn't die until 1972; I had always assumed he had died much earlier.  There should actually be a fair number of people still out there then that met him before his death.  Has anyone on here met him?  What were your impressions or thoughts?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Sep 10, 2006)

Apart from Doron Navon, I think you'll have a hard time finding someone who met him who doesn't have almond-shaped eyes...


----------



## ginshun (Sep 11, 2006)

Wasn't he supposedly pretty secret about being a martial arts teacher?  Seems to me that I had heard somewhere that even his neighbors had no idea that he was a martial artist until after he died.

In any case, '72 is before I was even born.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 11, 2006)

I was still playing with my light brite and tinker toys then!


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 11, 2006)

On a similar note, did he have any other students other than Mr. Hatsumi who were given teaching licenses?  If so, were any of them before Mr. Hatsumi, and do they teach?  Are they separate from the Bujinkan, or are they under Mr. Hatsumi, even if they were trained before him?


----------



## Dale Seago (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> On a similar note, did he have any other students other than Mr. Hatsumi who were given teaching licenses?



Yup.



> If so, were any of them before Mr. Hatsumi, and do they teach? Are they separate from the Bujinkan, or are they under Mr. Hatsumi, even if they were trained before him?



As far as I know Takamatsu sensei did not grant further teaching licenses to others once he began teaching Hatsumi sensei and designated him Soke of the nine ryuha he taught him. Those others pre-Hatsumi who were given licenses by Takamatsu and who are still alive, are not in the Bujinkan. For more precise details, ask a Genbukan representative (nudge nudge, wink wink).


----------



## budoboy (Sep 12, 2006)

Yeah, the Genbukan would know about Takamatsu's other students   I actually thought that all of them (at least with teaching credentials) were now dead but "Toshitsugu Takamatsu - The Last Shinobi " by Wolfgang Ettig  mentioned he had a student he gave menkyo kaiden in Kukishinden Ryu (or some branch of it) who still teaches in Japan and is 73 years old now (not Hatsumi).  I don't have the book with me so I don't have his name.

Jeff Sherwin


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

Dale Seago said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know Takamatsu sensei did not grant further teaching licenses to others once he began teaching Hatsumi sensei and designated him Soke of the nine ryuha he taught him. Those others pre-Hatsumi who were given licenses by Takamatsu and who are still alive, are not in the Bujinkan. For more precise details, ask a Genbukan representative (nudge nudge, wink wink).


 

Thank you for the reply, that is interesting to note.

I sense a bit of, perhaps, sarcasm in your response regarding Genbukan.  I don't know anything about them, and very little about Bujinkan so my questions are real and not politically motivated.  I am just interested.

Do you feel that somehow Genbukan and other lineages that may exist from Takamatsu's other students are somehow illegitimate, or less than Bujinkan?  I mean if these others also received full teaching licenses from Mr. Takamatsu, how could they be considered less?  I understand that Mr. Hatsumi was ultimately the assigned inheritor, but that shouldn't lessen what the others learned before him and for what they were given full teaching license.  I guess Mr. Hatsumi was given greater authority as the leader, but I don't see how that affects the others.  

Thanks.


----------



## Dale Seago (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Thank you for the reply, that is interesting to note.
> 
> I sense a bit of, perhaps, sarcasm in your response regarding Genbukan.



No, not really; but it leads to a potential "political can of worms" of which members of both organizations are well aware and which are probably best avoided here.



> I don't know anything about them, and very little about Bujinkan so my questions are real and not politically motivated. I am just interested.



No worries, that's how I took it.



> Do you feel that somehow Genbukan and other lineages that may exist from Takamatsu's other students are somehow illegitimate, or less than Bujinkan? I mean if these others also received full teaching licenses from Mr. Takamatsu, how could they be considered less?



No, I don't think so at all, they're just different from the Bujinkan. And historically, it was not that unusual in Japan for someone to receive menkyo kaiden or equivalent level in one or more arts and then found "his own art" based primarily upon it/them.



> I understand that Mr. Hatsumi was ultimately the assigned inheritor, but that shouldn't lessen what the others learned before him and for what they were given full teaching license. I guess Mr. Hatsumi was given greater authority as the leader, but I don't see how that affects the others.



It doesn't affect the others. It's just that as Soke of the arts comprising the Bujinkan, Hatsumi sensei is the one entrusted by the preceding Soke (Takamatsu) with their maintenance and with the direction they may take into the future.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

Dale Seago said:


> No, not really; but it leads to a potential "political can of worms" of which members of both organizations are well aware and which are probably best avoided here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Fair enough.  thanks


----------



## arnisador (Sep 12, 2006)

Dale Seago said:


> And historically, it was not that unusual in Japan for someone to receive menkyo kaiden or equivalent level in one or more arts and then found "his own art" based primarily upon it/them.



In the FMA we often consider this to be healthy innovation, but I know that in many places it is considered disrespectful. Was this practice frowned on in such arts?


----------



## Kizaru (Sep 12, 2006)

arnisador said:


> In the FMA we often consider this to be healthy innovation, but I know that in many places it is considered disrespectful. Was this practice frowned on in such arts?


 
Typically what I've seen in Japan, when sokeship changes hands, the senior students are supposed to support the new soke, or quit.

By supporting the new soke, they're keeping the time and energy the former soke and other seniors invested in them within the tradition, as well as keeping their own valued experience within the group. People that split off rather than continue to contribute to the group that "brought them up" are typically seen as rivals or worse.

I'm not saying this is good or bad or if I agree with it or not. Its just what I'm seeing from my perspective.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 13, 2006)

Kizaru said:


> Typically what I've seen in Japan, when sokeship changes hands, the senior students are supposed to support the new soke, or quit.


 
If that were always the case, there would have been a lot less Ryu in Japan. I can certainly see quitting using the school name, but starting a new one would probably have been the alternative.

Not to divert the thread, but who was Takamatsu's primary teacher, and did anyone meet him?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 13, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> If that were always the case, there would have been a lot less Ryu in Japan. I can certainly see quitting using the school name, but starting a new one would probably have been the alternative.



Not when a soke died.

In the days when there was a lot of battles, it was not uncommon for people to train with a school and learn all they could. But when they got into real battle themselves, they learned new things from their experiences. They tended to make their own school to distance what they did from the original school. To teach something that the Soke did not authorize or teach while using the name would be unforgivable. And why should the soke get the credit for lessons they learned in real battle?

But for those that did not get into battles, they tended (it seems to me) to just keep learning from the school as much as they could. So if they had no battle experience before the soke died, they would do as Kizaru says. If they had battle experience, they would be doing their own thing before the soke died.

Did that make sense? It has been a long day at work.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 13, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Not when a soke died.
> 
> In the days when there was a lot of battles, it was not uncommon for people to train with a school and learn all they could. But when they got into real battle themselves, they learned new things from their experiences. They tended to make their own school to distance what they did from the original school. To teach something that the Soke did not authorize or teach while using the name would be unforgivable. And why should the soke get the credit for lessons they learned in real battle?
> 
> ...


 
Yes, it does. Your example seems to use the one school scenario. I was probably thinking of those that studied under many schools (with or without battlefield experience), holding several menkyo, and creating something of their own, but, that would still be a meld of pieces from different schools, unless it was newly made up based on that person's insights into their previous training. 

Given the period, I am sure that battlefield experience trumped dojo training.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Sep 13, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Not to divert the thread, but who was Takamatsu's primary teacher, and did anyone meet him?


 
Shinryuken Masamitsu Toda. Yes, Ishitani did meet him.:ultracool


----------



## Rook (Sep 13, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Not when a soke died.
> 
> In the days when there was a lot of battles, it was not uncommon for people to train with a school and learn all they could. But when they got into real battle themselves, they learned new things from their experiences. They tended to make their own school to distance what they did from the original school. To teach something that the Soke did not authorize or teach while using the name would be unforgivable. And why should the soke get the credit for lessons they learned in real battle?
> 
> ...


 
Wait.  The ryus weren't founded until the peace of the Edo period.  How would a person learn in battle and break off from a ryu then?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Sep 13, 2006)

Rook said:


> Wait. The ryus weren't founded until the peace of the Edo period.


 
Seems to be some sort of a misunderstanding here again.



Rook said:


> How would a person learn in battle and break off from a ryu then?


 
Dojo yaburi.


----------



## Kizaru (Sep 15, 2006)

Rook said:


> Wait. The ryus weren't founded until the peace of the Edo period.


 
I believe you have been misinformed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 15, 2006)

Kizaru said:


> I believe you have been misinformed.


 
I would second that.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 15, 2006)

Rook said:


> Wait.  The ryus weren't founded until the peace of the Edo period.  How would a person learn in battle and break off from a ryu then?



The ryuha system was around for centuries prior to the Edo period. It was not very popular until the Edo period, but there were quite a few like the Katori Shinto ryu, The Takeuchi ryu and others less known in the west that were around for a good long time before the Edo period.


----------



## Rook (Sep 15, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> The ryuha system was around for centuries prior to the Edo period. It was not very popular until the Edo period, but there were quite a few like the Katori Shinto ryu, The Takeuchi ryu and others less known in the west that were around for a good long time before the Edo period.


 
KSR has an official founding date of 1447 or 1480 depending on where I looked... so I guess I was mistaken.


----------

