# Questions regarding authentication



## RogueShooter06 (Aug 24, 2021)

I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.

There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.

To begin, there are many who claim that a Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi in Japan is the last living person who is a true teacher of ninjutsu, while others claim that he is a fraud, and presented their version of evidence to support it.

I have also read articles that claim that Ninjutsu in the United States is not authentic, and has reportedly been monetized by an individual named Stephen Hayes. Again, others in the martial arts community support Mr. Hayes as a true practitioner of Ninjutsu.

I want to know what the veteran practitioners and instructors in the martial arts community think of this, and how you determine who is telling the truth?

From what I have learned over the past several days, there are very few historical records to go on where Ninjutsu is concerned, and fewer still which have been translated into English.

The one that was recommended to me by a Mr. Antony Cummins, has also received discredit on a number of websites as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 24, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.


I am quite confident that every single person who responds will be a subject matter expert. And if they're not, how would you know?


RogueShooter06 said:


> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.


Several *hours*? Oh my! You must be exhausted!

So your idea of research means asking a bunch of random strangers to tell you what the answer is?

You already know the answer. There is no definitive answer.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Sounds to me like you know fully well that it's all BS, and you're looking for someone to give you that little tiny ray of hope.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 24, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different articles, and walked away with zero answers.


100% no **** posting here, if you are intrested in "ninjutsu" you should probbly seek private investigator training and similar.    

Thats at least the closest you can find to similar skills, that actually work.   Look into security pen testing as well, and similar things.   (you can learn camoflauge **** and small unit tactics from some tactical trainers, or maybe find a mil sim group that could hook you up)

Not the end all be all of answers, but apply research into things of this vein.     Just as a disclaimer the laws about private security and what they can do vary greatly globally, and so does the quality of military training and police training, and private companies quality varies a bit as well. 

You can also get a actual job off this education/training and actual qulifications.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

BTW, wasn't Seiko Fujita the last Japanese government-recognized shinobi?  It's funny how it wasn't until after his death - the death of the last person who could authoritatively call BS - that "ninjutsu" started popping up everywhere.


----------



## RogueShooter06 (Aug 24, 2021)

I really wasn’t expecting such replies from members of the martial arts community, but I guess that assholes are everyone, including here.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> BTW, wasn't Seiko Fujita the last Japanese government-recognized shinobi?  It's funny how it wasn't until after his death - the death of the last person who could authoritatively call BS - that "ninjutsu" started popping up everywhere.


I think thats his name, there is very definitively one man named "offical ninja" and he left no heir.     It would be intresting to know if these schools exist in japan and what capacity (since most of these regualtory bodies are japanese)

Although, just read more of the OP, i dont think peopelc ite the actual doccument of that, just he is and by either the governemnt or a regualtory body in japan or other body in japan.   ( i have heard he was curator of the ninja musuem, or the ninja musuem gave him/somone the title/honour)


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I really wasn’t expecting such replies from members of the martial arts community, but I guess that assholes are everyone, including here.



People tend to eat their young on old school message boards.  I got it when I first got here, and I'm still not sure that I'm completely out of the woods yet.  You'll be fine.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 24, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I really wasn’t expecting such replies from members of the martial arts community, but I guess that assholes are everyone, including here.


There are some on here who will likely have good answers for you. It's working hours for a lot now so may have to wait a few hours.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different articles, and walked away with zero answers.
> 
> To begin, there are many who claim that a Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi in Japan is the last living person who is a true teacher of ninjutsu, while others claim that he is a fraud, and presented their version of evidence to support it.
> 
> I have also read articles that claim that Ninjutsu in the United States is not authentic, and has reportedly been monetized by an individual named Stephen Hayes. Again, others in the martial arts community support Mr. Hayes as a true practitioner of Ninjutsu.


Okay, your answers are going to depend on what you mean by "validity" and "ninjutsu."

For the sake of discussion, let's define "ninjutsu" as a sub-category of historical Japanese martial arts traditions which were largely concerned with subjects that we would classify in modern terms under military intelligence, espionage, recon, or special force operations. That's probably not exactly right from a pedantic historical perspective, but it gets us in the right ballpark.

There are a number of historical (koryu) Japanese arts which still include some small aspects of "ninjutsu" in their traditions (or at least their documents, I don't know how much they are actually practiced). These would typically just be mundane things like methods for estimating enemy troop numbers, not vanishing in a puff of smoke.

As far as Hatsumi goes, he runs an organization named the Bujinkan and under that he teaches his interpretation of 9 martial arts traditions that he legitimately inherited from his teacher, Toshitsugu Takamatsu. Of those 9 traditions, 3 are considered to be forms of "ninjutsu." Also, of those 9 traditions, 3 are historically documented to have existed before Takamatsu started teaching them. _However _- the 3 which are known for sure to be genuine historical martial arts are _not _the same as the 3 which are considered to be ninjutsu arts.

So, what about the other 6 martial arts (including 3 "ninjutsu" systems) which were taught by Takamatsu but which can't be verified to exist prior to his teaching? It's hard to say exactly. We do know that his claimed lineage for those systems is at least highly exaggerated. Some students of the art have been doing research and think they have found evidence that Takamatsu did have a teacher from a family which had a history of being involved in the sort of military operations which might be associated with our ideas of ninjutsu. Perhaps that teacher did pass on some or all of those arts under the names they have now, or perhaps Takamatsu synthesized some or all of these arts in their present form based on his other studies and then invented a long line of supposed prior grandmasters to give them a sense of legitimacy. We'll probably never know for sure.

Whatever their historical origin, the "ninjutsu" aspects of the Bujinkan arts (stealth, intelligence gathering, etc) are only a very small portion of the normal curriculum. The overwhelming majority of the training in the Bujinkan is oriented towards unarmed and armed fighting methods. (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is the blanket term for Hatumi's personal synthesis of the 9 systems he learned from Takamatsu.) In decades past, Hatsumi and the Bujinkan leaned a lot more on selling the system as "ninjutsu", primarily as a marketing tool. These days it is typically presented more as just an historical martial art with modern application.

Steve Hayes is just one of many people who trained in the Bujinkan for a while, was granted instructor licensure, and then broke off to do his own thing. At this point there are a number of organizations which have splintered off from the Bujinkan for one reason or another. Some have changed  the curriculum drastically, others not so much.

So getting back to the question of "legitimacy", Hatsumi is the legitimate headmaster of a number of martial arts that were passed on to him by his teacher. Some of those arts are definitely legitimately historical. Some of those arts may or may not be historical. This includes the "ninjutsu" systems which _might _have a direct lineage connection to actual historical "ninjas" or _might _be educated reconstructions with only a loose lineage connection to historical ninjutsu or _might _be just completely made up by Takamatsu out of his own head. At this point I don't believe that anyone living really knows for sure.

The other "legitimacy" question which gets raised is whether the techniques and training methods of the Bujinkan and it's offshoots (commonly referred to as the X-kans) actually work and are effective for their intended purpose. This is a more contentious issue and I feel compelled to mention that the MartialTalk terms of service prohibit art bashing. From my own experience in the Bujinkan, I would say that it includes some genuinely valuable concepts and principles as well as some techniques which can be effective under the right circumstances. I would also say that the training methodology is not one which I would personally recommend and that this approach to training has led to some techniques being taught by some instructors which range from sub-optimal to absolute suicidal nonsense.

I hope this helps.


----------



## dunc (Aug 24, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay, your answers are going to depend on what you mean by "validity" and "ninjutsu."
> 
> For the sake of discussion, let's define "ninjutsu" as a sub-category of historical Japanese martial arts traditions which were largely concerned with subjects that we would classify in modern terms under military intelligence, espionage, recon, or special force operations. That's probably not exactly right from a pedantic historical perspective, but it gets us in the right ballpark.
> 
> ...


I think this is a good summary of the situation

For more recent information on the connection between today and the schools from Iga (some of which are ninpo) see Sean Askew and Kacem Zoughari. Both have published their research openly in English language


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2021)

dunc said:


> I think this is a good summary of the situation
> 
> For more recent information on the connection between today and the schools from Iga (some of which are ninpo) see Sean Askew and Kacem Zoughari. Both have published their research openly in English language


Do you have any links to what Askew and Zoughari have written? I think I may have seen some of Askew’s posts,  but it’s been a few years so there may have been updates. I don’t know that I’ve seen any of Zoughari’s research.


----------



## dunc (Aug 24, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Do you have any links to what Askew and Zoughari have written? I think I may have seen some of Askew’s posts,  but it’s been a few years so there may have been updates. I don’t know that I’ve seen any of Zoughari’s research.


Both have published books
Sean Askew put a fair bit up on his Facebook account
Kacem may have some YouTube content, but not sure….


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2021)

dunc said:


> Both have published books
> Sean Askew put a fair bit up on his Facebook account
> Kacem may have some YouTube content, but not sure….


Thanks! I see that Askew’s book is available for free with my Kindle Unlimited subscription, so I’ll check that out first.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 26, 2021)

Okay, this might be a bit... and, honestly, potential the most controversial answer I could give here... let's see how we go!



RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.



So, before we even get started, there's a few things to look at here... firstly, this is a worldwide forum, and anyone who wants can answer anything they want... regardless of your wishes. You can ask that those who answer qualify their answers with their experience, but that's about as good as you can get... and, to a fair degree, you'll need to take it on faith. That said, Tony trained in the Bujinkan for a while back in the day, Dunc is a long-time member of the Bujinkan, and as for myself, I have been training and teaching the Takamatsuden arts for near-onto three decades now. My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...). All other members posting on this thread as of now are not practitioners, nor have they had much experience or exposure beyond you-tube, and conversations in places such as this.

Next, you say that this is for a "research article" you're writing? For who? What level of "research" does this article require? Cause, to be honest, this is not what I would consider actual research...



RogueShooter06 said:


> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.



Yeah, honestly, not surprising. Most (well, really, all) people will write or comment from their own perspective, and with their own agenda... and, in the case of something like the Bujinkan, where much of it centres around the personality of Hatsumi, there can be some very emotional, if not entirely rational, reasoning made on both sides... often from a place of ignorance and blinders, frankly. This ranges from people who will belittle the martial approach without ever having tried or experienced it, nor attempting to come to understand it in any way, through to what I would class as "true believers", who will excuse anything, and often come to some rather odd conclusions regarding what it is they do...



RogueShooter06 said:


> To begin, there are many who claim that a Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi in Japan is the last living person who is a true teacher of ninjutsu, while others claim that he is a fraud, and presented their version of evidence to support it.



It's actually a bit more nuanced than that... the claims aren't necessarily that Hatsumi himself is a fraud (although that implication can certainly be inferred by looking at the surface), it's that a number of the arts he teaches are potentially fraudulent in their historical claims... Tony touched on it, but I'll get a bit more into detail in a bit.



RogueShooter06 said:


> I have also read articles that claim that Ninjutsu in the United States is not authentic, and has reportedly been monetized by an individual named Stephen Hayes. Again, others in the martial arts community support Mr. Hayes as a true practitioner of Ninjutsu.



Stephen Hayes was the first American to study with Hatsumi, going to Japan in 1975, gain a teaching rank, and bring the art back to the US in the early 80's. For clarification, he was not the first American to study with Hatsumi... nor was he the first non-Japanese to gain a teaching rank... but his family background in marketing, and his training in theatre, made for someone who was able to publicise the newly introduced art very well, and present it in a way that generated interest by capturing imagination, more than any other method. An art linked with mythical "ninja" was pretty much custom made for such an endeavour... and Hatsumi really didn't do much to minimise that (in fact, very much the opposite!). Of course, the question would be why monetising the art would make it inauthentic? After all, monetising a hamburger by franchising out stores doesn't make the meal itself not a hamburger anymore... quality may indeed suffer, but that doesn't make it not authentic anymore...

When it comes to "ninjutsu in the United States", however, we don't just look to Hayes and the Bujinkan... we need to bring in people such as Ronald Duncan, who claimed to be a teacher of Koga Ryu Ninjutsu, which he said he was taught by Donn Draeger (a Marine, Judoka, and one of the great pioneers of Classical Japanese martial arts in the West). Draeger studied a number of arts, and helped revitalise the study of hoplology (think anthropological combative studies, or the study of combative teachings and methods from a variety of cultures), including the study of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, a classical sword art that includes teachings of ninjutsu (after a fashion). Draeger wrote one of the first books on the subject as well, "Ninjitsu (sic): The Art of Invisibility". His real connection to Duncan, though, was that he was a senior at Duncan's Judo club... before Draeger went to Japan. So no chance Donn could have taught Ron an art he never studied, that didn't exist anymore, and that he hadn't started any research in himself.

Duncan, realistically, did a bit of an off-shoot Aikijutsu art (Hakko Ryu), some karate, some judo, and spun a tale about retroactively teaching "ninjitsu" (sic) about a decade before Hayes started publicly demonstrating and teaching, claiming to have been teaching it privately (and secretly)... his demonstrations, though, belie no authentic Japanese classical approach at all, and a mish-mash of weaponry and techniques from Okinawa, Japan, China, and so on... in other words, despite his followers claims, the likelihood of Duncan teaching, knowing, or studying such an art.

There are others as well... the concept of a secret art of Japanese secret agents living and working in the shadows throughout Japan's histories seems to invite people to create fanciful stories to con people... something of a worldwide situation there, though. I could cite examples throughout the US, Australia, South America, Africa, the UK, and Japan... and I'm sure there are plenty in most of the rest of Europe as well, if I could read their websites!



RogueShooter06 said:


> I want to know what the veteran practitioners and instructors in the martial arts community think of this, and how you determine who is telling the truth?



This is the problem... you can't. All you can do is look at the available evidence, and make up your own mind. That said, if the evidence doesn't support it, even if it doesn't absolutely rule it out, then a reasonable response should be to err on the side of caution rather than faith... unfortunately, most tend to rely on their own faith and pre-determined expectations and opinions... which makes them somewhat blind to what's actually in front of them.



RogueShooter06 said:


> From what I have learned over the past several days, there are very few historical records to go on where Ninjutsu is concerned, and fewer still which have been translated into English.
> 
> The one that was recommended to me by a Mr. Antony Cummins, has also received discredit on a number of websites as well.



The first thing to understand is that Japan was a highly documentary culture... records were kept on pretty much everything. However, the idea of ninjutsu being separated out from basic military methodologies just wasn't a part of it. Looking for specific accounts would be like looking for military texts that only deal with marching... it's just a part of how a military group operates. Many classical systems included (and still retain) "ninjutsu" teachings, such as the aforementioned Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Tatsumi Ryu, Araki Ryu, and more. But this gets to the first thing Tony talks about, which is how you define the idea of "ninjutsu" along the way... if you include the popular image of "assassination", then you have to include pretty much all samurai arts as well... as that's really not a "ninja" thing... ha!

For the record, though, no, Antony Cummins is not recommended in any way, shape, or form. He is a publicity hound with no real credentials, no skill in reading or speaking Japanese, using a team (basically a "Kanji Study Club") to do the actual translations, then he re-writes them to suit his own (deeply lacking) understanding and perceptions. His works are often minor, largely unimportant texts that he over-inflates in importance to make himself (and his work) seem far more important than they are. He has no clue as to the minimalist scope they actually apply to, and he presents a small work in a minor domain from a particular period of time as representative of all samurai culture and history... as he has literally no idea what he's talking about. Avoid entirely. (By the way, this is the highly sanitised version of why to avoid him... there's a hell of a lot more...)



Urban Trekker said:


> BTW, wasn't Seiko Fujita the last Japanese government-recognized shinobi?  It's funny how it wasn't until after his death - the death of the last person who could authoritatively call BS - that "ninjutsu" started popping up everywhere.



Fujita Seiko claimed to be the last (14th) head of Wada-ha Koga Ryu Ninjutsu. He was a prolific martial researcher, and quite a character in and of himself... some of the stories told almost beggar belief (one has him intimidating a group of yakuza in a restaurant by taking a blade, slicing thin strips of his own thigh off, cooking them, and presenting them to the yakuza...). He was legitimately an experienced, master-level practitioner of Shito Ryu karate, Shingetsu Ryu Shurikenjutsu, and was said to have practiced at time arts such as Shindo Muso Ryu Jojutsu, various Bojutsu, Kenjutsu, and Jujutsu systems, and more. He made the decision to not pass the ninjutsu tradition to anyone, although he did teach the other arts to a number of students (some stated he occasionally demonstrated something, and said "this is the ninjutsu way", but he never formally taught the art). He died in the mid-60's from cirrhosis of the liver (although there is a persistent report that he died in a car accident in 1966 with his three top "ninja" students... this is not the case).

All that said, the idea of there being a "government recognised shinobi" is a bit of a fallacy in and of itself. Fujita is often described as the last "ninja' employed by the Japanese government, however his employment consisted of being a guest instructor at the Nakago Military Academy, who also hosted teachers of the newly emerging Aikido, and other karate teachers, as well as Iai and other arts. His employment was not as "a ninja".



RogueShooter06 said:


> I really wasn’t expecting such replies from members of the martial arts community, but I guess that assholes are everyone, including here.



Yeah... look, as the sentence structure there doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were discussing the idea that "opinions are like....", and weren't just being a rude, conceited child who didn't get exactly what he wanted immediately... right?



Rat said:


> I think thats his name, there is very definitively one man named "offical ninja" and he left no heir.     It would be intresting to know if these schools exist in japan and what capacity (since most of these regualtory bodies are japanese)



Fujita Seiko laid claim to being the last ninja... mind you, so did Takamatsu Toshitsugu (sometimes referred to as the last "combat ninja", as he relied on his combative skills, including swordsmanship and other weaponry, in his exploits in China in the early 20th Century)... and today, Kawakami Jinichi is described by the Iga-Ryu Ninja Museum as being the last genuine ninja... mind you, he's also the honorary curator, so that might have some influence there....

Kawakami came onto the scene about a decade and a half ago, seemingly emerging out of the shadows (ha!), with a similar claim to Fujita's and Takamatsu's... in that, as a child, an older man (grandfather or uncle in Fujita's and Takamatsu's case, just a guy in a park in Kawakami's) instructed the youth in the ways of ninjutsu before disappearing or dying, leaving the young person to hide their art for decades, before finally revealing themselves and their claims to the public. He claims to also have a Koga Ryu line, referred to as Ban-ke Shinobi no Den, teaching Koga Ban Ryu Ninjutsu, along with a number of combative arts of varying skills. To add to his credibility, Kawakami came out to the US around 2008 or so, and gave a lecture and demonstration to interested people, including a number of well known koryu teachers and practitioners. The basic consensus was that "if it was real, his story was, in the main, how it would have been passed down" (paraphrasing)... however that is far from validation. In 2011, he also took a position as a professor at Mie University, where the study of ninja and ninjutsu is actually something you can get a degree in (whether or not that's simply catering to a market, or is a legitimate area of study, is the debate...).

Out of these three potential "last ninja", Fujita didn't teach anyone his ninjutsu arts, Kawakami has taught them (his most senior student is Kiyomoto Yasushi), but has stated publicly that he is not passing the title of soke onto anyone, stating that ninjutsu has little to offer a modern world. Kiyomoto is teaching the Banke arts, including the ninjutsu side of things, and has followers and students of his own, in Spain dominantly, although he is reportedly no longer taking on any new students himself.



Rat said:


> Although, just read more of the OP, i dont think peopelc ite the actual doccument of that, just he is and by either the governemnt or a regualtory body in japan or other body in japan.   ( i have heard he was curator of the ninja musuem, or the ninja musuem gave him/somone the title/honour)



There is no government or "regulatory" body in Japan or elsewhere that accredits, acknowledges, or grants validity to any form of martial system whatsoever. There are a couple of cultural promotion societies (such as the Nippon Kobudo Shinyokai) that acts as a sort of basic level of legitimacy, but those groups are not arbiters of anything other than stating that their members are, well, their members. Then you have a range of status' that various levels of government (local/prefectural, federal etc) might decide to grant to a particular school, or dojo, or system... the most famous of which is the Katori Shinto Ryu's granting of a status of "intangible cultural asset" in the 1960's, due to the work (and, likely, lobbying) of the late Otake Risuke and his teacher, Hayashi Yazaemon. This was originally prefectural (and the first of it's kind to be given to a martial tradition), but all it says, really, is that the art is valued as a cultural treasure of the area, not any specific claim or validation of it's history.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay, your answers are going to depend on what you mean by "validity" and "ninjutsu."



Tony's done a good job overall, so I'm not going to overly disagree with his comments, but will add to them.



Tony Dismukes said:


> For the sake of discussion, let's define "ninjutsu" as a sub-category of historical Japanese martial arts traditions which were largely concerned with subjects that we would classify in modern terms under military intelligence, espionage, recon, or special force operations. That's probably not exactly right from a pedantic historical perspective, but it gets us in the right ballpark.



That's one version of "ninjutsu", and certainly the more, I suppose, standard one. There is a secondary (historical) application of the term, or at least a historical equivalent, which would apply to various groups geographically centred around the historical regions of Iga (present-day Mie Prefecture), and Koga/Kohka (present-day Shiga Prefecture). This idea comes from a number of families in the area, most famously the big three, the Momochi, Fujibayashi (with branches under the name "Ban"... and in Ban-ke, or "Ban Family" Shinobi no Den "Ninja transmissions"...), and the Hattori, itself with multiple branches. The latter of these included a leader known as Hattori Hanzo, a local bushi (warrior) who came into the employ of Tokugawa Ieyasu as he completed his control of the country. To this day, Tokyo (then known as Edo) has a gate in the north known as Hanzomon, or Hanzo's Gate.

Today, a third definition can also be applied... arts that are linked to the geographic location, whether tenuously or not... and that's where the modern arts of "ninjutsu" come into it. Where this leaves us is the question, and one that has been debated over and over, as to whether or not "ninjutsu" constitutes combative fighting techniques or not. Simply, the answer is no... however it can be expressed in conjunction with related combative methodologies, which is where the bushi of Iga and Koga come into it...



Tony Dismukes said:


> There are a number of historical (koryu) Japanese arts which still include some small aspects of "ninjutsu" in their traditions (or at least their documents, I don't know how much they are actually practiced). These would typically just be mundane things like methods for estimating enemy troop numbers, not vanishing in a puff of smoke.



In bushi traditions, this is correct. It was simply considered a part of a martial education, something that needed to be known in order to properly engage military troops. Of course, it depended greatly on the tradition itself... more rural (goshi) arts would be less likely to include  aspects of ninjutsu, but an art aimed at higher ranked (socially) samurai would often include them as part of a more complete education. Of course, it wouldn't always be called "ninjutsu"... Tatsumi Ryu, for example, refers to their scouting and intelligence teachings as "monomi". How much is taught, though, can vary from ryu to ryu... and even from branch to branch.



Tony Dismukes said:


> As far as Hatsumi goes, he runs an organization named the Bujinkan and under that he teaches his interpretation of 9 martial arts traditions that he legitimately inherited from his teacher, Toshitsugu Takamatsu. Of those 9 traditions, 3 are considered to be forms of "ninjutsu." Also, of those 9 traditions, 3 are historically documented to have existed before Takamatsu started teaching them. _However _- the 3 which are known for sure to be genuine historical martial arts are _not _the same as the 3 which are considered to be ninjutsu arts.



Not entirely correct... but pretty close. Let's see if we can clear it up a bit.

In the 1950's, a young Hatsumi Yoshiaki had studied karate and judo, heading towards martial arts early in life to avoid an alcoholic and abusive father. He had found, however, with a number of US GI's in Japan after WWII who he taught Judo to, they could often overcome his technique with sheer and simple strength... so, feeling that there must be a better approach, he began to seek out the older martial systems. His first teacher in this new/old approach was a man called Ueno Takashi, with whom he studied a few different arts, such as Bokuden Ryu Jujutsu and Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu, attaining Menkyo Kaiden in Asayama Ichiden Ryu within 3 years. In his original telling, Hatsumi then says that Ueno told him that he'd taught all he could, and to go further, he needed to talk to Ueno's teacher, a man named Takamatsu. Hatsumi, at the age of 28, then went and met Takamatsu, and became his student. Of course, the problems are that Ueno was not Takamatsu's student, he was a contemporary who trained with him, exchanging training concepts and arts in a number of ways... and that, after leaving Ueno (likely behind Ueno's back) to join Takamatsu, Ueno gave Hatsumi hamon... basically expelling or excommunicating him, making his ranking and licensing in the arts he learnt from Ueno all null and void.

However it happened, from around 1958, Hatsumi began studying with Takamatsu. Takamatsu, at this point, had semi-retired from teaching, after giving out the various arts he had studied to students such as Akimoto, Sato Kinbei, Kimura Masaji, and so on, but he took on Hatsumi as a new student (there are speculative reasons that I'm not going into here...). Hatsumi lived (and still does) in Noda, to the north of Tokyo, and Takamatsu lived in Kashihara, outside of Osaka... so Hatsumi took hours worth of trains to visit Takamatsu on the weekends to train and study. Two years later, Hatsumi was awarded soke in Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu (Ninjutsu), and Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu (according to the histories presented by the schools, both are Iga traditions) a year later. Over the next decade or so, he was also awarded licenses and soke titles in Koto Ryu Koppojutsu (also an "Iga" tradition), Gyokushin Ryu Ninjutsu, Gikan Ryu Koppotaijutsu, Kumogakure Ryu Ninjutsu (all also Iga schools, but these three are pretty much not taught... and there was a letter Hatsumi sent to the Kuki family after Takamatsu had passed on stating that he was the soke of 8 arts, not nine...figure that out for yourself...), and Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu, Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu, and Kukishinden Happo Biken... these are often cited as the "legitimate" ones that prove the others, but even there it's far more complicated and nuanced...

To begin with, let's look at each school individually. We'll start with the "ninja" ones... which is actually more than just three.

Togakure Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu, and Gyokushin Ryu are all classed as "ninjutsu/ninpo taijutsu", however neither Kumogakure Ryu nor Gyokushin Ryu have really been demonstrated/taught at all, so we can largely ignore them... in fact, Kumogakure Ryu was the "missing" school in the earlier correspondence with the Kuki family. Togakure Ryu was the first school that Hatsumi got licensing in, being given the title of soke after two years with Takamatsu, so it was the name under which Hatsumi began to teach. It also has the longest list of claimed headmasters at 34, so gets seniority of the traditions... when the Bujinkan first opened, it was described as teaching "Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu" as it's martial art of name, despite the variety of other arts housed under the Bujinkan's roof. These schools do not exist outside of the Takamatsuden traditions so there's little way to verify them outside of the records of the Bujinkan itself...

Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu, Koto Ryu Koppojutsu, and Gikan Ryu Koppojutsu are schools of various unarmed combat, said to come from the Iga region (giving them a "ninja" connection/status), and each are somewhat related, with Gikan's and Koto's histories both stating they were founded by different generational heads of Gyokko Ryu itself. These arts are also not found outside of the Takamatsuden, although a rather different version of Koto Ryu is found in Ueno Takashi's lineage, and Gikan Ryu is also taught in the Genbukan (headed by Hatsumi's cousin, and former Vice President of the Bujinkan, Tanemura Shoto... in fact, in a court case, it was declared that Tanemura's claim to being soke of Gikan Ryu was verified, but Hatsumi's was not... another wrinkle in the whole saga, really). What's most interesting is the terminology of the schools, being Koppojutsu (and it's variant, Koppotaijutsu) and Kosshijutsu. There is a modern Japanese art focusing on knife combat which also uses the term Koppo, but other than that, I haven't come across the term in any historical writings or systems... amusingly, I have seen a description of Gyokko Ryu as "the oldest form of Kosshijutsu still in existence"... my question would be, what others are there?

Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu gets a slightly special place, as the dojo Takamatsu was said to have been sent to as a 9 year old, which belonged to his uncle (Toda), was a dojo of Shinden Fudo Ryu. After a period of time, Toda was said to have taught the young Takamatsu Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Togakure Ryu... but the primary art was SFR. The problem starts to come up when we ask questions like "Which Shinden Fudo Ryu was taught there?" There are three main schools that used the name at least, being Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu, Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu, and Shinden Fudo Ryu Kenpo (interestingly, the founder of Bartitsu, a British martial art created by Edward Barton-Wright that served as the basis for the fictional art of Baritsu in the Sherlock Holmes novels, studied a form of jujutsu in Japan named as Shinden Fudo Ryu as well... although it's never clear which one). The Kenpo version is said to be extinct these days, whereas the Jutaijutsu, alternately known as Taijutsu, is also preserved in the Jinenkan, Genbukan, and Ueno lines, and was apparently also taught by Takamatsu along with the Dakentaijutsu... making it a bit murky as to which one the official school of Toda's dojo was... this is combined by conflicting information as to the lessons that Takamatsu received.

Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu is the next one... and this is one of the most legitimate arts that there are in the Takamatsuden arts... however, even it's not without it's issues. According to the histories, Takamatsu learnt two different forms of this art, known as the Ishitani-den and the Mizuta-den. The Ishitani-den is the primary version found in the Genbukan, and gets a full name of Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, whereas the Mizuta-den Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu is the one found in the Bujinkan and Jinenkan... These two lines get their name from the teachers of Takamatsu, with his first teacher being Ishitani Matsutaro, and then later receiving a second line from Mizuta Tadafusa, said to be a student of Fujita, who was a contemporary of Ishitani. To be honest, I haven't found much contemporary evidence of Mizuta outside of Bujinkan lineage lists... of course, I haven't seen everything related to the line, however it does open up the possibility that this lineage was created by Takamatsu to give Hatsumi a line of Takagi Ryu after already handing the soke-ship of the school (Ishitani-den) to Sato Kinbei... but this is conjecture on my part. It does, however, explain the differences between the two lineages, with the Mizuta-den seemingly a "simplified" version of the Ishitani teachings.

Kukishinden Happo Biken... okay, this one gets messy... You may note that I haven't used the term "Ryu" in the name here, and that's because, realistically, it shouldn't be applied here. The term "Kukishinden" here refers to the transmissions from Kukishin arts... and the make-up of the school as taught in the Bujinkan is put together from a couple of different expressions of Kukishin arts, as well as ones that were either created by, or largely adapted by Takamatsu himself. Sections such as the Dakentaijutsu, the Shoden/Chuden/Okuden sections of the Bojutsu are more properly called Kijin Chosui Ryu Kukishin Ryu... with Chosui being the name Takamatsu went by during his time as Shihan in the Kukishin Ryu. The Keiko Sabaki Gata for Bojutsu is largely derived from the mainline that Takamatsu taught there, but most of the rest is, simply, not. So, while Takamatsu was genuinely a Shihan of the Kukishin Ryu, that does not mean that what is taught in the Bujinkan (and related organisations) is the same thing... nor that they share the same legitimacy.

Of course, this also brings up a naming issue... outside of the Takamatsuden arts, I haven't come across terms such as Dakentaijutsu or Jutaijutsu... this is seemingly a way to differentiate different lines that Takamatsu was giving out, a way of creating lineages to avoid doubling up on licenses...



Tony Dismukes said:


> So, what about the other 6 martial arts (including 3 "ninjutsu" systems) which were taught by Takamatsu but which can't be verified to exist prior to his teaching? It's hard to say exactly. We do know that his claimed lineage for those systems is at least highly exaggerated. Some students of the art have been doing research and think they have found evidence that Takamatsu did have a teacher from a family which had a history of being involved in the sort of military operations which might be associated with our ideas of ninjutsu. Perhaps that teacher did pass on some or all of those arts under the names they have now, or perhaps Takamatsu synthesized some or all of these arts in their present form based on his other studies and then invented a long line of supposed prior grandmasters to give them a sense of legitimacy. We'll probably never know for sure.



Sadly, much of the "evidence" found by people such as Kacem Zoughari and Sean Askew are highly co-incidental, and far from conclusive... passing mention of locations or names that are then stretched to connect to the exaggerated or outright fictionalised histories presented. My personal conjecture on this (and, really, I doubt we'll ever know for certain) is that much of the arts are either altered versions of arts that Takamatsu legitimately held rank in (his personal name card when travelling to China described his ranking as "Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu"... no mention of other licences...), or ones that he developed, likely from his studies in the Kukishin archives (he had a large part in helping preserve the records, re-writing large portions of the Amatsu Tatara records, as well as helping reconstruct their naginata techniques), or from his travels in China, which is likely where Koto Ryu and Gyokko Ryu come from... but, again, this is my personal conjecture... although it does explain a fair bit of their methodology.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Whatever their historical origin, the "ninjutsu" aspects of the Bujinkan arts (stealth, intelligence gathering, etc) are only a very small portion of the normal curriculum. The overwhelming majority of the training in the Bujinkan is oriented towards unarmed and armed fighting methods. (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is the blanket term for Hatumi's personal synthesis of the 9 systems he learned from Takamatsu.) In decades past, Hatsumi and the Bujinkan leaned a lot more on selling the system as "ninjutsu", primarily as a marketing tool. These days it is typically presented more as just an historical martial art with modern application.



So, a bit to unpack here as well...

Yes, the "ninjutsu" (espionage, stealth, information gathering) is a minor aspect and rarely touched upon, with the emphasis being on Budo Taijutsu, as Tony says. When it comes to the naming, the original usage of the term Bujinkan is specific to the dojo that Hatsumi taught out of ("Kan" refers to a hall, or building), teaching Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu. As mentioned, that was due to the fact that this was the first art Hatsumi was given the headmastership of, so it was used as the "banner" art. This, naturally led to the dojo being seen as teaching "ninjutsu", even though the techniques drew from primarily non-"ninjutsu" arts (Gyokko, Koto, Takagi, Kukishin, and Shinden Fudo, with a bit of Togakure)... I'm not entirely sure I'd class that as "for marketing purposes"... Hayes, yeah, definitely leaned into the advertising, and I think Hatsumi did later, but initially, it was just due to the reasons above.

The next thing to look at is what is actually taught... and here's where it gets a bit bubble bursting for some, at least potentially.

You aren't learning any of the schools in the Bujinkan.

You aren't. They aren't taught, and honestly, they never were. In fact, I would suggest that Hatsumi never really learnt them... instead, he travelled to train with Takamatsu over the weekends over around 15 years... but it wasn't every weekend. In some cases, he would visit every few months (three or four times a year)... so, if we take that into account, it's highly doubtful that anyone, no matter how gifted, could fully master 9 separate complete arts, with their own individual quirks and traits, in such a short amount of training time. More likely (and realistically), Takamatsu gave lessons more in physical combative principles, and those were then applied across the board... but, even if the arts were fully and properly transmitted, they aren't taught today. Instead, what is taught is Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu... which, regardless of the historical questions or veracity of the various arts, isn't any of them. It's a modern system created by Hatsumi Masaaki, based on ideas taken and drawn from the various lineages, as well as using the kata of them as framework to explore the concepts.

This can be easily seen by looking at other lines of the same schools, and comparing them. In the Bujinkan, all the various ryu-ha have very similar postural concepts (a kamae called Hira Ichimonji turns up virtually identically in four or five of the schools taught, the idea of one foot forward, with the same side hand extended, the rear held back, the weight back, make up the frame for postures from Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Takagi Ryu, and Togakure Ryu)... the attacking method of a stepping straight punch is also consistent, as is the blocking method, as well as grappling concepts, and so on... of course, once you compare them with other lines of the same school, such as the Ueno-den approaches, or the mainline forms of Takagi or Kukishin Ryu, it becomes apparent that, simply speaking, the ryu-ha as done in the Bujinkan are wrong. Of course, that's only if you're looking at them as being the ryu-ha themselves... if you're wanting to study the Bujinkan, of course, you want the consistency... it's how the system works.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Steve Hayes is just one of many people who trained in the Bujinkan for a while, was granted instructor licensure, and then broke off to do his own thing. At this point there are a number of organizations which have splintered off from the Bujinkan for one reason or another. Some have changed  the curriculum drastically, others not so much.



Yeah... with me, it's drastic... ha!



Tony Dismukes said:


> So getting back to the question of "legitimacy", Hatsumi is the legitimate headmaster of a number of martial arts that were passed on to him by his teacher. Some of those arts are definitely legitimately historical. Some of those arts may or may not be historical. This includes the "ninjutsu" systems which _might _have a direct lineage connection to actual historical "ninjas" or _might _be educated reconstructions with only a loose lineage connection to historical ninjutsu or _might _be just completely made up by Takamatsu out of his own head. At this point I don't believe that anyone living really knows for sure.



I wouldn't personally put it that way... Hatsumi was given the soke title of a number of arts (8 or 9? or 6? hmmm...), however, frankly, he has really been soke in name only... after all, being soke is about being the guardian of the school, and if he isn't teaching them, or licensing in them (rank in the Bujinkan is in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, not any of the ryu-ha), then he isn't being the guardian of them, he's letting them die. What's a bit odd, to me, is the recent situation where he's given out the soke title for 8 out of the 9 ryu (the 9th has been stated, but not officially announced yet...), and he's split them up, giving them to individual people. This, really, only serves to split a power base, keeping Hatsumi above the others... if he gave all of them to one person, then that person would be the new go-to person, removing Hatsumi's power structure... of course, it's really quite symbolic, as the new "soke" aren't teaching the arts they've been given the title of guardian of... as, again, they haven't really been taught them (as distinct ryu-ha)... they're still teaching Budo Taijutsu, making them being soke rather irrelevant. In addition, a number of the new soke are in their 70's... which makes appointing them a rather questionable decision... after all, are they then going to have to pick someone new in a year or two? And what are the chances that another person could actually act as a soke to a tradition they've never really been shown? It's just a really bizarre set of circumstances...



Tony Dismukes said:


> The other "legitimacy" question which gets raised is whether the techniques and training methods of the Bujinkan and it's offshoots (commonly referred to as the X-kans) actually work and are effective for their intended purpose. This is a more contentious issue and I feel compelled to mention that the MartialTalk terms of service prohibit art bashing. From my own experience in the Bujinkan, I would say that it includes some genuinely valuable concepts and principles as well as some techniques which can be effective under the right circumstances. I would also say that the training methodology is not one which I would personally recommend and that this approach to training has led to some techniques being taught by some instructors which range from sub-optimal to absolute suicidal nonsense.



Yeah... I get what you mean... and, bluntly, from training in these arts for three decades, I agree completely. That said, I think this is a major failing of Hatsumi, a mixture of his need to be "on show", his lack of understanding of the structure of classical martial arts, his refusal to properly teach the arts in a consistent and systematic fashion, and his willingness to accept all manner of terrible performance in his organisation so long as they remain loyal members (even if that loyalty is bought with ridiculous ranks and other perks), and finally what I view as a complete lack of understanding of real violence. That said, this is not an issue if your aim is to find an art that allows you to be creative, flow, have a wide variety of experiences and tools (weapons), and some trappings of a "traditional" art... but if you think you're learning a genuine traditional art, if you think you're studying a historical system, if you think it's even representative of traditional Japanese martial arts (or, really, Japanese arts at all in many ways), then sadly, I feel you may be in for a bad experience.

This, of course, is not even consistent in itself... there are certainly instructors that do strive to be more understanding of such things as realities of violence, and take a much more systematic approach to their study... but I still wouldn't class any Bujinkan class as genuinely representative of traditional arts... in fact, in conversations with Bujinkan instructors, there is a major disconnect between a number of facets that are very much a part of traditional arts, but are completely missing in Bujinkan approaches, as well as misunderstanding such concepts as embu... no matter how dedicated and determined the instructor is.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I hope this helps.



As do I. Let's see how it goes!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 26, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Sadly, much of the "evidence" found by people such as Kacem Zoughari and Sean Askew are highly co-incidental, and far from conclusive... passing mention of locations or names that are then stretched to connect to the exaggerated or outright fictionalised histories presented.


I’m reading Askew’s book now and plan to give a quick review in this thread once I’m done. Unfortunately I am seeing some major issues in his reasoning and the quality of his evidence already. He seems to be operating from a mindset of “let’s assume that everything Takamatsu said and wrote is factual, then track down some historical events and names which might connect to that.” Maybe that will improve as I get further into the book. We’ll see.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 26, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I’m reading Askew’s book now and plan to give a quick review in this thread once I’m done. Unfortunately I am seeing some major issues in his reasoning and the quality of his evidence already. He seems to be operating from a mindset of “let’s assume that everything Takamatsu said and wrote is factual, then track down some historical events and names which might connect to that.” Maybe that will improve as I get further into the book. We’ll see.



Yeah, that's basically the feel of it... he did a facebook post recently titled something like "Togakure's Influence on Early Ninjutsu"... it was a translation of a text regarding certain mystical (spell) teachings from different areas, and Togakushi (the mountain or village, the document didn't specify) was mentioned... once. No connection to the school or anything else, just a mention of a place... 

As for Kacems' book, well, it's not great... most of it is poorly written, and contradictory in places, and the "modern history of ninjutsu" he presents is essentially Bujinkan propaganda barely veiled... not what I would consider historically valid tomes....


----------



## Nigel (Aug 26, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, that's basically the feel of it... he did a facebook post recently titled something like "Togakure's Influence on Early Ninjutsu"... it was a translation of a text regarding certain mystical (spell) teachings from different areas, and Togakushi (the mountain or village, the document didn't specify) was mentioned... once. No connection to the school or anything else, just a mention of a place...
> 
> As for Kacems' book, well, it's not great... most of it is poorly written, and contradictory in places, and the "modern history of ninjutsu" he presents is essentially Bujinkan propaganda barely veiled... not what I would consider historically valid tomes....


Just out of interest Chris,  you teach these traditions yourself so what difference is there in your teachings as opposed to the Bujinkan teachings? Specifically, Togakure Ryu? Do you follow the scrolls?

Takagi Yoshin Ryu
Kukishinden Ryu
Gyokko Ryu
Koto Ryu
Togakure Ryu
Shinden Fudo Ryu


----------



## Buka (Aug 27, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I really wasn’t expecting such replies from members of the martial arts community, but I guess that assholes are everyone, including here.


Relax, my brother. And welcome to Martial talk.

You can get some seriously good information here, from many, deeply experienced Martial Artists.

It's best to keep in mind that the Martial Arts Community is not only vast, but globally and intrinsically different. 

Welcome aboard, go forth and have fun, bro.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.
> 
> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.
> 
> ...


HI RogueShooter06, I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums. Some of the information in the thread is skewed to personal bias and/or ignorance. If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself. The 9 schools of the Bujinkan are

Takagi Yoshin Ryu
Kukishinden Ryu
Gyokko Ryu
Koto Ryu
Togakure Ryu
Shinden Fudo Ryu
Gikan Ryu
Gyokushin Gyu
Kumogakure Ryu
Maasaki (formerly Youshiaki) Hatsumi became Soke of these 9 schools in 1972 when Takamatsu died.

As you mentioned there is some dispute over the lineage of these schools. Sean Askew, who spent a decade training with Hatsumi before leaving in 2001 to form his own school, wrote a book call Hidden Lineage of the Ninja Toda Clan which claims to have filled in the blanks in the lineage issues. You will have to read it for yourself and decide for yourself.

Hidden Lineage - The Ninja of the Toda Clan: Sean Askew: 9780578513423: Amazon.com: Books


On the issue of Stephen Hayes, he was 10 Dan in Togakure Ryu in 1993. Stephen Hayes was the person who brought ninjutsu to the US in the 1980’s. It was not under the umbrella of the Bujinkan but Togakure Ryu. Hayes was removed from the Bujinkan in 2006 and the reasons for that removal is still somewhat blurred. Some say he was expelled others say he left.


Then we have a man called Wayne L Roy, an Australian who brought Togakure Ryu to Australia. Wayne L Roy went to Japan in 1980’s and trained then came back to Australia and started the first Togakure Ryu school. Suffice to say a lot of **** when down with Roy and in 1999 Hatsumi started collecting votes from foreign Shihan to remove Roy from the (now called) Bujinkan. It was a requirement that all Shihan had personal experiences of Roys actions to be able to vote. Only 3 Shihan voted but despite that Roy is no longer a member of the Bujinkan

Chris Parker is a student of Wayne L Roy and is not a member of the Bujinkan but has his own school which teaches 6 of those 9 schools mentioned.

The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.

I guess what I am saying RogueShooter06 is to do your own research and come to your own conclusions on this as you will not get any unbiased advice from these forums on the Bujinkan.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> HI RogueShooter06, I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums. Some of the information in the thread is skewed to personal bias and/or ignorance. If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself. The 9 schools of the Bujinkan are
> 
> Takagi Yoshin Ryu
> Kukishinden Ryu
> ...


You realize you bookended your post of information with statements that information on these forums is useless, right?

Also you made biased assumptions on the experience of two members while complaining about bias. 

I know nothing about what is/isn't correct here, but that is not a convincing way to make a point.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You realize you bookended your post of information with statements that information on these forums is useless, right?
> 
> Also you made biased assumptions on the experience of two members while complaining about bias.
> 
> I know nothing about what is/isn't correct here, but that is not a convincing way to make a point.


Nothing I have said is incorrect.

I am not complaining about bias, only pointing it out.. That’s why I said to Rogueshooter06 to form his own opinions.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> Nothing I have said is incorrect.
> 
> I am not complaining about bias, only pointing it out.. That’s why I said to Rogueshooter06 to form his own opinions.


If those others cannot be believed, why can you be?


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> If those others cannot be believed, why can you be?


What is it you don't believe?


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> HI RogueShooter06, I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums. Some of the information in the thread is skewed to personal bias and/or ignorance.



How are you detecting/assessing this bias?



Elninjo said:


> If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself. The 9 schools of the Bujinkan are
> 
> Takagi Yoshin Ryu
> Kukishinden Ryu
> ...



Does the Bujinkan teach these 9 schools?  I thought the art was 'Budo Taijutsu'



Elninjo said:


> Chris Parker is a student of Wayne L Roy and is not a member of the Bujinkan but has his own school which teaches 6 of those 9 schools mentioned.
> 
> The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.
> 
> I guess what I am saying RogueShooter06 is to do your own research and come to your own conclusions on this as you will not get any unbiased advice from these forums on the Bujinkan.



Pretty sure I saw something.. oh right, here it is:



Chris Parker said:


> My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).



Seems pretty straightforward and forthright.

It sounds from your posts Elninjo that you feel like the only source for 'unbiased' information would be from members of the Bujinkan?  You do realise that is the opposite of 'objective'?

For what it's worth the real valuable information in this space comes from historians and koryu practitioners in Japan.  The views they hold on the 'Takamatsuden' arts have been fairly clearly documented, despite the desperately parochial, biased efforts of Bujinkan students like Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

Absolutely agree that we are all bias in some way. We all put our own slant on things and no matter how much we talk about it there will always be those that disagree, thats the way of things. The Bujinkan does teach all of those 9 school in varying degrees. Why do you say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are bias?


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> Absolutely agree that we are all bias in some way. We all put our own slant on things and no matter how much we talk about it there will always be those that disagree, thats the way of things. The Bujinkan does teach all of those 9 school in varying degrees. Why do you say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are bias?



'In varying degrees'.  It either does or does not.  And it does not; it teaches Budo Taijutsu.

I say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are biased because they are Bujinkan students.  Why would you think they are not?


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

just one more thing you quoted BrendanF

Chris Parker said:
My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).

His school was not the original Bujinkan School in Australia. This is not true. His sensei's (Wayne L Roy) school may have been but not his.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> 'In varying degrees'.  It either does or does not.  And it does not; it teaches Budo Taijutsu.
> 
> I say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are biased because they are Bujinkan students.  Why would you think they are not?


Why would you think I think they are not? Just enquiring why you think they are.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> What is it you don't believe?


I have no idea if you are a credible source.  Why would I believe anything you say?  I only point this out because you are saying nobody else should be believed.  So why should you be?


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

*This is a quote from his website*

_The instructor at the Jukuren Dojo is Chris Parker. Mr. Parker has been the representative for Mr. Roy’s organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from his instructor in mid-2003._


Flying Crane said:


> I have no idea if you are a credible source.  Why would I believe anything you say?  I only point this out because you are saying nobody else should be believed.  So why should you be?


already been there Flying Crane, not repeating myself


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> just one more thing you quoted BrendanF
> 
> Chris Parker said:
> My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).
> ...


this is Chris Parkers website.

*Instruction | Jukuren Dojo Budo Heiho

This is a quote from his website*

_The instructor at the Jukuren Dojo is Chris Parker. Mr. Parker has been the representative for Mr. Roy’s organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from his instructor in mid-2003._

On the one hand he says he his school.was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981 but stil from the Bujinkan in 2001

And on the other he says Mr Parker has been a representative ofrm Mr Roys organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from Wayne L Roy in Mid 2003………………………….crickets


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> *This is a quote from his website*
> 
> _The instructor at the Jukuren Dojo is Chris Parker. Mr. Parker has been the representative for Mr. Roy’s organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from his instructor in mid-2003._
> 
> already been there Flying Crane, not repeating myself


Been where?  I just categorically don’t believe you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> this is Chris Parkers website.
> 
> *Instruction | Jukuren Dojo Budo Heiho
> 
> ...


When people say "my school was X" that's pretty universal to mean the school that I train at/go to. Not every time someone uses "my school" does it mean they're claiming literal ownership of the school.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> just one more thing you quoted BrendanF
> 
> Chris Parker said:
> My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).
> ...


Coming up, I always referred to the schools I attended as "my school". My students have commonly done the same. I refer to the ER I work in as "my ER" or "my hospital", but I certainly don't own them.
And in this specific case, it seems that the school Chris refers to as "his" is both his in the sense that he runs it, and the original Bujinkan school Australia, when it was being run by Wayne L Roy and Chris trained there.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Coming up, I always referred to the schools I attended as "my school". My students have commonly done the same. I refer to the ER I work in as "my ER" or "my hospital", but I certainly don't own them.
> And in this specific case, it seems that the school Chris refers to as "his" is both his in the sense that he runs it, and the original Bujinkan school Australia, when it was being run by Wayne L Roy and Chris trained there.


It’s sad that this apparently needs to be explained.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 27, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Dirty Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Coming up, I always referred to the schools I attended as "my school". My students have commonly done the same. I refer to the ER I work in as "my ER" or "my hospital", but I certainly don't own them.
> ...


It was not Bujinkan when it first came to Australia, it was only Togakure Ryu. The point I am making is that someone who comes from the Wayne L Roy "clan" is likely to be bias against the Bujinkan. Chris would be well aware of this dynamic. Has he ever mentioned he was a student of Wayne L Roy? Wayne L Roys name in the Bujinkan is mud and someone who teaches 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan himself, then criticized the Bujinkan for its "authenticity" tells a story


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> you will not get any unbiased advice from these forums on the Bujinkan.





Elninjo said:


> Absolutely agree that we are all bias in some way.


You are completely correct here. You won’t get unbiased opinions on any subject on this forum or any other. That’s because all these posts are written by humans and not omniscient gods. Everything any of us says or does not say comes from our individual perspectives shaped by our individual experiences, personalities, and values.

Being biased does not mean that someone is wrong or lying or ignorant. It just means that when they process the available information they will have a tendency to focus on certain aspects of the story and be predisposed to draw certain kinds of conclusions and possibly make mistakes in one direction rather than another if they do get things wrong.

It’s useful to be able to identify your own biases and those of your sources, because it can help warn you of where to look for errors or omissions. (Both in your own thinking and in the sources you rely on.) It’s not generally helpful to dismiss sources out of hand just for being biased, because there are no unbiased sources to be had here or elsewhere.


Elninjo said:


> I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums.


See my comments above regarding bias and objectivity. However if you think any of the specifics offered above are incorrect or non-factual, feel free to offer corrections. I should note that none of the information you’ve provided so far contradicts any of what we’ve written.


Elninjo said:


> The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.


I presume you are referring to Dunc and myself.

Dunc has been a member of the Bujinkan for over 30 years, teaches within the Bujinkan, has made numerous visits to Japan for training, and has written on more than one occasion on the value he finds in the training. I’m not sure where you would get the idea that he doesn’t like it much or that his credentials are dubious.

 I trained in the Bujinkan for about 9 years before I drifted away into other arts for a variety of reasons. Since then I’ve occasionally trained a little bit with other Bujinkan practitioners and kept up with some of the news from the organization and checked out videos of Bujinkan instructors to see how the art has evolved (or not) since I left.

As far as my biases, I have opinions regarding the curriculum, training methodology, and culture of the Bujinkan based on my first hand experience training there and my subsequent training in other arts over the almost 3 decades since I left. I proffered a very small portion of those opinions in my original post.

As far as the history goes, I just summarized information I’ve gotten from a number of people (inside and outside of the Bujinkan) who are much more knowledgeable than I am regarding Japanese history and traditional Japanese arts and the Takamatsuden arts in particular. I don’t pretend to have any first hand knowledge of the matter. I’m neither a time traveler nor a Japanese historian. I don’t even speak or read Japanese, so I’m not in a position to evaluate primary sources.


Elninjo said:


> If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself.





Elninjo said:


> I guess what I am saying RogueShooter06 is to do your own research and come to your own conclusions


And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical  bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan.

(I’ll leave aside the debate about whether the individual arts are “taught” within the Bujinkan or if it’s all Hatsumi’s personal synthesis of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. I know that the individual techniques and katas from the individual arts have been shown. I believe that when Chris says that the individual arts aren’t taught, he means that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies. We’ve had some discussions and debates in the past concerning our philosophies on how martial arts can be categorized and distinguished.)

BTW, I’m still planning on presenting a short book report with my impressions on Sean Askew’s book once I’m finished, in case anyone is considering checking it out for themself.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 27, 2021)

Honest question why does Bujikan always get brought up?     I know they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the ninja things and making that their main marketing in the ninja fad phase now that its reversed and become a joke.     But if what they say is true, they only have like 2 schools claimed from ninjutsu.  

(yes i know roughtly how classical japanese arts work with the structuring of many diffrent schools of thing together to make a "art/style", and ninjutsu if it existed would be done like that, hopefully that made sense, im struggling to explain and not using japanese)

Addendum:  Basically the last thing  i read on this ahd ninjutsu basically be like bushido, its a loos ename given for the ryu a Ninja/Samurai would attend in education to become such.     And japanese classcialy martiala rts seem to have 1+ schools inside a art.    So if it did exist, it would be done like that is what i was trying to explain, or in a similiar vein to that as thats how it was done (as far as i know) in japan.      God that was really hard to explain without falling into the pitfall of accidnetally saying "i think they exist" or implying that, and undoing my actual view.  The fact its japanese as well didnt help matters.     Try saying its a school within a school.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 27, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> Has he ever mentioned he was a student of Wayne L Roy?


Yep. On multiple occasions.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 28, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep. On multiple occasions.








						Question about Japanese Shihan
					

That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;)   Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong.   And...



					www.martialtalk.com
				




_I am an instructor under Sensei Wayne Roy, having joined his organsation in 1993, when we were still part of the Bujinkan (hence my ability to answer your history question... and yes, Stephen, it was Nagato. When Nagato accompanied Hatsumi Sensei out here for the first Australian Tai Kai, he used Sensei Roy as uke for the most part, the first thing Nagato Sensei said to Mr Roy was "Well Roy-san, it's been a long time... now, punch!"). I earned my Shodan while still in the Bujinkan, my later grade after we split. To give an idea, though, as I said in the other thread, Sensei Roy stopped at Rokudan, so Godan is as high as we go under him. I am currently a Sandan.

For more details, see the website in my signature._

Ok, did a search on Wayne L Roy and found this. So Chris Parker joined Wayne L Roy (in his own words) in 1993. Apparently when Wayne L Roy was still part of the Bujinkan…I seem to recall (and I can find it if you like) that Chris Parker said he gained his Shodan from the Bujinkan…..

So for Chris Parker to have earned his Shodan in the Bujinkan, it would have been sometime in 1996/1997. Shortly after that, Wayne L Roy was booted out of the Bujinkan so Chris Parker has not been a member of the Bujinkan for at _least_ 20 years yet having gained Shodan rank, he still purports to be an expert on it. Tony Dismukes you say _And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan._

so how can Chris Parker be any more enlightened than the rest of us? Some history to the readers on Wayne L Roys colourful background in Australia

Wayne Roy??

TENCHI
unread,

Jun 13, 1999, 5:00:00 PM

to

Why do they want Wayne Roy out of the Bujinkan???
All I could find about him was at the link below???
http://www.tesoma.com/
--
E
unread,

Jun 14, 1999, 5:00:00 PM


to

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:41:31 -0500, TENCHI <ten...@interlog.com>
wrote:

​
gees a reply to that could be a books worth  I'll give you some
major points, though it is still long.

- runs his school very much like a cult. in the eraly days some of his
senior students used to call it the 4th Reich, those of us outside the
school have obviously called it worse.
- he then started kicking out his dan ranks for "insubordination" and
training in other styles - no big deal his dojo right, but he told
them that they were also kicked out of the Bujinkan. His cult methods
ensured that most of these people believed him and some even spent
year in therapy.
- told people that without a personal letter from him you could not
train in Japan - same as Hayes here.
- forced his seniors to sign franchise agreements stating that if they
ever left the school that they would never teach martial arts again.
kicked out anybody who did not sign
- ran media campaigns against other Bujinkan instructors - including
paid for adverts in martial arts magazines stating that other specific
instructors were not qualified or recognised by the Bujinkan. one
particular instructor tried to encourage people to go to Japan for
training and offered to help them do so in a martial arts magazine and
was subjected to copious amounts of hate mail and also public attack
in the same magazine. Roy then started attacking the Bujinkan in
general when complaining about some twin 19 yearolds in England that
had passed their godan tests - regardless of the fact that they had
trained for over 10 years with Peter King - I have met one of these
boys and his skill is well above the average godan as is normal for
anybody out of Peter's dojo.
- tried to stop the Adelaide Taikai from happening in 1992 (1st Aussie
Taikai)
- ordered 63 dan ranks before this taikai many being sequences for the
same people - Hatsumi told me that it was obvious therefore that he
had no intention of getting legitimate ranks until he heard of the
Taikai. later Roy's rank fees were told to Hatsumi and myself by some
of his ex-students and you can imagine Hatsumi's reaction to finding
out that 3rd dans were $1000
- snubbed Hatsumi's Shidoshi-kai meeting at said taikai - was seen
entering a restaurant nearby with some friends instead.
- accused me of buying my rank at the time by running the taikai and
then mailed Hatsumi with a request for a higher rank for himself
- upon inviting Charles Daniels and Ed Martin to Australia in early
1993 he told his students to go to that rather than the planned Taikai
in the same year (the last taikai here) - Both Charles and Ed were
unable to convince Roy's students otherwise and if you want more
details on this contact Ed.
- boycotted the 1993 Taikai and threatened his students that if they
went he would remove them from his dojo, they were so cult programmed
that even though he has several dojo's in Sydney only two students of
his turned up and they tried to pass themselves off as kung-fu
students.
- tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
material by one Australian university for some time.
- has consistently insulted Hatsumi and the Japanese Shihan
- has modified (simplified and mutilated) the Bujinkan arts to the
point where they are only barely recogniseable - Hatsumi is refusing
to recognise the ranks he gives
- has not trained in Japan since 1990 when he turned up for 2 classes
and then took his students on a temple tour of Kyoto etc. heard this
before too eh.
- along with many other Australians that had not paid for their ranks
after 4 years or more he was demoted down to his last paid for rank.
- accused me again of buying ranks by running taikai's here. in fact I
tried to refuse my 8th at the Sydney Taikai but Hatsumi wouldn't allow
me too - anybody that knows me also knows that I was not subtle when
trying to refuse it either.
- since the late eighties Hatsumi has had on student after another of
Roys turning up to Japan - most have had to leave his dojo to do so
and have similar stories to tell. Hatsumi has also been unimpressed by
what these people thought was Bujinkan technique and asked Andrw Young
and Mark O'Brien to tour Australia in 1992 to help fix the standard
here. But what has been most noticeable is the culture of distrust and
aggression towards each other here by Roy people to no-Roy people and
ex-Roy people to everybody and it is quite obviously a product of his
cult teachings and methods. Sure it happens all over the world to an
extent and again I will say that if you want an outsiders view of how
bad it was here ask Ed Martin or Charles Daniels what they gleaned
about it in their 3 weeks here as guests of Roy. Needless to say that
Ed has joined me in voting for Roy's expulsion

so I guess people can come to their own conclusions on Chris Parkers credentials in the Bujinkan. Shodan is hardly an expert, In the Bujinkan, Shodan is just the beginning


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 28, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> Question about Japanese Shihan
> 
> 
> That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;)   Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong.   And...
> ...


Ah, so if I am understanding you correctly, your comments about the information in this thread being “skewed towards personal bias and/or ignorance” is aimed at Chris. Specifically, you feel that

Since Chris’s instructor in the Takamatsuden arts broke off from the Bujinkan under bad terms, that Chris may be biased against the Bujinkan.
Since Chris held only a low rank in the Bujinkan at the time of the schism, that he may not be particularly knowledgeable regarding Bujinkan history and training methods.
These are reasonable concerns. I’ll let Chris speak for himself on the specifics, but I’ll address what I can.

If Chris is biased _against_ the Bujinkan based on his membership in a breakaway organization, then Dunc should be biased _in favor_ of the Bujinkan, based on his status as a Bujinkan shihan who has spent decades training and teaching within the organization. Perhaps you can look to the areas where Chris and Dunc agree, on the grounds that their respective biases should cancel out.
One’s rank within the Bujinkan doesn’t necessarily give much insight into the historical accuracy of the claimed oral traditions of the Takamatsuden lineages. Bujinkan rank isn’t given out for historical research. Chris has spent the time to learn Japanese, study the general nature of historical Japanese arts (including actual training in a couple of koryu arts outside the Takamatsuden traditions), and done a bunch of research regarding the available information regarding Takamatsu’s background. Are his conclusions accurate? I don’t know. If you have concerns about the accuracy of specific assertions he has made (for example, the arts listed on Takamatsu’s name card when he went to China), then you can ask for his sources on that information.
Regarding Chris’s knowledge of how things are run in the Bujinkan since his departure from the organization, I believe he has maintained contacts and friendships within the Bujinkan (and possibly other X-kans) and has kept abreast of developments. I have done the same to a much lesser extent.
Regarding Chris’s technical knowledge of the specific Takamatsuden arts and/or Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (as opposed to his academic historical knowledge), that probably comes down largely to what he learned from Mr. Roy. I have no personal experience with Wayne Roy and I don’t know how technically skilled or knowledgeable he was as an instructor. The complaints you quoted above regarding Mr. Roy are largely concerned with his character, which is a separate matter from his skill and knowledge. I do know that Hatsumi granted Wayne Roy instructor (shidoshi) certification and the rank of rokudan. I also know that Hatsumi handed out a lot of high ranks which didn’t always correspond to high skill or knowledge. So I don’t have any evidence one way or the other on the subject. 
I’ll let Chris address any further considerations concerning his opinions and qualifications.

Putting Chris’s views aside, do you have any suggestions regarding your advice that the OP “do his own research” and how he might do that? Perhaps you might clarify your own background in the Bujinkan, your personal experiences with the Takamatsuden arts, and suggest accessible reliable historical resources? That might give the OP another perspective to consider.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 28, 2021)

Oh boy.... okay, kid, you want to play?



Elninjo said:


> Just out of interest Chris,  you teach these traditions yourself so what difference is there in your teachings as opposed to the Bujinkan teachings? Specifically, Togakure Ryu? Do you follow the scrolls?
> 
> Takagi Yoshin Ryu
> Kukishinden Ryu
> ...



See, at this point, I was going to answer you candidly, but instead, I'll just say that the way I now teach and train these arts is very, very different to the way the kata from them is presented in the Bujinkan... mainly as I believe the Bujinkan gets them all wrong (Togakure being the main one that is largely unaffected by my changes). Do I follow the scrolls? A hell of a lot more, and, I would posit, more accurately, than anyone I've ever seen in the Bujinkan...



Elninjo said:


> HI RogueShooter06, I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums. Some of the information in the thread is skewed to personal bias and/or ignorance. If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself. The 9 schools of the Bujinkan are
> 
> Takagi Yoshin Ryu
> Kukishinden Ryu
> ...



The problem there is that most of the "lineage" and "history" you'll come across for the majority is what is put forth by the Bujinkan (and related, such as the Genbukan, Jinenkan, etc)... so it becomes a loop of faith, as there are major historical issues with the claimed lineages and histories presented.



Elninjo said:


> Maasaki (formerly Youshiaki) Hatsumi became Soke of these 9 schools in 1972 when Takamatsu died.



No, he didn't. He became soke of Togakure Ryu in 1961, and was awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko Ryu some 6 months later... he was awarded the soke title in most of the others over the next 10 years or so, with some reports stating that he didn't actually get Gikan Ryu, but kinda begged for it, so had it added to his existing scrolls without patterns (which is why, when the school came up in a court case in Japan, it was ruled that Tanemura's claim to soke of Gikan Ryu was upheld, and Hatsumi's wasn't). Additionally, while these were all awarded a few years before Takamatsu passed on, even a couple of years after his passing, Hatsumi was presenting himself as the soke of 8 ryu, not 9... then, one day, he walked into the Bujinkan and announced that he was also soke of Gyokushin Ryu... which brought him to 9 ryu-ha... one coming well after the fact, one incomplete (and ruled against him in a court case), and one (Kumogakure) that hasn't been taught, and is said to be little more than a set of principles... rather than a complete ryu itself. Which takes us down to 6... co-incidentally the ones that are actually used as the basis for the Bujinkan's methods.



Elninjo said:


> As you mentioned there is some dispute over the lineage of these schools. Sean Askew, who spent a decade training with Hatsumi before leaving in 2001 to form his own school, wrote a book call Hidden Lineage of the Ninja Toda Clan which claims to have filled in the blanks in the lineage issues. You will have to read it for yourself and decide for yourself.
> 
> Hidden Lineage - The Ninja of the Toda Clan: Sean Askew: 9780578513423: Amazon.com: Books



Hmm... haven't heard of Sean "forming his own school"... as to the book, I'll let Tony talk about what he finds there... I've already commented on my take on Sean's research....
Hidden Lineage - The Ninja of the Toda Clan: Sean Askew: 9780578513423: Amazon.com: Books


Elninjo said:


> On the issue of Stephen Hayes, he was 10 Dan in Togakure Ryu in 1993. Stephen Hayes was the person who brought ninjutsu to the US in the 1980’s. It was not under the umbrella of the Bujinkan but Togakure Ryu. Hayes was removed from the Bujinkan in 2006 and the reasons for that removal is still somewhat blurred. Some say he was expelled others say he left.



Yes, it was under the umbrella of the Bujinkan, Togakure Ryu was the "banner school"... you really should learn the difference between those. As for Hayes' departure, that was an interesting time... he had begun to develop his personal approach, which he referred to as Toshindo (using a slightly inaccurate breakdown of the "nin" character), from around the year 2000 or so... but the bigger issue was apparently his issuing rank certificates in the ryu-ha names without Hatsumi's permission... of course, being the consulate marketing guy that he is, Hayes put on a show of visiting Hatsumi in Japan around 2005... in an attempt to show he was still "in"... not long afterwards, he had separated. The word from Japan at the time was that Hatsumi said "people can call it hamon (expulsion) if they want...", but he wasn't officially expelled... it was made clear, though, that training with him was not considered appropriate for Bujinkan members.



Elninjo said:


> Then we have a man called Wayne L Roy, an Australian who brought Togakure Ryu to Australia. Wayne L Roy went to Japan in 1980’s and trained then came back to Australia and started the first Togakure Ryu school. Suffice to say a lot of **** when down with Roy and in 1999 Hatsumi started collecting votes from foreign Shihan to remove Roy from the (now called) Bujinkan. It was a requirement that all Shihan had personal experiences of Roys actions to be able to vote. Only 3 Shihan voted but despite that Roy is no longer a member of the Bujinkan



We're going back to all of this again, some 20 years after the fact... okay....

No, little had "gone down" in 99. No, there was no collection of signatures for Mr Roy to leave. No, Mr Roy was not removed from the Bujinkan. In 2000, after many years of being run down in the media by former students who had garnered high ranks from Hatsumi, and were using that position to discredit Mr Roy, with no intervention from Japan, Mr Roy requested a show of support in recognition of his accomplishments in establishing the third largest group of schools in the world, and the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. There was none. After another year of silence, he resigned himself and his organisation from the Bujinkan. Why stay where you're not appreciated?

It also should be noted that much of the negative commentary towards Mr Roy were by people who had never had any contact with him, never trained with him, not experienced his schools, and were simply upset at the cardinal sin in the Bujinkan of "empire building"... for some reason, Hatsumi doesn't seem to want anyone other than himself to be successful... the other two bigger groups, by the way, were Hayes' and the Spanish group... and all three were eventually taken apart by Japan sowing dissent between "loyal" Bujinkan members and these "empire builders"... in cases, encouraging them to literally invade the schools... in others, "buying" the loyalties of students who would come to Japan if they left their own teachers in their native countries (we had a brown belt go to Japan, and was offered Shodan on his first night... he refused, as he wasn't there for rank... he was offered Nidan the next class... still said no... was offered Yondan, and the ability to test for Godan to have his own school... he left shaking his head). And, really, if you go to Japan, and all of a sudden, the seniors and headmaster are "recognising" your abilities, and offering you such rank, you must be worth it, right? Who are you to say no? And how good do you feel about yourself then! Surely your teacher will understand! See how it works?



Elninjo said:


> Chris Parker is a student of Wayne L Roy and is not a member of the Bujinkan but has his own school which teaches 6 of those 9 schools mentioned.



The only people who claim to teach the last three are lying or delusional. And, bluntly, no-one in the Bujinkan is really teaching even the first six... only teaching sequences from them. But, yes, I am a former student of Wayne Roy's. However, I don't shout it (as I don't need to), mainly as he retired from teaching traditional martial arts at the end of 2016, and there's no reason to bring him into discussions in an area he's no longer active. What I say rests on me, not him.

As far as "not a member of the Bujinkan", that's presently correct. However, you should also note that I hold a Yondan in the Bujinkan, was a member for nearly a decade when I started, have held a personal membership since 2017, have been given authority to rank my students for Bujinkan rank up to Sandan, have a standing invitation to test for Godan the next time I get back to Japan (the only reason I hold a Yondan is that that was as far as I could rank before taking the Godan test, and had to be Yondan for a year first), as well as the fact that I've kept up-to-date with Bujinkan activity, teachers, themes, and more for this entire time. How much do you really know about what we do? Again, though, an argument can be easily made that there is no Bujinkan anymore... but we'll leave that for the moment.



Elninjo said:


> The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.



Er... what? Did you read what was written?



Elninjo said:


> I guess what I am saying RogueShooter06 is to do your own research and come to your own conclusions on this as you will not get any unbiased advice from these forums on the Bujinkan.



Again... did you read what I wrote?



Elninjo said:


> Nothing I have said is incorrect.



Well, that's incorrect...



Elninjo said:


> I am not complaining about bias, only pointing it out.. That’s why I said to Rogueshooter06 to form his own opinions.



I love hypocrisy, don't you?



Elninjo said:


> Absolutely agree that we are all bias in some way. We all put our own slant on things and no matter how much we talk about it there will always be those that disagree, thats the way of things. The Bujinkan does teach all of those 9 school in varying degrees. Why do you say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are bias?



The Bujinkan teaches none of the ryu. None of them. It teaches Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, a modern semi-traditional art created by Hatsumi Masaaki, starting in the 1970's, and more fully realised in the late 80's and into the 90's, which uses the technical material from primarily 6 schools, as well as a couple of non-listed ones (Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Bokuden Ryu, Judo), and Hatsumi's personal creativity.  Should you wish to argue this, please demonstrate the following: What are the ri-ai and mechanical principles of Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu and Kenpo, and how do they relate? What is the structure and an example of a teaching from Gyokushin Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu, or Gikan Ryu that is found in the Bujinkan's teaching? What are you ranked in as part of the Bujinkan?

As for why anyone would say that Kacem and Sean are biased... well... have you read their work? Both have vested interests in supporting the histories and stories of the schools claimed by their teacher... discrediting him isn't a great career move... as well as their own interest in their own investments (emotionally, physically, time-wise...).



Elninjo said:


> just one more thing you quoted BrendanF
> 
> Chris Parker said:
> My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).
> ...



You're kidding, right? "My" school (the school I trained and train at, as well as teach now), the school I belong to, the school of Wayne Roy, was the first Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in Brisbane in 1981, when Wayne Roy returned from his first visit to Japan, where he learnt directly with Nagato Toshiro, including living with him for the first few months upon arriving in Tokyo. The first branch in Melbourne was opened in 1984 after a couple of seminars here and in Sydney, where members travelled to join in, and gained enough rank and experience to open a study group, which became a dojo. I joined 7 years later. Does that help clear it up?



Elninjo said:


> this is Chris Parkers website.
> 
> *Instruction | Jukuren Dojo Budo Heiho
> 
> ...



Crickets?!?! Dude... what are you going on about? Was I supposed to answer you while you were typing?

Again, are you incapable of following simple rhetoric devices? Mr Roy went to Japan in 1979. He returned to Australia in 1981, and began teaching in Brisbane, as well as travelling around the country presenting seminars, and helping set up study groups to help spread the art (at the direction of Japan, I might add). In 1984, the Melbourne dojo was established, and I joined in 1993. A decade later, I took over teaching when my teacher changed his career, and was unable to continue to maintain the school, at which point I became a student directly under Mr Roy. This is about a 2 and a half years after we left the Bujinkan, becoming Jyukutatsu Dojos. I remained Mr Roy's representative until the end of 2016, when Mr Roy disbanded the organisation, and retired from teaching traditional martial arts. I, in consultation with my students, opted to not bring the group back to the Bujinkan (I rejoined personally for a couple of reasons, but did the dojo did not), instead continuing as a completely independent dojo focusing on continuing Mr Roy's legacy of cutting edge modern self defence training in conjunction with a deeper study of the traditional material and arts (honestly, I was always more interested in that side of things than most of our membership around the country), under the name Jukuren Dojo.

As a result, the school to which I belong, and which my dojo is a direct continuation of, is a part of the original Bujinkan schools in Australia. Does this make sense now?



Elninjo said:


> It was not Bujinkan when it first came to Australia, it was only Togakure Ryu.



Well, that's wrong. Let's see if we can clear up the way the naming structure has developed, and what is actually what, shall we?

As mentioned, Togakure Ryu was the first school that Hatsumi was awarded the soke title for, in 1961 (after training with Takamatsu for about 2 years, for the record). Not long afterwards, he was given full licensing in Gyokko Ryu as well... but wasn't then "soke" of the school. As a result, he would use the title of Togakure Ryu Soke, however what he was training in (and teaching... he was basically running a study group for Takamatsu in Noda) was not necessarily Togakure Ryu itself. It was already a mixture (not a single ryu, nor really a ryu-ha approach) of methods and concepts. By the time Hatsumi established a dojo in the early 70's, he named it the Bujinkan (Hall of the Divine Warrior), ostensibly in honour of Takamatsu himself. Remember that anything with "Kan" in the name is often referring to a specific physical building... such as the Kodokan... or Shotokan, really (it was never a "style" of karate, it was a location where Funakoshi, pen-name "Shoto", taught karate... so it became synonymous with the hall, and Shotokan became the name for the style of karate that Shoto taught at the hall)... making the "banner" art Togakure Ryu taught at the Bujinkan. But, again, that doesn't mean that what was taught was Togakure Ryu...

By the time Hayes came to Japan, he was studying at the Bujinkan Dojo as well. But even then, while Togakure Ryu was used as the catch-all name, most of what he was learning wasn't Togakure Ryu at all. Remember, Togakure Ryu has no strike defence... no kick defence... no blocks... some small kakushi buki... a somewhat unusual sword system... and a lot of non-combative teachings. So, anything with any striking defences, throw defences, kick defences, staff weapons, and so on came from some other system. Four years later, when Mr Roy came to Japan, same thing. In fact, some of his first lessons included hanbo work (Kukishin), and almost no Togakure Ryu at all (in fact, it was his second trip when he saw any actual Togakure Ryu, being taught Santo Tonso no Kata), if anything. So, when he came back to Australia, while the name used was Togakure Ryu, that was just the name on the banner... and, just some insight for you, our first badges said the following: Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu Representing the Bujinkan Dojo... so it was, even just in name, both. But, more importantly, it was never "only Togakure Ryu". Even the first ranks that Hatsumi gave out (to Manaka Fumio, now Unsui) were in Togakure Ryu and Gyokko Ryu...



Elninjo said:


> The point I am making is that someone who comes from the Wayne L Roy "clan" is likely to be bias against the Bujinkan.



Actually, it's kinda the opposite... people coming from the Bujinkan seem to be biased against us. Except, it seems, people who have actually met or trained with Wayne Roy... it's always the ones who never met him... funny about that... in Japan, I was actually quite enjoying talking about Mr Roy with various practitioners... those who trained with him all had good memories of the experience, shared photos and stories with me... amazing how that happens...



Elninjo said:


> Chris would be well aware of this dynamic. Has he ever mentioned he was a student of Wayne L Roy?



Yep. Lots.



Elninjo said:


> Wayne L Roys name in the Bujinkan is mud and someone who teaches 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan himself, then criticized the Bujinkan for its "authenticity" tells a story



Yeah, it says I'm not beholden to towing a company line... oh, and for the record, my observations are more informed by my study of koryu than in Mr Roy's schools... it's been since he retired that I've altered things to the degree that I have... the various lockdowns over the past two years have also helped, I have to say... provided a lot of introspection and thinking time, as well as the ability to look deeper at what is presented, and how accurate it really is... and, if we're going to talk about someone leaving and then "teach(ing) 6 of the 9 schools", you do realise that the Jinenkan also only teaches those 6? Cause, well, they're the only ones that have ever been presented... so forget about the 9... you've never seen them.

Look, if you're a part of the Bujinkan, and you enjoy it, great! And if you are happy with how it's presented, great! Part of training in an organisation, or in a particular art, is to follow the way things are taught there... I am not in a position where I have to hold to that, so I get the freedom to look at things from a wider perspective... but even in my other arts, what is taught is what I follow... I teach and train in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, and there, we know that Musashi was never beaten. I also study Shindo Muso Ryu, and there, we know we're the only school to have beaten Musashi... that's a bit of a thing to get past!



Rat said:


> Honest question why does Bujikan always get brought up?     I know they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the ninja things and making that their main marketing in the ninja fad phase now that its reversed and become a joke.     But if what they say is true, they only have like 2 schools claimed from ninjutsu.



The biggest issue, really, is not so much the credibility of the arts that make up the curriculum, it's the teaching methodology and complete lack of quality control or consistency... the Genbukan and Jinenkan teach much the same arts, but don't suffer as much due to much better quality control. And that, simply, is the truth of the Bujinkan.



Rat said:


> (yes i know roughtly how classical japanese arts work with the structuring of many diffrent schools of thing together to make a "art/style", and ninjutsu if it existed would be done like that, hopefully that made sense, im struggling to explain and not using japanese)



Er... no, you don't know "roughly how Classical Japanese arts work" if you think they are achieved by "structuring many different schools of things together to make an art"... that's kinda the exact opposite of the reality there...



Rat said:


> Addendum:  Basically the last thing  i read on this ahd ninjutsu basically be like bushido, its a loos ename given for the ryu a Ninja/Samurai would attend in education to become such.



Leaving off the fact that "bushido" is very much a modern construct, no, that's not really correct either. Ninjutsu, as a skill set, is the skill of espionage and information gathering... it's very much just a part of martial technology, and is present in a number of "samurai" schools. The concept of a "ninjutsu ryu", a school set up pretty much exclusively for this minor part of warfare, is unusual... which is the first place that Togakure Ryu gets into problems... it would usually just be part of the curriculum of a larger school, not one by itself.



Rat said:


> And japanese classcialy martiala rts seem to have 1+ schools inside a art.



I don't even know what you mean by that.

Look, an "art", if we're going to separate that from a school (ryu), would then refer to a skill set... such as kenjutsu, or taijutsu/jujutsu, or bojutsu, or sojutsu, and so on. And, while a single ryu may have multiple skills it teaches, it's not a matter of having multiple approaches under one heading... that's not now such things work. What makes it a ryu is that all the various aspects share the same underpinning principles and approaches... a Katori Shinto Ryu practitioner moves the same with a sword, a staff, a naginata, or a spear... but they don't move the same as a Kukishin Ryu practitioner with the same weapons. This is why the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu... it's not any of the ryu-ha, it's a single, relatively consistent approach, even if that consistency is somewhat inconsistent (being based in the creativity of the practitioners, you're going to get that)... but all techniques, regardless of the ryu they are supposed to be from, will have the practitioner moving the same, with the same basic postural ideas, the same attacking methods, the same blocking and footwork patterns, the same locks and throws, and so on.



Rat said:


> So if it did exist, it would be done like that is what i was trying to explain, or in a similiar vein to that as thats how it was done (as far as i know) in japan.      God that was really hard to explain without falling into the pitfall of accidnetally saying "i think they exist" or implying that, and undoing my actual view.  The fact its japanese as well didnt help matters.     Try saying its a school within a school.



Which is, in the main, wrong. So you know, and hopefully, so you don't repeat this misunderstanding again in the future.



Elninjo said:


> Question about Japanese Shihan
> 
> 
> That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;)   Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong.   And...
> ...



Ooh, you found a post from 11 years ago.. and, what do you know, consistency in what I say... what, really, is your point?



Elninjo said:


> Ok, did a search on Wayne L Roy and found this. So Chris Parker joined Wayne L Roy (in his own words) in 1993. Apparently when Wayne L Roy was still part of the Bujinkan…I seem to recall (and I can find it if you like) that Chris Parker said he gained his Shodan from the Bujinkan…..



He was a part, as were all his students, including myself. And, yes, when I was awarded Shodan, we were with the Bujinkan, so my Shodan certificate is from Hatsumi, not Mr Roy. And you hardly need "find it", as, for one thing, it's in the quote you provided directly above, but, more importantly, it in no way contradicts anything I've said. Again, your point is?



Elninjo said:


> So for Chris Parker to have earned his Shodan in the Bujinkan, it would have been sometime in 1996/1997.



1998. March 14th, if you must know. My sister got married exactly one year later to the day, so I joke that she stole my anniversary...



Elninjo said:


> Shortly after that, Wayne L Roy was booted out of the Bujinkan so Chris Parker has not been a member of the Bujinkan for at _least_ 20 years yet having gained Shodan rank, he still purports to be an expert on it.



Oh, kid... no, Wayne Roy was not "booted out of the Bujinkan". We left. And I was not a member of the Bujinkan for approximately 16 years (2001 to 2017), but, as stated, kept in touch and contact with the various goings on... I mean... it's not like you guys are quiet... kinda ironic for a "ninja" organisation...



Elninjo said:


> Tony Dismukes you say _And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan._
> 
> so how can Chris Parker be any more enlightened than the rest of us?



Because he knows the topic. And, more importantly, he knows the context.



Elninjo said:


> Some history to the readers on Wayne L Roys colourful background in Australia



This is funny... I was actually reading it today...



Elninjo said:


> Wayne Roy??
> 
> TENCHI
> unread,
> ...



Obviously I wasn't part of this short conversation 22 years ago, but just for fun, let's correct the comments made here, shall we?



Elninjo said:


> - runs his school very much like a cult. in the eraly days some of his
> senior students used to call it the 4th Reich, those of us outside the
> school have obviously called it worse.



You know, I've only heard people say that ex-students make this claim... I've never actually heard it from any actual ex-students... nor does the description match anything close to what I experienced in 24 years in the school. Honestly, I have no idea what they're referring to... especially considering where the comments are coming from...



Elninjo said:


> - he then started kicking out his dan ranks for "insubordination" and
> training in other styles - no big deal his dojo right, but he told
> them that they were also kicked out of the Bujinkan. His cult methods
> ensured that most of these people believed him and some even spent
> year in therapy.



Again, something I've never seen substantiated. In fact, one of the requirements we had for people aiming for black belt was to train in another system for at least 6 months... I did a year of BJJ, and six months of boxing ("it'll be good for you... they'll hunt your head" was the advice I was given), and we've never kicked anyone out for training in multiple arts. "Insubordination" is a vague accusation, but if valid, is more than enough reason to kick someone out, frankly... I've heard of people being kicked out of classical schools for far less... and seriously? People needed therapy if they thought they were out of the Bujinkan? But we're the cult?



Elninjo said:


> - told people that without a personal letter from him you could not
> train in Japan - same as Hayes here.



Again, never seen. In fact, we were encouraged to visit and train if we were going to Japan for any reason... you saw the brown belt story above? We weren't even members of the Bujinkan then, but the student was still told that there was no problem from our end with him training there. I tell my guys the same thing. I was, in fact, told that I needed to go to Japan... so... nope.



Elninjo said:


> - forced his seniors to sign franchise agreements stating that if they
> ever left the school that they would never teach martial arts again.
> kicked out anybody who did not sign



We have never had a franchise structure or agreement at all. We have had autonomy in all our dealings in our own schools, other than the fact that there was a fee/dues to be paid to Brisbane per student. That was independent of what the instructor chose to charge for the classes, for the record... depending on the rent at the location, and other factors, classes could vary, but the dues didn't. So... nope. That ain't us.



Elninjo said:


> - ran media campaigns against other Bujinkan instructors - including
> paid for adverts in martial arts magazines stating that other specific
> instructors were not qualified or recognised by the Bujinkan. one
> particular instructor tried to encourage people to go to Japan for
> ...



Please. I never once saw anything of Wayne Roy running "media campaigns" against other Bujinkan instructors... on the other hand, people like Ed Lomax, Mike Tattoli, and others in Australia certainly did engage in such behaviour. Ed, for example, would make any question in an interview in a publication like Blitz (Australian martial arts magazine) into an attack on Mr Roy... in fact, it was the consistency of these attacks that lead Mr Roy to petition Japan for support... the other instructors had continually made quick trips to Japan to inflate their rank above his, then used that as justification for their attacks... many of whom were originally from our schools, it must be stated.

With the article about the "twin 19 year olds", well, let's be clear... it was one 18 year old kid, so the facts don't seem to be on the side of this "E" (who is likely Ed Lomax, bluntly), but let's continue. The article was entitled "What Has Happened To Ninjutsu?" and was really an open letter to members of the community to be aware of the complete lack of standards, and ludicrous gradings that were going on, warning that the entire ninjutsu community would be a laughing stock soon enough. A shame that people still complain about that article, even though it was quite prophetic... just look at this thread as an example... but I digress. The 18 year old was defended as "a great guy, and he's been training... not teaching, training... with Peter King for a decade!" Except at the time, most 5th Dan in any martial art had been training for at least 25-30 years... so, no matter how much he'd been training with Peter, an 18 year old 5th Dan was just another reason to laugh off the Bujinkan. But, sure, the problem is the person indicating the problem, not the actual issue itself...



Elninjo said:


> - tried to stop the Adelaide Taikai from happening in 1992 (1st Aussie
> Taikai)



HA! Nope. In fact, we made up approximately 60% of the attendees.



Elninjo said:


> - ordered 63 dan ranks before this taikai many being sequences for the
> same people - Hatsumi told me that it was obvious therefore that he
> had no intention of getting legitimate ranks until he heard of the
> Taikai. later Roy's rank fees were told to Hatsumi and myself by some
> ...



The prices for Dan grades are set by Japan. From memory, a Sandan was around $300. Not sure where the $1000 comes from... but, for the record, while the Japan fee is consistent, the individual teachers are able to charge whatever they want... many do "pad" the fees. I don't remember that ever happening with us.



Elninjo said:


> - snubbed Hatsumi's Shidoshi-kai meeting at said taikai - was seen
> entering a restaurant nearby with some friends instead.



Considering how badly organised the Tai Kai was, yeah. He didn't go to that.



Elninjo said:


> - accused me of buying my rank at the time by running the taikai and
> then mailed Hatsumi with a request for a higher rank for himself



Yep, this is Ed Lomax. Figured.

Another part of the article mentioned above was the fact that, in organising a Tai Kai, a student could expect a one or two dan grade bump in rank... Ed went from 7th to 8th, off the top of my head... he took that as a personal insult, even though Mr Roy was citing examples from around the world... one practitioner in the US went up 2 Dan grades... someone in Europe went up a dan grade because he sent an instructional video to one of the Japanese seniors...



Elninjo said:


> - upon inviting Charles Daniels and Ed Martin to Australia in early
> 1993 he told his students to go to that rather than the planned Taikai
> in the same year (the last taikai here) - Both Charles and Ed were
> unable to convince Roy's students otherwise and if you want more
> details on this contact Ed.



The first TaiKai was atrociously organised, so students were invited to attend if they wanted, but were not overly encouraged to (for the first one, it was basically mandatory). Charles Daniel's seminars, on the other hand, as he was brought out specifically by Mr Roy, well, yeah, that was something we wanted our students to get the most out of. Ed, I don't remember coming out for us, although I do remember him coming out then, and again a few years later... but he didn't travel much, and Australia is a big place... but he was mainly doing seminars for (I think) Mike Hammond at the time, and I don't remember being invited....



Elninjo said:


> - boycotted the 1993 Taikai and threatened his students that if they
> went he would remove them from his dojo, they were so cult programmed
> that even though he has several dojo's in Sydney only two students of
> his turned up and they tried to pass themselves off as kung-fu
> students.



No, we didn't boycott it, we just figured that, considering how badly the first one was done, it wasn't going to be worth the effort. Having seen the footage from it (and the first one), yeah, I agree. No one was banned from going, it was simply left up to the students... I'm sorry if Ed is upset that we didn't want to go through that again...



Elninjo said:


> - tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
> that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
> lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
> material by one Australian university for some time.



Not familiar with this at all... suing Ed for libel, well, yeah, I can see that. That said, Mr Roy isn't overly litigious (although he's certainly had reason to be), so I am again going to doubt this. As for it being used for lectures? Yeah... sounds like Ed's penchant for hyperbole and creating his own "facts"...



Elninjo said:


> - has consistently insulted Hatsumi and the Japanese Shihan



Actually, never once did I hear nor see Mr Roy insult them. In fact, you can see him still towing the company line in public until after 2000... not that he didn't have reason... Hatsumi was reportedly calling Wayne "a cancer for ninjutsu" behind his back... something he also did with Hayes... and any number of other supposedly close senior students... he badmouthed Tanemura (his own cousin) when he left... digitally removed Manaka from the old Quest videos when they were re-released on DVD... it's just a part of his "divide and conquer" approach.



Elninjo said:


> - has modified (simplified and mutilated) the Bujinkan arts to the
> point where they are only barely recogniseable - Hatsumi is refusing
> to recognise the ranks he gives



Hmm... my rank was recognised... my movement was complimented by students and teachers in Japan... the focus on the actual techniques was more accurate than most Bujinkan schools, bluntly, through Mr Roy's research into the scrolls (with help from Charles Daniel, who was considered the foremost Western expert, having "obtained" the densho a few years earlier...). And, back then, we were still part of the Bujinkan... the ranks were Bujinkan ones, so is Ed saying that Hatsumi refused to honour his own ranks? Even considering the lack of quality of his own students?



Elninjo said:


> - has not trained in Japan since 1990 when he turned up for 2 classes
> and then took his students on a temple tour of Kyoto etc. heard this
> before too eh.



So... the trip where he was awarded Rokudan? That trip was "only two classes"? Is this an indictment of the Bujinkan's ranking system, or perhaps not as accurate as Ed would imply?



Elninjo said:


> - along with many other Australians that had not paid for their ranks
> after 4 years or more he was demoted down to his last paid for rank.



What? I have no idea what Ed's going on about here.... I've never heard of the Bujinkan demoting anyone... Mr Roy was never demoted, nor were any of his students... in fact, a number were promoted at the Tai Kai, including the first Melbourne instructor to Godan (who, incidentally, was the only person at the Tai Kai to be able to do a particular throw Hatsumi was showing, as he was the only one who slowed down to actually figure it out), amongst others.



Elninjo said:


> - accused me again of buying ranks by running taikai's here. in fact I
> tried to refuse my 8th at the Sydney Taikai but Hatsumi wouldn't allow
> me too - anybody that knows me also knows that I was not subtle when
> trying to refuse it either.



Didn't he already air this complaint? And, again, the article wasn't about Ed, no matter how much he wanted it to be...



Elninjo said:


> - since the late eighties Hatsumi has had on student after another of
> Roys turning up to Japan - most have had to leave his dojo to do so
> and have similar stories to tell. Hatsumi has also been unimpressed by
> what these people thought was Bujinkan technique and asked Andrw Young
> ...



To be blunt, Hatsumi was saying the same thing about standards from the first Tai Kai onwards... in fact, it was our students who were seen as being much cleaner and having better form than the rest... hence the requests to Mark and Andrew. And the fact that they didn't come to us.



Elninjo said:


> But what has been most noticeable is the culture of distrust and
> aggression towards each other here by Roy people to no-Roy people and
> ex-Roy people to everybody and it is quite obviously a product of his
> cult teachings and methods.



So, Ed's consistent attacks on Mr Roy, his organisation and students, is an "air of distrust and aggression" from Mr Roy's students, and therefore is a product of Mr Roy's teachings? "Those darn hornets, they're so aggressive! All I do is throw rocks at their nest all day, and they try to sting me! They must be exterminated, as they're too naturally aggressive!" Right.



Elninjo said:


> Sure it happens all over the world to an
> extent and again I will say that if you want an outsiders view of how
> bad it was here ask Ed Martin or Charles Daniels what they gleaned
> about it in their 3 weeks here as guests of Roy. Needless to say that
> Ed has joined me in voting for Roy's expulsion



Did he now? As mentioned, I don't remember Ed Martin being brought out by us... Charles, yes... and he and Mr Roy remain fast friends to today... remarkable how the person we actually brought out wasn't joining in such an endeavour...



Elninjo said:


> so I guess people can come to their own conclusions on Chris Parkers credentials in the Bujinkan. Shodan is hardly an expert, In the Bujinkan, Shodan is just the beginning



Dude, most 15th Dans are basically beginners in many respects... and, again, for the record, Shodan was earned 23 years ago... but sure, as we left after I got Shodan, and continued my ranking in Mr Roy's school (since also being awarded Yondan in the Bujinkan, for the record), I'm not sure what relevance my grade a quarter century ago has...

Would you care to try again? Or are we done now?


----------



## dunc (Aug 28, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.


Hi @Elninjo

I hope I don’t come across as someone who doesn’t like the Bujinkan much….
I’ve devoted over 30 years of my life to learning from Soke and the Japanese Shihan, visited Japan over 35 times for training, and continue to strive to better myself both as a martial artist and as a representative of of the Bujinkan

I have a certain perspective on how one should train in order to embody the lessons/traditions which is based on my direct experience and interactions with the Japanese shihan. I do feel that there are too many overly exposed folk in the Buj who don’t get it &/or won‘t put in the effort to achieve this. I am embarrassed by them and wish that all of us in the Bujinkan held ourselves to a higher standard. Sometimes vocalise my frustrations, but this is because of my love for the art

I find myself often in agreement with @Tony Dismukes on technical matters and feel he has a balanced and thoughtful perspective to add to discussions

I find @Chris Parker to be knowledgeable about historical matters, but I’m no expert as I only have a passing interest in these things. I disagree with many of his criticisms about the Bujinkan, for example I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience
He’s made some claims in this thread about his ability to perform the forms from the ryuha better than anyone in the Bujinkan. I haven‘t seen his movement so can‘t really comment on that


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 28, 2021)

Folks,  
A thread like this has a great potentional to become a train wreck, and we really appreciate that you haven't gone that way.  Remember, we don't like to bash any arts here at MartialTalk, nor practicioners.  Keep the focus on the factual authenticity of the various ninja arts, and away from any individuals.

And don't take this as aimed at any particular post or poster, especially based on location in the thread.  It takes us a while, sometimes, to get these gentle reminders out, because we'd rather herd the cats gently...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 28, 2021)

dunc said:


> I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience


As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

 I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 28, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> - tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
> that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
> lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
> material by one Australian university for some time.



I was somewhat curious, and have searched case law databases looking for this; I can't find any cases involving Mr Roy or Mr Lomax.  If anyone can provide a citation I'd be keen to see it.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 29, 2021)

*Dunc said -*_ I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience_


I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.


*Tony Dismukes said - *_As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan._


This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.

It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.

*Brendan F said -* OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 29, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.



I thought it was because the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu, and not 9 different arts? 



Elninjo said:


> *Brendan F said -* OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.



I was not inferring anything.  I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved.  In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere.  If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:



Chris Parker said:


> Yep, this is Ed Lomax.



That's what piqued my curiosity; I'd have thought a 'case that was used as lecture material for one Australian university for some time' would be a matter of record, and I was curious to read it.


----------



## dunc (Aug 29, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> *Dunc said -*_ I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience_
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.


I was disagreeing with Chris who said that the Ryuha were not taught in the Buj
Soke is an inspiration!!
Hope that makes sense


----------



## dunc (Aug 29, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?
> 
> I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.


There are (were) teachers who have (had) traditional licences in certain ryu
There are teachers who will (would) teach the the ryuha in their own right
They will explain how the movements and tactics are unique to that specific ryuha. Simple things like the basic way to punch and block differ quite a bit from one school to another for example
And so on

So if you were interested in going down that rabbit hole then you could. It wasn’t easy because it’s not the mainstream, but it was there if you made the effort (not many did)

The more mainstream approach is to form one’s own way of moving from the content made available by soke. So none of Soke’s students move exactly like him or the same as each other. They are clearly his students, but they built their taijutsu to optimise on their own characteristics. This is very similar in principle to systems like BJJ and is probably no different to how previous generations did things (which would explain how the various ryu developed their characteristics)

I believe this is a the only way to develop world class martial artists, but not a great way to teach the masses particularly when there’s no clear feedback loop. Lesser martial artists generally prefer the simplicity of a black and white methodology and will say things like “This is the correct way, everyone else is wrong”. However, in reality there are many correct ways to perform a technique and things change according to the circumstances (big person vs small etc). So this form of black and white thinking doesn’t get you very far

Worth noting that there whilst there are many correct ways to do a technique there are many, many more incorrect ways….


----------



## Nigel (Aug 29, 2021)

Elninjo said:

_This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.


*Brendan F said: -* I thought it was because the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu, and not 9 different arts?_


WTF Brendan F? How many times does it take before it finally sinks in to you? The Bujinkan teach 9 ryu

Once more for the dummies


Takagi Yoshin Ryu
Kukishinden Ryu
Gyokko Ryu
Koto Ryu
Togakure Ryu
Shinden Fudo Ryu
Gikan Ryu
Gyokushin Gyu
Kumogakure Ryu
These are the 9 Ryu of the Bujinkan. To add to my previous post

_It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area._

It is also a case that some schools will focus on the Gyokko Ryu others will focus on Koto Ryu but you also find that some focus on several. I personally went from dojo to dojo until I found what was right for me. The focus on 2 or 3 particular ryuha that suited me.

_Elninjo said:

OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.


*Brendan f Said: -* I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:_

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?


_Chris Parker said:

Yep, this is Ed Lomax.


That's what piqued my curiosity; I'd have thought a 'case that was used as lecture material for one Australian university for some time' would be a matter of record, and I was curious to read it._

 Well not sure about this aspect of it but I would assume that if the lawyer had a complaint made against him and the case didn’t succeed,…..and the lawyer was found to have breached the code then it may well have been used as lecture material but that doesn’t mean it would be found under any case law…..just my view of it……I have no idea what went down there but I do know that Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan and as such his rank (5th dan) was not recognized by the grandmaster of the Bujinkan.


----------



## Cynik75 (Aug 29, 2021)

Past days ninjas would fight with poisoned knives in dark alleys, todays ninjas fight in Internet...


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 29, 2021)

One more time, then?



dunc said:


> Hi @Elninjo
> 
> I hope I don’t come across as someone who doesn’t like the Bujinkan much….
> I’ve devoted over 30 years of my life to learning from Soke and the Japanese Shihan, visited Japan over 35 times for training, and continue to strive to better myself both as a martial artist and as a representative of of the Bujinkan



Yeah... I don't know where he got that bizarre idea from... or a bunch of his even more odd ideas... 



dunc said:


> I have a certain perspective on how one should train in order to embody the lessons/traditions which is based on my direct experience and interactions with the Japanese shihan. I do feel that there are too many overly exposed folk in the Buj who don’t get it &/or won‘t put in the effort to achieve this. I am embarrassed by them and wish that all of us in the Bujinkan held ourselves to a higher standard. Sometimes vocalise my frustrations, but this is because of my love for the art
> 
> I find myself often in agreement with @Tony Dismukes on technical matters and feel he has a balanced and thoughtful perspective to add to discussions
> 
> ...



Thanks, @dunc . For the record, I find you to be one of the most conscientious and earnest practitioner I've had the pleasure of engaging. That said, a few things to clear up here. Firstly, the observation that the Bujinkan, specifically Hatsumi himself, does not teach the ryu-ha is not a criticism... it's an observation. Hatsumi has stated on multiple occasions his view of koryu, which is not really positive... he views them as unmoving, museum pieces of little value to modern martial artists... he refused to give evidence of his ryu-ha, and opted not to become a member of a koryu preservation society, with this as a reason. He has eschewed pretty much everything that would be considered proper (and necessary) for ryu-ha transmission in his teaching methods, as he has no appreciation for them (again, this is a value statement from him, not a judgement from me... I have no appreciation of different forms of epilators, for example, it doesn't mean they're bad, just that I don't have any use for them). Why members of the Bujinkan seem to ignore his actual beliefs when ti comes to classical art transmission, but think they're actually receiving it from someone who actively avoids such concepts, I find bizarre.

Next, the idea of not teaching/transmitting the individual ryu-ha allows Hatsumi (and the Bujinkan) the freedom to express their art in many ways that simply wouldn't be appropriate if they were actually doing the ryu-ha themselves. It also enables the school to have a single, consistent approach to movement, technical approaches, and so on... not really possible if the individual schools are done properly, there's just too much conflict there. If you want to study the individual arts, then you're not studying Budo Taijutsu... if you're doing Budo Taijutsu, then you're not studying the ryu... it's quite binary. Can there be some cross-over? Sure. Same as when you're practicing guitar, you're working on the same scales that you use for piano... but you're not also practicing piano at the same time. Or, more realistically, when you're learning to play blues guitar, you're not also learning 18th Century shakuhachi songs.... 

I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study.

Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.

Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts.



Tony Dismukes said:


> As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?
> 
> I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.



This is pretty much it, yep. There's more to back it up, of course, but this is a good overview.



Elninjo said:


> *Dunc said -*_ I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience_
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.



I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha.



Elninjo said:


> *Tony Dismukes said - *_As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?
> 
> I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan._
> 
> ...



Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.

How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught... 

In other words, this is completely wrong.



Elninjo said:


> The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.



Can you demonstrate that, or show examples?



Elninjo said:


> It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.



Yes, he has. Which is not really the way it works in the transmission of classical arts... in fact, they're set up to safeguard against that in many ways. So, while it's true that senior members of a ryu (classical) can gain authority to alter the methods somewhat, that's something that occurs much, much later in the study... first, you need to learn the school correctly, and follow the way the school works. This ensures consistency and correct transmission of the information and school. Leaving it up to everyone to do what they want is really proof-positive that it's not based in transmission of a ryu-ha.



Elninjo said:


> *Brendan F said -* OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.



I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?

And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years.



dunc said:


> There are (were) teachers who have (had) traditional licences in certain ryu



See, even that needs a major asterix... yes, some of the senior members have traditional licences, however the manner in which they were awarded is somewhat murky. As mentioned, the first ranks that Hatsumi gave were to his oldest student, a young man who was a junior judo champion locally, and became a student of Hatsumi at the age of 14 (prior to his study with Takamatsu, I believe, but not much). That young man was Manaka Fumio, and, when Hatsumi was given licensure himself (Togakure Ryu soke, then Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko Ryu, both within 2-3 years of studying with Takamatsu), he awarded rank in the same arts, regardless of what had actually been taught or trained. Later, he would start to adopt the dan/kyu ranking system, and stopped giving rank in the form of licences. The next round of "licences" happened in the early 80's, when Hatsumi famously felt he was going to die, as he'd been ill for a long time... he gave out various licences, and had the senior students copy his scrolls in order to safeguard them, but it wasn't indication that they were trained specifically in the ryu themselves... just that the times called for such measures. What's perhaps most telling is that, due to a number of factors, one of which was supposedly Hatsumi's refusal to appoint Tanemura as the next head of the Bujinkan, Tanemura left. At the time, he was 8th Dan, and the Vice President of the Bujinkan, with complete access to the densho related to the schools taught. He left in 84, and began seeking out other related teachers in the systems (students of Ueno Takashi and Takamatsu) that were still around, in order to learn and gain licence in the schools themselves... in fact, the only ryu that relies on anything from Hatsumi in the Genbukan is Gyokko Ryu... the first school (along with Togakure Ryu) that Hatsumi was giving rank in... before he was giving out dan grades.



dunc said:


> There are teachers who will (would) teach the the ryuha in their own right



I've heard this claim, but have not been able to find any actual basis for it, other than people's claims (and, I would suggest, misunderstandings as to what that would entail). I have seen nothing of any teacher in the Bujinkan that even indicates anything beyond Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu movement (again, not a criticism, but an observation). Going through some classes with Noguchi-s, he would teach from a particular school... we covered Takagi Yoshin, Koto, and the Ten Chi Jin while I was there... but there was no difference between any of them. In fact, I wouldn't have even said we did any of the ryu at all... to use the Koto Ryu study we did, there was a basic idea that Noguchi wanted to explore, which was a form of unbalancing by pressuring the inside or outside of the knee... something that doesn't exist in Koto Ryu... and all the kata were changed and adapted to accomodate this concept. Same with the Takagi class, and so on. Again, the ryu are not taught... they are taught from... meaning that the kata sequences are used to explore the principles and concepts of Budo Taijutsu... because that's what's actually studied.

We could also look to when the individual schools were the focus of the yearly theme... the basic kata were used as a base framework, by employing a sequence... but, after that, there would be almost a free-for-all in terms of how you wanted to take it... parts of other schools, or aspects that came from no defined ryu-ha at all, would be just as likely to be explored in a class. There's a clip somewhere of a Daikomyosai in 98 covering Kukishin Ryu, where the first kata (Seion) ends up being a session on kicking.. then sword drawing... then use of pistol... then groups... none of which are even close to what the kata is about, nor even related to what is in the school itself, but is all fair game for Budo Taijutsu, so is perfectly valid in that context.

This, of course, makes it quite odd that Hatsumi has decided to split up the soke titles for the various ryu now... as, all evidence is that none of these people have learnt them as anything other than a range of sequences of actions, without anything that would qualify as ryu-ha training and transmission... nor are any of them actually teaching the ryu they've been entrusted with, instead just continuing to teach the same Budo Taijutsu, making their soke titles little more than resume padding with nothing behind it... paper titles, really... pointless. 



dunc said:


> They will explain how the movements and tactics are unique to that specific ryuha. Simple things like the basic way to punch and block differ quite a bit from one school to another for example



Ooh, glad you brought that up... let's look at blocks... 

What school(s) use an uke nagashi (back-fist style knuckle block)? What's the difference between the punching attack of, let's say, Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu? How about Kukishin Ryu?

That should get us started.



dunc said:


> And so on
> 
> So if you were interested in going down that rabbit hole then you could. It wasn’t easy because it’s not the mainstream, but it was there if you made the effort (not many did)



Honestly, it's not there. As far as the "rabbit hole", yeah, I did go down it (obviously)... and you can certainly make distinctions between them just by going through the densho as the kata are expressed in the Bujinkan... but, as I said, I'm increasingly of the opinion that, bluntly, they're wrong (with respect to the ryu-ha). In far more ways than you're probably thinking.



dunc said:


> The more mainstream approach is to form one’s own way of moving from the content made available by soke. So none of Soke’s students move exactly like him or the same as each other. They are clearly his students, but they built their taijutsu to optimise on their own characteristics.



(Just going to split this up a bit...). Yep! You've just described a method of training that matches Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, and does not match the idea of ryu-ha training. And, at the end of the day, no matter how the particular practitioner expresses their taijutsu, it'll be recognisable as Bujinkan (as opposed to Jinenkan, or Genbukan, highly related systems with their own way of moving), and so on. 



dunc said:


> This is very similar in principle to systems like BJJ



Sure... the difference being that BJJ is dominantly a sporting approach, so individual adaptation and performance is to be expected... but, by the same token, even in sparring, you can tell the difference between a BJJ exponent and a karate-ka, yeah? The BJJ guy will still move like a BJJ guy... not like a sumotori, or a Mongolian wrestler, or a WWE guy, or even a Sambo guy... agreed? You also won't get one BJJ guy who uses majorly different postures/positions, or different chokes, or weapons, or similar because they studied a different form of BJJ... 



dunc said:


> and is probably no different to how previous generations did things (which would explain how the various ryu developed their characteristics)



Hmm... no, that's not really that accurate. If you got to a high enough level, or had a particular skill, and started doing things differently in any real way, it would result most commonly in a new school, not just a bunch of differently skilled people in the one school. Of course, you do have things like individual teachers personal preferences that can come into it (one generation teacher might not like the jujutsu much in their sogo bujutsu system, so it gets a bit neglected... but, importantly, it doesn't mean the rest start making up their own jujutsu to make up the gaps...).



dunc said:


> I believe this is a the only way to develop world class martial artists, but not a great way to teach the masses particularly when there’s no clear feedback loop. Lesser martial artists generally prefer the simplicity of a black and white methodology and will say things like “This is the correct way, everyone else is wrong”. However, in reality there are many correct ways to perform a technique and things change according to the circumstances (big person vs small etc). So this form of black and white thinking doesn’t get you very far



It's a matter of development (of the practitioner/student)... if you just start with free-expression, then there's no basis... you need to start a lot more definitive, whether it's a large group or more intimate. Of course, classically, teaching large groups wasn't a hugely common thing... it happened, mostly in the Edo period, but was still unusually to the point where it would be commented on... that said, yes, there are often multiple ways of performing most techniques... but it's more a matter of there not being one definitive "right" way, but plenty of "wrong" ones... that's an important distinction to make here.



dunc said:


> Worth noting that there whilst there are many correct ways to do a technique there are many, many more incorrect ways….



Yep. And, to take that to this context, there are "wrong" ways (according to the study of the ryu) that are also "right" (according to the study of Budo Taijutsu), and vice versa... my main point is that, if you're looking at the study as one of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, then it needs to be "right" in that context... I'm looking at them as study of the ryu... which is where the Budo Taijutsu approach is "wrong"... but it's all a matter of perspective.



Elninjo said:


> Elninjo said:
> 
> _This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.
> 
> ...



No, they don't. Hatsumi claims headmastership of 9 ryu... but that's a different thing entirely.



Elninjo said:


> Once more for the dummies



Do be careful there... considering your misreading of so many aspects, you're not in much of a position to cast aspersions... 



Elninjo said:


> Takagi Yoshin Ryu
> Kukishinden Ryu
> Gyokko Ryu
> Koto Ryu
> ...



Gikan, Gyokushin, and Kumogakure really have never even been in the Budo Taijutsu make up, let alone taught as schools. Gikan is believed to have no patterns (in the Bujinkan), Kumogakure is a set of principles (no martial teachings), and Gyokushin miraculously appeared a couple of years after Takamatsu passed, with no indication of what's involved (other than some mention of "rope throwing" and one or two other things... which isn't really something that matches much of any other known authentic Japanese martial systems, it must be said....).

Again, just because Hatsumi claims the sokeship of each of these schools doesn't mean they're taught.



Elninjo said:


> _It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area._
> 
> It is also a case that some schools will focus on the Gyokko Ryu others will focus on Koto Ryu but you also find that some focus on several. I personally went from dojo to dojo until I found what was right for me. The focus on 2 or 3 particular ryuha that suited me.



A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points).



Elninjo said:


> _Elninjo said:
> 
> OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around._



And, out of interest, where are you from?



Elninjo said:


> _*Brendan f Said: -* I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:_
> 
> yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?



No, you're clinging to easily disprovable nonsense... without any recognition of the reality of the situation.



Elninjo said:


> _Chris Parker said:
> 
> Yep, this is Ed Lomax.
> 
> ...



That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?

And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours.


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 29, 2021)

Elninjo said:


> WTF Brendan F? How many times does it take before it finally sinks in to you? The Bujinkan teach 9 ryu
> 
> Once more for the dummies
> 
> ...



They may be.  But according to Mr Hatsumi, the Bujinkan does not teach them.  It teaches Budo Taijutsu.  Are you saying he's wrong?



Elninjo said:


> yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?



Not at all.  You were curious that I 'seem to know who apparently was being sued.'  My point was that I have noticed these things over the years.  And Chris stated it explicitly.  I didn't comment on anything being anything 'back then'.  I'm not an X-kan student.  I had a passing curiosity when I was younger, and keep up on martial arts happenings in general in Australia, where I can.



Elninjo said:


> Well not sure about this aspect of it but I would assume that if the lawyer had a complaint made against him and the case didn’t succeed,…..and the lawyer was found to have breached the code then it may well have been used as lecture material but that doesn’t mean it would be found under any case law…..just my view of it



Absolutely not.  As I said that is what caught my interest.  Having studied law I thought it would be interesting to see either a novel libel case and/or a complaint against a practitioner involving somewhat well known names.  Content used in teaching is typically authoritative, and easily cited.  As I said I'm not a Bujinkan student, I don't know or really care about Mr Roy leaving - it seems like Chris told the story pretty clearly in his posts.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 29, 2021)

Cynik75 said:


> Past days ninjas would fight with poisoned knives in dark alleys, todays ninjas fight in Internet...


Not wrong, information age.   A lot of time and money is spent on cyber infrastructure, and also protecting and damaging it. 

You can do a lot of damage from a computer if you know what you are doing.   The funny thing is, some peoples cyber secuirty is super, yet they have terrible physical security of servers etc, and the reverse can be true as well.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 29, 2021)

As promised, here is my quick review of Sean Askew's book Hidden Lineage: The Ninja of the Toda Clan.

A quick overview to start. The book is entirely concerned with Askew's attempts to trace the history of Togakure Ryu. No real mention is made of the other Takamatsuden arts. 

It starts with a quick introduction to the general history of ninjutsu, moving on to Takamatsu, explaining that he learned Togakure Ryu and inherited the status of being the 33rd grandmaster (soke) of that art from his grandfather Toda Shinruken Masamitsu, who was the 32nd grandmaster. It establishes immediately that what Toda Shinruken passed on was entirely an oral tradition. Per Askew, Takamatsu was the first person to write down the scrolls for what had previously been an oral family tradition. This, supposedly, was because in previous years being a ninja was highly illegal and any individuals discovered to be ninja would be horrifically tortured before being executed.

After that, Askew moves on to a somewhat meandering tour through around 700 years of Japanese history focusing on groups and individuals known or suspected to have been ninja or employed ninja or been associated with ninjutsu in some way, shape, or form. I will state up front that I am completely unqualified to judge the quality of his historical sources or how accurately he is interpreting them. I am not a student of Japanese history and I can't read Japanese, so I can't even read the book titles he lists as sources in his footnotes. I will note that he almost never gives direct quotes from his sources, relying instead on summaries and paraphrases. He also seems to include a lot of statements like "it is rumored that ...", "Allegedly ...", "it is thought that ...", "I personally believe that ...", and so on. This does not help to give confidence in understanding which of the events described are well-documented historical events and which  are folklore.

Finally, Askew returns to Takamatsu's alleged instructor in Togakure Ryu, Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu. His concern as a student of Togakure Ryu seeking validation of his lineage, is that there is no documentation to indicate that an individual with that name actually lived in that time and place. Askew solved this puzzle to his own satisfaction by tracking down records of one Toda Hisajiro. According to Takamatsu, his grandfather taught kenjutsu at the Kobusho military academy. The Kobusho records don't list Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu, but they do list Toda Hisajiro. Askew puts together a few clues which lead him to believe that Toda Hisajiro may have been involved in ninjutsu. For example, Toda Hisajiro was also a falconer, and falconry was supposedly associated with certain ninja groups. Askew puts the clues together and concludes that Toda Hisajiro changed his name (various speculative reasons are given) to Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu before becoming grandfather and instructor to Takamatsu. Once again, I totally lack the background to estimate how plausible this possibility might be. I will say that even if it is plausible, Askew has totally failed to prove it. He seems to be operating on faith that Takamatsu was completely honest and accurate and that Takamatsu's teacher was completely honest and accurate. He found a record of someone who _might _have had a ninjutsu background and _might _have been Takamatsu's grandfather under a different name? Case closed!

I will add my personal impression that even if Askew is correct about Toda Hisajiro being the same person as Toda Shinruken Masamitsu and Takamatsu's instructor, that does very little to back up the claimed history of Togakure Ryu. Askew does briefly acknowledge that oral traditions are not necessarily completely accurate, but then continues to refer to Takamatsu as the 33rd grandmaster of Togakure Ryu. I'm pretty certain that no competent historian anywhere would trust an oral family tradition supposedly tracing back 33 generations as an accurate description of events centuries earlier. (Not to mention that the "ryu" system of categorizing and passing on specific martial arts doesn't actually go back that far in Japan.) In his chapters on the history of ninja through the centuries, Askew never once lists any mention of the name Togakure Ryu, although he does list several other ninjutsu lineages. In fact, at one point he tells the story of a particular family who made it publicly known that they employed ninja and the name of that ninjutsu ryu. Askew speculates that this was a form of misdirection, with the one ninja group being public so as to disguise the fact that the Togakure Ryu clan was working secretly for the same family. He offers no evidence to support that. He mentions the Bansenshukai, a compendium of ninjutsu knowledge written in 1676, and asserts without evidence that much of this information must have come from Togakure Ryu. (Also, it seem strange that the Togakure Ryu would keep no written records for hundreds of years, but would allow an outsider to write down much of their knowledge as long as they weren't credited as the source.) Finally I will comment that the history Askew presents shows that the Toda lineage of Togakure Ryu ended up as servants of the Tokagawa Shogunate in a variety of roles - combat troops, government spies, castle guards, sharpshooters, reconnaissance scouts, secret police, or swordsmanship instructors. It's hard to reconcile these official duties for the ruling government with the idea that the lineage and teachings of the ryu had to be kept strictly to a secret oral tradition and never written down. 

I hope this helps. I encourage anyone with a greater knowledge of Japanese history to read the book and draw their own conclusions. If you have a Kindle Unlimited membership then you can download and read the book for free.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 29, 2021)

*Chris Parker said -*_ 
I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study._


Yeah well I guess I would like a specific example. Pick one.


_*Chris Parker said -* Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.

Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts._

Heres the thing though, It takes a lifetime to study and learn all 9 ryuha thoroughly. Hell man, it takes at least 3 years (took me 3/2) just to learn the basics of general combat movement, distancing and positioning. At that point its still not effect in a real right. It takes a hell of a lot longer than that before the individual learns to defend themselves effectively.

Lets face it though, it really is up to the individual as to what, if any study of the ryuha they want to pursue in a more thorough way. That does not make the Bujinkan wrong in its teachings. Like I said, these days there is a dramatic difference in the teachings from school to school.



_*Chris Parker said -* I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha._


putting your passive aggressiveness aside, your money is on never? You haven’t seen it yet you seem to be an expert of it.



*Chris Parker said -*_ Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.

How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught...

In other words, this is completely wrong._



In other words its not wrong. I have already stated that it was in the late 80’s that the other ryuha started to seep through but it was Togakure ryu specifically until then. You are talking about late 80’s and after so you point is really moot.

I have Stephen Hayes book Ninja combat methods too Published in 1975.





And the intro says: Today, the Togakure Ryu is the last historical system of nunjutsu publicly recognized as still being in existence. The Togakure system was founded by Daisuke Togakure, who studied with the warrior monk Kain Doshi in the mountain wilderness of the Iga over eight centuries ago. Now in its thirty-fourth generation, the Togakure Ryu is unde the direction of Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, an osteopathic practitioner living in Noda City, Japna, Dr Hatsumi inherited the Togakure training system form his teacher, Toshitsugu Takaatsu, the thirety-third supreme master of the Togakure ryu.

Though the history and tradition of Togakure ninja is obviously very old, the techniques and methods practiced today are quite contemporary, as it is the responsibility of each generation’s supreme master to keep the teachings up to date and fitting with the times. This way, the Togakure ryu ninja’s art of winning will never bcome antiquated, even in generations to come. It goes on some more but you get it right?

I have also stated previously that the Bujinkan curriculum is base on those 9 ryuha in varying degrees. In the 1990’s Hatsumi put out a book called Bujinkna Dojo Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi’s School for Bujinkan Ninpo Tiajutsu Easter Culture for Body and Mind.(which I have) where he takes a selection from the 9 rhyha to form what we know today as the Ten Chi Jin Raku No Maki. At the back of this book Hatsumi has a suggested grading syllabus broken up into the 3 sections. Later he removed the grading requirements and left it up to the Shihan how they wanted to grade their students.


_Elninjo said:

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.


*Chris Parker said -* Can you demonstrate that, or show examples?_

Well geez Chris its fairly simple stuff. For instance, Koto Ryu uses Juji Aruki and Gyokko Ryu uses Yoko Aruki. Koto Ryu distance the movements are more aligned thank in Gyokko Ryu the short distance where you twist the body up and down.


_*Chris Parker said *_- _I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?_


No really, it was just something I found that was historical.


_*Chris Parker said *And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years._

My point of posting it was to show that your sensei Wayne L Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan – which he was. Talk to anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan and mention Way L Roy’s name and they will bring their both index fingers up in a cross. He was removed. He was stripped of rank (by being removed) and is now running his own security business. From what I am reading about “your” school, its conception came from the fact that you decided to be loyal to a disgraced member of the Bujinkan. You now teach 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan and are, largely self taught from the time Roy was booted out. The only place your rank is recognized is within “your” school. You haven’t even reached the level (5th Dan) to be considered licensed to teach these ryuha.
Other than that I really dont care who or what Wayne L Roy is or has done.




_*Chris Parker said -* A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points)._

Back then mate it was pretty darn basic stuff. You have not been involved in the Bujinkan in at least 20 years and only reaching Shodan, doesn’t say much for your experience with it. I have those same view about how much it has changed over the years.

_ 
Elninjo said:_

*Brendan f Said: -*_ I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?


*Chris Parker said -* No, you're clinging to easily disprovable nonsense... without any recognition of the reality of the situation._

I have just posted some of the proof…..have lots and lots more if you like mate?



_*Chris Parker said -* That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?_


You have no idea what you’re ranting about. First a complaint about a solicitor for breach of the codes is a separate issue from a court case. The do not run on the same field. Not that I really care about this stuff but you obviously have your panties in a bunch about it so ill elaborate how exactly a complain against a solicitor is made and concluded

Someone dealing with a solicitor believes the said solicitor has breach the conduct rules. They make a formal complaint (separately from any court case happening and not linked to it) to the relevant governing body outlining the reasons they believe they have breached the code. The complaint is investigated and a determination made.



So heres where it gets interesting. If the complaint is found to be unheld – and BrendanF having studied law would be able to confirm this, the solicitor can face penalties.

Depending on what the breach was and I would think it would have had to have been fairly significant for it to be used in a university lecture. Where would you find this information? The OLSC – Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Try there or you may wish to contact them in that regards……20 years have passed lol so you may not find a thing.



A court case that has been ruled on (someone suing you) you will find here

AustLII - Help: Case Law Help

If the case did not proceed to trial – meaning a court did not hear the case and did not rule on it then it wont show anywhere. Ie if the parties decided to settle the matter out of court or the instigating party withdrew…..

*Chris Parker said -*Second
_And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours._



Wayne L Roy did get booted out and it was 5th Dan, there are apparently letters around from Roy to Hatsumi demanding he be given 10th dan rank. Bitching about others that have been training for less and getting 10th dan.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 30, 2021)

@Tony Dismukes , thanks for the review... it matches my thoughts as well. 

One of my favourite shows of all time is The West Wing... in the penultimate season, the show covered the primary season, with various people vying for nomination of their party for President. One of the main contenders, and presumptive nominee, is the then-Vice President, Bob Russell. He had a favourite way of starting his speeches, with a joke about the Vice Presidential Seal, saying that his favourite thing about the VP Seal was that "if you turn your head... and squint just so... and look really carefully... it almost looks like... President of the United States..." (cheap applause and polite laughter). In an aside, his campaign manager, Will Bailey, is discussing with a senior aide, Donnatella Moss. She asks him if he's ever "squinted, looked from the side..", and he responds that "I'm ashamed to admit it, but, yes." "And, does it?" she asked... "No."

Sean, Kacem, and others, are squinting and looking from the side, hoping to see what they want, rather than opening their eyes and looking directly as what it is... speaking of... 



Elninjo said:


> *Chris Parker said -*_
> I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study._
> 
> 
> Yeah well I guess I would like a specific example. Pick one.



For one thing, we should teach you how to quote... click on the "add quote" button... makes it much easier to do this.

Right, let's get to it. I've asked for numerous examples... you want just one? Okay... how would you define the body structural difference between, let's say, Koto Ryu and Kukishinden Ryu? We'll keep it simple... describe the difference between their two Seigan no Kamae... how it's adopted, how the body is structured (hip orientation, weight distribution)... but, more importantly, what does that imply for the school?

This is leaving off concepts such as the reiho, ri-ai, mindset, and so on that would really identify ryu-ha transmission... if we're lucky, we'll get there... or, really, we'll get to conversing about it, as they don't really feature beyond some minor (largely superficial, really... we'll get to that) physical variations from one "ryu" to the next.



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said -* Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.
> 
> Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts._
> 
> Heres the thing though, It takes a lifetime to study and learn all 9 ryuha thoroughly. Hell man, it takes at least 3 years (took me 3/2) just to learn the basics of general combat movement, distancing and positioning. At that point its still not effect in a real right. It takes a hell of a lot longer than that before the individual learns to defend themselves effectively.



Please. If it takes a lifetime to study and learn them, how did Hatsumi do it in less than 15 years of (at times) intermittent weekends? Unless you're agreeing that that would be impossible, so he didn't actually do anything of the kind? Realistically, though, for most koryu, anywhere from 10-20 years would be what I would consider "standard" for achieving Menkyo Kaiden (or it's equivalent). Today, that often gets stretched out to perhaps 25-30 years, but I'd also attribute that to the modern training approaches compared to back in the day (even back in the 70's and 80's, really)... but it's not historically accurate to say anything like that. 

Now, I'm not saying that these arts aren't lifetime studies... they certainly can be, and are for many people. But that's not the same as how long it takes to learn them in the first place. As for your timeline, frankly, the terms you're describing are quite vague and meaningless here... your idea of "learning distancing" might be very different to mine... after all, learning it can be done quickly... developing a sense and understanding is another matter entirely... of course, it's also a bit telling that you focus on these as "the basics of general combat movement", as that's exactly what the Bujinkan is, and exactly why it's not a study of the ryu-ha... which is, again, not a criticism, it's a description of it's design... which is exactly the way Hatsumi wants it, and is the best approach for the skills he wants to impart.



Elninjo said:


> Lets face it though, it really is up to the individual as to what, if any study of the ryuha they want to pursue in a more thorough way. That does not make the Bujinkan wrong in its teachings. Like I said, these days there is a dramatic difference in the teachings from school to school.



Well, not really, if it's not taught (and therefore not an option) for them in the first place... and, again, I'm only saying the Bujinkan's approach to the material is "wrong" from the perspective of the ryu... it's perfectly correct when looked at with the ideal of using the material to explore Budo Taijutsu... which is the reality. Look, you can get as deep as you want into the kata the way the Bujinkan do them, but the homogenisation to a Budo Taijutsu approach (body structure, attacking methods, incredibly similar kamae, blocking and receiving methods, methods of applying locks and throws, and so on) will remove them from the context of the ryu itself. Believe me, I've done that for two and a half decades (although, to be frank, I've understood that there was this major separation between the Bujinkan's approach and the actual ryu-ha for the last 15 years at least... I'm just now really in a position to start putting together what I feel is a more accurate representation... not saying it's "right", as I think the possibility of saying that is well past, just that it's something I feel is closer). One more thing... this isn't restricted to the Bujinkan either... the Jinenkan does the same thing, as does the Genbukan... there is a basic, underlying approach each group uses, and that is how they filter and express the waza of the various schools... at the end, I'll show a bit of what I'm talking about. 



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said -* I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha._
> 
> 
> putting your passive aggressiveness aside, your money is on never? You haven’t seen it yet you seem to be an expert of it.



Not passive-aggressive, genuinely asking. Your English is good, but you seem to not follow what is being said a number of times... misrepresenting Dunc's statements and intent, missing Tony's background, stating you "can look for" something regarding myself, despite it being literally two sentences prior in your own post... so I was curious, as that might have explained it. If not... then maybe read a bit closer?

And, yes, my money is on "never". To begin with, you have the three "hidden" schools, one which was not given in any way other than on paper (with no techniques), one being a set of principles, and one mysteriously appearing a couple of years after Takamatsu's death... then you have the time-frame, and the size of some of these schools... then you have the lack of any indication of ryu-ha methodologies, the disdain shown towards the traits and common practices of koryu, as well as Hatsumi's own lack of interest in such things.. I mean... it'd be incredible if, after all that, against his own values, interests, desires, intents, and preferences, he was actually teaching and transmitting the ryu themselves... it just doesn't make sense, and the idea that the ryu are studied as the ryu themselves, separate and distinct from Budo Taijutsu methodologies, simply has no evidence or support. And that's okay... because that's how the Bujinkan is meant to be.

By the way, I wouldn't class myself as an "expert", but the expertise you're looking for is someone being an expert in koryu and ryu-ha transmission... and those who are such all agree with my take on it (Meik Skoss, Wayne Muromoto, Steve Delaney...). This is why I said my take is more from my study of koryu than from my study with Wayne Roy, both in and out of the Bujinkan.



Elninjo said:


> *Chris Parker said -*_ Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.
> 
> How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught...
> 
> ...



70's, dude. Again, read a bit closer. 

Still, you want definitive? Okay.

Oh, look, Hatsumi in the 70's... and no Togakure Ryu techniques or methods at all (some Kukishin based staff work, the rest is more a set of concepts, with some escape methods from Shinden Fudo Ryu.. but no Togakure Ryu).





More? Okay, have you read Andrew Adams' "Ninja: The Invisible Assassins"? Written in the late 60's, with some quite interesting research covering Hatsumi, Nawa Yumio (last head of Masaki Ryu Kusarijutsu... Hatsumi studied with him for a while), Okuse Heishichiro, former Mayor of Iga-Ueno and "ninja historian", some focus on Fujita Seiko, and even a third, unnamed "secret" ninja who claimed to still be operating... when dealing with Hatsumi (still known as Yoshiaki, if you want to date this), said this (page 166, if you want to check):

"Yoshiaki Hatsumi estimates that it takes least 10 years, the length of time he studied under Takamatsu, to master all the different weapons and techniques. Fudo-ryu includes jujitsu (sic) and iainuki, or fast sword-drawing techniques. Takagi Yoshin-ryu takes in jutaijutsu. The third class, or school of techniques, Gyokko-ryu, includes yubi methods (use of the thumb and fingers) and Togakure-ryu, a 700-year-old school emphasising original ninja techniques.Koto-ryu is centred around a technique called koppo, or bone breaking. The final school, Kuki Shin-ryu, is based on bisento, a type of fighting using a wide-bladed spear with a blade similar to that of a scimitar."

This book was first published (in English, to the West) in 1970, and features Hatsumi and some students (a younger Ishizuka among them) demonstrating techniques... and, what would you know, there's little Togakure Ryu kata there. You can easily recognise a bunch from Koto Ryu (Hissaku, Ransetsu, and others), and Gyokko Ryu (Koku, Ketsu Myaku, and others)... so... er... oh, and you'll notice that there is no mention of Gyokushin, Gikan, or Kumogakure... funny, that... 



Elninjo said:


> I have Stephen Hayes book Ninja combat methods too Published in 1975.
> 
> View attachment 27174



Hmm... Hayes' first book was "The Ninja And Their Secret Fighting Art", first published in 1981, detailing the lessons he received in Japan... starting when he first arrived there... in 1975... are you sure you're right there? For the record, the 1967 art they're talking about is his karate training, not Bujinkan... he started his first karate dojo in 73, and left it to go to Japan two years later... oh, and Doron Navon had been there for a few years, and got Shidoshi status before Hayes did... as I said, consummate marketer... of course, none of that states that Togakure Ryu was the only thing they did, just that it was the main title used to spread the art... you know, as I've been saying... as well as giving the reasons for it... I mean... in the book, he even does a similar description of the various schools to the one in Adams' book, albeit with some different descriptions (stating that Fudo Ryu specialises in shuriken, for example)...

EDIT: Okay, found the one you're talking about... it's basically a short manual that got published when Hayes had just started training in Japan... and the point is?



Elninjo said:


> And the intro says: Today, the Togakure Ryu is the last historical system of nunjutsu publicly recognized as still being in existence. The Togakure system was founded by Daisuke Togakure, who studied with the warrior monk Kain Doshi in the mountain wilderness of the Iga over eight centuries ago. Now in its thirty-fourth generation, the Togakure Ryu is unde the direction of Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, an osteopathic practitioner living in Noda City, Japna, Dr Hatsumi inherited the Togakure training system form his teacher, Toshitsugu Takaatsu, the thirety-third supreme master of the Togakure ryu.
> 
> 
> Though the history and tradition of Togakure ninja is obviously very old, the techniques and methods practiced today are quite contemporary, as it is the responsibility of each generation’s supreme master to keep the teachings up to date and fitting with the times. This way, the Togakure ryu ninja’s art of winning will never bcome antiquated, even in generations to come. It goes on some more but you get it right?



Dude... they were using the name as a single title to describe everything taught... it does not, and you really need to get this, it does NOT mean that everything they did was only Togakure Ryu. I could go on, but... you get it, right?



Elninjo said:


> I have also stated previously that the Bujinkan curriculum is base on those 9 ryuha in varying degrees. In the 1990’s Hatsumi put out a book called Bujinkna Dojo Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi’s School for Bujinkan Ninpo Tiajutsu Easter Culture for Body and Mind.(which I have) where he takes a selection from the 9 rhyha to form what we know today as the Ten Chi Jin Raku No Maki.



The Ten Chi Jin dates from at least a decade at least before that, gotta tell you... Hatsumi gave Hayes a copy in 82 in the first big seminar tour of the US... Charles Daniel was training from it in 84, and starting to spread it around in 85... Wayne Roy, for the record, received a copy from Nagato just before he left Japan at the end of 1980, so, yeah, kinda familiar with the contents... and, let's be clear again, there are kata drawn from Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu (not the Jutaijutsu), Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Togakure Ryu, as well as a number that were created specifically for the book, and did not come from any school... no Gikan, Gyokushin, or Kumogakure... funny, that... 



Elninjo said:


> At the back of this book Hatsumi has a suggested grading syllabus broken up into the 3 sections. Later he removed the grading requirements and left it up to the Shihan how they wanted to grade their students.



There were a number of structured syllabus' back in the day... there was one that had kyoketsu shoge as a kyu-grade weapon, for example... 



Elninjo said:


> _Elninjo said:
> 
> The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.
> 
> ...



That's a couple of superficial aspects... give me the ri-ai behind them, and tell me about how the body structure, power generation, and so forth differ... after all, two different names for cross-stepping isn't going to cut it much... 



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said *_- _I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?_
> 
> 
> No really, it was just something I found that was historical.



No, it was a (semi) anonymous character assassination from a disgruntled, angry man with no evidence, support, or backup... and, one might add, pretty much entirely incorrect, as has been demonstrated.



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said *And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years._
> 
> My point of posting it was to show that your sensei Wayne L Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan – which he was.



Kid, I've known the man for close to 30 years, have been a student of his through the whole "leaving the Bujinkan" thing, and I'm telling you, despite the wishes and intent of some, Wayne Roy was never kicked out of the Bujinkan. You're wrong, and, frankly, have nothing to support this statement.



Elninjo said:


> Talk to anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan and mention Way L Roy’s name and they will bring their both index fingers up in a cross.



Some will... all? Nope. Gillian Booth and I had some good chats about the "good old days" when she was with our schools (she was one of the first female black belts in Australia under us, as well as being a champion judoka in her own right)... nor will Craig Guest... haven't heard anything negative from Duncan Stewart either... some vocal people online, yep. But everyone? Nope.  You know how I know? Cause I'm in Australia, and I talk to a number of these people.



Elninjo said:


> He was removed.



No, he wasn't.



Elninjo said:


> He was stripped of rank (by being removed)



No, he wasn't.



Elninjo said:


> and is now running his own security business.



No, he doesn't. Really, do you have the first clue what you're talking about, or who you're talking to?



Elninjo said:


> From what I am reading about “your” school, its conception came from the fact that you decided to be loyal to a disgraced member of the Bujinkan.



I remained with my teacher, yep. "Disgraced"? Hardly. Universally loved, not at all. But here's a secret for you... even Nagato was happy to talk about Wayne Roy in a respectful manner... 



Elninjo said:


> You now teach 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan



As does every Bujinkan school, mate.



Elninjo said:


> and are, largely self taught from the time Roy was booted out.



Wow, you just won't let things go, will you? And what makes you think I was "largely self taught"?!? I still had a teacher... you pointed that out yourself above... do you even know how to follow your own argument?



Elninjo said:


> The only place your rank is recognized is within “your” school.



Same with any school, kid. Try giving your Bujinkan rank at a BJJ gym, see if they'll accept it... hell, go to the Genbukan, and you'll start at 9th kyu... 



Elninjo said:


> You haven’t even reached the level (5th Dan) to be considered licensed to teach these ryuha.



I don't think you get how licences work, really... do you think a Godan in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is a licence to teach Gyokko Ryu? Oh, and for the record, the title is Shidoshi-ho, which means I'm authorised to teach (and rank) up to a point, should I decide to go full-Bujinkan... 



Elninjo said:


> Other than that I really dont care who or what Wayne L Roy is or has done.



You really hide it well... considering he has only a passing relevance to this conversation (honestly, pretty much no relevance, but hey, you seem a bit obsessed...)



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said -* A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points)._
> 
> Back then mate it was pretty darn basic stuff. You have not been involved in the Bujinkan in at least 20 years and only reaching Shodan, doesn’t say much for your experience with it. I have those same view about how much it has changed over the years.



Please, try to read what's being said.



Elninjo said:


> _Elninjo said:_
> 
> *Brendan f Said: -*_ I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:
> 
> ...



Ha!!! And, pray tell, what "proof" have you offered? That the primary name the early Bujinkan went under was Togakure Ryu? Yeah... that's not really something that was debated.. you seem to think that means that only Togakure Ryu itself was taught... that's... just wrong. As I've demonstrated. Again, and again, and again...



Elninjo said:


> _*Chris Parker said -* That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?_
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you’re ranting about. First a complaint about a solicitor for breach of the codes is a separate issue from a court case. The do not run on the same field. Not that I really care about this stuff but you obviously have your panties in a bunch about it so ill elaborate how exactly a complain against a solicitor is made and concluded
> ...



Or, and bear with me here... it never happened, and was just another case of Ed slurring Wayne's name. Again. By lying. As he did multiple times in the same rant. 

Oh, and for this to have gotten to this stage, there would need to have been something lodged by the solicitor in the first place, so.... no. Additionally, this isn't what Ed described... he described a civil case (suing for libel), so there'd be records. Really, try using some logic here, you're missing a lot of the details... 



Elninjo said:


> A court case that has been ruled on (someone suing you) you will find here
> 
> AustLII - Help: Case Law Help
> 
> If the case did not proceed to trial – meaning a court did not hear the case and did not rule on it then it wont show anywhere. Ie if the parties decided to settle the matter out of court or the instigating party withdrew…..



And, so you're suggesting that a non-court case is used as an example in universities regarding case law....?



Elninjo said:


> *Chris Parker said -*Second
> _And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours._
> 
> 
> ...



No. For the last time, he was not. People may have wanted to, but that's immaterial to your claim. Even Ed hasn't stated he was "booted", and no-one else has suggested it. Stop.



Elninjo said:


> and it was 5th Dan,



Are you kidding? I think I know the rank of my own teacher well enough. He was awarded Rokudan in 1990, and was not promoted afterwards... but by the same token, there was never a demotion either (in fact, I can't think of any case where that has happened in the Bujinkan at all...)



Elninjo said:


> there are apparently letters around from Roy to Hatsumi demanding he be given 10th dan rank. Bitching about others that have been training for less and getting 10th dan.



And using said rank to run him down publicly. You know, the thing I said happened. Oh, and it's one letter, basically requesting a show of support from Japan, which included a request to be promoted to Judan (not for the rank, mainly to shut up the others). The request was ignored, so we left. Simple. By the way, the letter itself was considered a private correspondence between Wayne and Hatsumi, who then gave it out to a number of Wayne's detractors in Japan to spread it around... something that we were rather unimpressed with, to say the least, but, again, this is 20 years ago, so it's not something I am interested in dredging up.

Can you actually get back to the topic, or do you have nothing to offer in that regard? You claim that the Bujinkan teaches 9 ryu... back that up. You claim there is ryu-ha study (genuine, koryu-style). Back that up. Attempting to attack myself by attacking my former teacher just shows you have no real argument at all. Ball's in your court, kid.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 30, 2021)

Okay, I said I'd show some of what I'm talking about, so let's look at some examples.

Bujinkan Koto Ryu





Bujinkan Gyokko Ryu





Bujinkan Takagi Yoshin Ryu





Bujinkan Kukishin Ryu





Bujinkan Kukishin Bojutsu





As you can see, the basic postural ideas, hand strikes, blocking methods, and so on are all essentially the same... just with slight variations. Then, the different sequences are gone through, but that's about it. (I think I can only do 5 videos per post, so this will be continued in a bit..)


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> @Tony Dismukes , thanks for the review... it matches my thoughts as well.
> 
> One of my favourite shows of all time is The West Wing... in the penultimate season, the show covered the primary season, with various people vying for nomination of their party for President. One of the main contenders, and presumptive nominee, is the then-Vice President, Bob Russell. He had a favourite way of starting his speeches, with a joke about the Vice Presidential Seal, saying that his favourite thing about the VP Seal was that "if you turn your head... and squint just so... and look really carefully... it almost looks like... President of the United States..." (cheap applause and polite laughter). In an aside, his campaign manager, Will Bailey, is discussing with a senior aide, Donnatella Moss. She asks him if he's ever "squinted, looked from the side..", and he responds that "I'm ashamed to admit it, but, yes." "And, does it?" she asked... "No."
> 
> ...


We're back to calling people "kid?"


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 30, 2021)

We can do the same with the Genbukan, for the record, so this is not a Bujinkan only thing... recently, Michael Coleman of the Genbukan has started a series showing a number of the ryu-ha practiced there, including ones he has licensing in from Tanemura... but, again, the sequences are the biggest differences... the body structure, power generation, striking format, and so on are all pretty much the same across the board... again, if you want a consistent skill that can be applied in myriad forms, this is what you should be doing... so it's not a criticism (I think I've said that a dozen times now!)... just an observation.

Genbukan Takagi Yoshin Ryu





Genbukan Kukishin (Kijin Chosui Ryu Kukishinden)





Genbukan demo featuring Gyokko, Koto, Takagi, Shinden Fudo, Asayama Ichiden, and a few more... without knowing the kata, could you tell which was which?


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 30, 2021)

For contrast, here are some other lines of these schools... see how what is seen in Bujinkan training.

Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu (Takagi mainline)





Ueno-den Koto Ryu (Ueno Takashi received Koto Ryu from Takamatsu before Hatsumi started training with him, for the record)





Kukishin Ryu bojutsu (mainline Kukamishin Ryu)





Kijin Chosui Ryu (Kukishin Ryu Dakentaijutsu in the Bujinkan), starting at around 43 seconds in.





And, for the record, this is Kukishin (Kukamishin) Ryu mainline Taijutsu...





As you can see, there's a lot of difference in the way the arts are done outside of the Bujinkan, and inside of it... and, one more time, I'm not saying one is "better" than the other, just that they're different...


----------



## dunc (Aug 30, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> For contrast, here are some other lines of these schools... see how what is seen in Bujinkan training.
> 
> Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu (Takagi mainline)
> 
> ...


There are technical differences between the arts as they are trained in different lines
This is quite normal I think and not exclusive to Xkan vs Koryu

Apologies for repeating myself, but if you want to go deep into the unique characteristics of any of the ryuha then you can. There are (or were) teachers who show you these things and whether you had a relationship with them that was conducive to this
It would depend somewhat on what period you were training in

In my view folks training in the Bujinkan should go through various phases of their development:
1) master the basic building blocks of taijutsu (think the TCJ)
2) master the forms from the ryuha (& their unique insights, movements, tactics etc)
3) learn to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryuha more generally
Each of these takes quite a long time and a lot of effort and it’s not really a linear progression in practice


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 30, 2021)

dunc said:


> In my view folks training in the Bujinkan should go through various phases of their development:
> 1) master the basic building blocks of taijutsu (think the TCJ)
> 2) master the forms from the ryuha (& their unique insights, movements, tactics etc)
> 3) learn to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryuha more generally
> Each of these takes quite a long time and a lot of effort and it’s not really a linear progression in practice



This is literally exactly what has been said - this is not the same as the process of studying koryu; it is the process followed when learning Budo Taijutsu.  Koryu training is not the same.


----------



## dunc (Aug 30, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> This is literally exactly what has been said - this is not the same as the process of studying koryu; it is the process followed when learning Budo Taijutsu.  Koryu training is not the same.


Not quite….
Chris said that you couldn’t learn the ryuha within the Buj


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 30, 2021)

And the process you described - as I mentioned - is not 'learning the ryuha'.  It's learning Budo Taijutsu.  So he's not wrong.


----------



## dunc (Aug 31, 2021)

Hi @BrendanF 
Apologies - I rushed my response
The process i described is absolutely the one to learn Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, in my view that is…
Having said that you can learn the Ryuha within the Bujinkan if you want
There are (were) teachers with traditional licenses & there are teachers in the Bujinkan who teach the ryu as distinct arts. Ie with different body movements and tactics
Even foundations like the punching and blocking methods are quite different from one ryu to the next
General training (eg at the Hombu) doesn’t really go into this much (a bit but not much) which is why I think @Chris Parker is understandably making his assertion
Personally I have enjoyed going deep into the distinctive characteristics and methods of the different ryu. I feel I’ve benefited from spending time (probably 20 years or so) going deep into this, but I appreciate that it’s not for everyone and it’s probably not necessary to achieve the goal outlined above
having said that in my view there are some key movements that unless you understand where they come from don’t make sense and I feel any people are missing out because they haven’t been taught these things
Hope that makes sense?


----------



## dunc (Aug 31, 2021)

Of course we could debate forever whether going deep into the Bujinkan’s ryuha and learning their distinctive characteristics and methods constitutes learning the ryuha in the traditional sense…
There is a distinction between devoting all your training time to one ryu / method (very traditional approach) and training in several discrete ryuha
I’m defining learning the ryuha as the latter not the former, but there is a spectrum between:
a) doing forms from different schools without changing your underlying taijutsu
b) learning the schools as discrete entities and differentiating between their methods, tactics etc (my definition of learning the ryuha), and
c) devoting yourself to one ryuha / method (or perhaps a couple that have come together over time) which is the more traditional approach / definition


----------



## jergar (Aug 31, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.
> 
> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.
> 
> ...


Hi Rogue, I studied with a friend of mine for two years who was a ninja trained in Japan, he had the paper work to prove it. We exchanged techniques I’m a student of Kung fu. What I can tell you is Ninjitsu is very similar to kung  fu . It’s not a linear art it is based on circles and triangles . There’s not a lot of blocking mostly move the body out of line of the strike and attack at the same time. There are sub arts , one for knife fighting, hand to hand, short sword, pinching, stealth, clawing with the metal hand claws, juijitsu, throwing, phycology instill fear in your opponent etc. they all come together to form one art . Sorry I couldn’t go into more detail but it’s been a few years . Hope this helps you out. Salute and Peace !


----------



## Steve (Aug 31, 2021)

jergar said:


> Hi Rogue, I studied with a friend of mine for two years who was a ninja trained in Japan, he had the paper work to prove it. We exchanged techniques I’m a student of Kung fu. What I can tell you is Ninjitsu is very similar to kung  fu . It’s not a linear art it is based on circles and triangles . There’s not a lot of blocking mostly move the body out of line of the strike and attack at the same time. There are sub arts , one for knife fighting, hand to hand, short sword, pinching, stealth, clawing with the metal hand claws, juijitsu, throwing, phycology instill fear in your opponent etc. they all come together to form one art . Sorry I couldn’t go into more detail but it’s been a few years . Hope this helps you out. Salute and Peace !


Welcome to the forum.  I'm glad you dusted off your account and joined the discussion.


----------



## jergar (Aug 31, 2021)

Steve said:


> Welcome to the forum.  I'm glad you dusted off your account and joined the discussion.


Thanks Steve😊


----------



## BrendanF (Aug 31, 2021)

dunc said:


> Of course we could debate forever whether going deep into the Bujinkan’s ryuha and learning their distinctive characteristics and methods constitutes learning the ryuha in the traditional sense…
> There is a distinction between devoting all your training time to one ryu / method (very traditional approach) and training in several discrete ryuha
> I’m defining learning the ryuha as the latter not the former, but there is a spectrum between:
> a) doing forms from different schools without changing your underlying taijutsu
> ...



Thanks for the follow up Dunc.  I certainly agree, it seems we could go back and forth on this indefinitely, these being subjective issues.  I also agree with your categorisations, and I guess the point I've tried to make is that the Bujinkan methodology seems to fall solidly into (a).  As a result, I feel like it would be virtually impossible to _actually_ learn the schools per your (b) category; as Chris has mentioned, the kata and associated methods and tactics are not the ryuha, and learning to perform those physical techniques as discrete entities does not in my view constitute joining and studying the ryuha proper.  This seems to be the overwhelmingly consistent view of those koryu practitioners I've talked to.  As I said earlier though I've never been an X-kan student, so speak only from observation and discussion with those who are.

The two koryu I study are so distinctly different that I can't really imagine trying to learn multiple that are alike, at the same time.  I'd trained in one for about a decade before starting another, and have been pleasantly surprised that, due to the drastic difference in approaches I don't feel like I struggle to keep the Shinto ryu from contaminating my study of Sosuishiryu.  As a slow-learning student in any event, I can't imagine trying to learn Sosuishi ryu together with Takenouchi ryu and/or a few others from the same family.  My head would pop.


----------



## dunc (Sep 1, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> Thanks for the follow up Dunc.  I certainly agree, it seems we could go back and forth on this indefinitely, these being subjective issues.  I also agree with your categorisations, and I guess the point I've tried to make is that the Bujinkan methodology seems to fall solidly into (a).  As a result, I feel like it would be virtually impossible to _actually_ learn the schools per your (b) category; as Chris has mentioned, the kata and associated methods and tactics are not the ryuha, and learning to perform those physical techniques as discrete entities does not in my view constitute joining and studying the ryuha proper.  This seems to be the overwhelmingly consistent view of those koryu practitioners I've talked to.  As I said earlier though I've never been an X-kan student, so speak only from observation and discussion with those who are.
> 
> The two koryu I study are so distinctly different that I can't really imagine trying to learn multiple that are alike, at the same time.  I'd trained in one for about a decade before starting another, and have been pleasantly surprised that, due to the drastic difference in approaches I don't feel like I struggle to keep the Shinto ryu from contaminating my study of Sosuishiryu.  As a slow-learning student in any event, I can't imagine trying to learn Sosuishi ryu together with Takenouchi ryu and/or a few others from the same family.  My head would pop.


Hi
Thanks for this and I tend to agree that going deep into a sophisticated ryu with a very broad curriculum would require a long time and many hours on the mat
Using my categorisation a) is the mainstream Bujinkan approach, b) is possible in the Bujinkan, and c) is probably not possible in today’s Bujinkan for westerners (maybe in the future some of the new soke will change things who knows)


----------



## angelariz (Sep 1, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.
> 
> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.
> 
> ...


I trained at a "ninjutsu" school in the early 90s. It was a Bujutsu, Shotokan, and JJJ blend. From my experience most Ninja schools you find will be of the same type. Karate, jujitsu, and bujutsu mixed. There is no ninjutsu that dates back to feudal Japan.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 1, 2021)

Hi @dunc ,

Some things to clear up.



dunc said:


> There are technical differences between the arts as they are trained in different lines
> This is quite normal I think and not exclusive to Xkan vs Koryu



This is absolutely true. One look at, for example, the differences between the Kawasaki and Chiba lines for Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu is an example of that... you can also see distinctions between various groups for Shindo Muso Ryu, most notable between the Kyushu and Tokyo groups... different groups of Muso Shinden Ryu or Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu have variations in noto, reigi, syllabus content (some have some small additional areas, for example)... however, I would suggest you're missing a few key points.

Firstly, even with these technical differences, each art is still recognisable as that art... to use Shinto Ryu as an example, the Chiba line tend to be more "forward" with the direction of their weapons, whereas the Kawasaki are a bit more focused on large circles... but they are still using pretty much the same mechanical ideas. The same grips, postures, power generation, ri-ai, and applications of weapons... Shinto Ryu is Shinto Ryu, regardless of these more superficial changes. The way Shinto Ryu uses a bo is very much Shinto Ryu... pulling the staff back to get a secure grip on the base-third of the weapon before swinging the far end to the target is very much the Shinto Ryu method of using a bo... it's not the way it's used in Kukishin Ryu, or Chikubujima Ryu, or Takenouchi Ryu, or Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu... it's not the same staff methodology employed in Shindo Muso Ryu either, despite that coming from Shinto Ryu... 

The point there is that, for example, if you were in a school that taught Shinto Ryu, and taught another art with bojutsu as part of it's skill-set, if both bo systems look the same, or similar, then at least one of them is incorrect, as it's no longer that school... even if the "order of strikes" is the same. So, when you get a collection of supposedly disparate systems, and they all end up using the same or similar movement concepts, kamae structures, footwork, fists, and so on, then you're not actually training in the ryu themselves... you're training using their kata to explore something different.

The next thing to recognise is just how close these various lines are, in regard to how changes would be implemented. The alternate forms for Kukishin (Kijin Chosui Ryu Kukishinden) Ryu and Koto Ryu are pretty much equivalent generations as Hatsumi/Bujinkan... both are the generation following Takamatsu. However, I'm sure you have seen just how very different the movement, kamae, and more are between the way, say, Koto Ryu is done in the linked video, and how it's performed in the Bujinkan... yet, the version shown is the version received from Takamatsu to Ueno Takashi (then passed onto Kaminaga Shigemi), a short number of years before Hatsumi started training with Takamatsu... so why are they so different? 

Really, there are three possibilities... number one, Ueno Takashi changed the way it was performed drastically. However it doesn't really match the way other ryu were done by Ueno. Number two, Takamatsu changed the way the school was done in the few intervening years between teaching/giving the school to Ueno, and teaching/giving the school to Hatsumi. But if the idea is this is an old school, why would it be changed so drastically? Unless Takamatsu created the school, and changed his mind in how it was done in the intervening years.... 

The third possibility is that the school is done differently in the Bujinkan, in a way that matches the way Hatsumi had learnt to move, by applying such movement concepts to the order of techniques... which would match more of the Togakure Ryu and Gyokko Ryu concepts (as you look at them... really, Togakure Ryu more than anything else, as, and this might surprise you, it's the only one with a weight-back kamae concept... with Gyokko to give shape to the blocks, strikes, and so on... remember, these were the first two that Hatsumi actually got rank in). The natural extension of this, though, is, as we saw with Shinto Ryu bo above, once you take away all the concepts of that ryu, and leave only the sequence of movements, it's just no longer that ryu. It's only a set of actions.

I know, the standard response is "but these schools have been closely related for centuries!"... leaving off the highly doubtful reality of that statement, let's use a few more examples to show how that, really, isn't a major factor, and certainly isn't an explanation for what's seen in the way the kata are done in Bujinkan training. 

Gyokko, Koto, and Togakure are all said to be from the same "family"... the founder of Koto Ryu is said to be Sakagami Taro Kunishige, 12th soke of Gyokko Ryu... and Togakure Ryu has been linked with Gyokko for a long time as well (being based in Hakuun Ryu, and Gyokko Ryu being founded by Hakuunsei Tozawa), however it's interesting to note that the soke lists only line up with the Toda family, after "4 missing generations) in the Gyokko list (the previous named head is Momochi Sandayu, likely positioned due to his "fame" than anything historically valid), so the argument that Togakure Ryu has been a part of Gyokko Ryu since inception is a bit of a stretch... more importantly, that then leaves Kukishin, Takagi, and Shinden Fudo being separate (historically... Shinden Fudo was said to be the school taught officially by Toda Shinryuken, however there isn't a historical connection before that). Kukishin and Takagi have a solid connection, sure... but they're not related to the others, according to the histories provided, so it makes little sense that they'd share much in the way of mechanics, kamae ideas, fists, naming concepts, and so on... but they do... in the Bujinkan (and the Genbukan, and Jinenkan, for the record... this isn't a "Bujinkan is wrong" thing).

So, let's look at something commensurate... Takenouchi Ryu is similarly linked with Takagi Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, and others... and, while there are certain similarities in some content and structure, the actual methodology of the schools have grown well and truly apart. However, when you get schools that are taught together, then end up not being separate schools, but different parts of the one... you could look at the Eishin Ryu Iai schools (Tosa-Iai), with the Eishin Ryu itself being developed by the 7th generation head of the Hayashizaki lineage, and the Omori Ryu from a senior of the same generation... over the last couple of centuries, while the different sections of the schools have their own contexts, the mechanics are largely shared across the school, making a single ryu (either Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, or Muso Shinden Ryu in the main). Schools such as Shinmuso Hayashizaki Ryu, though, although from a shared source, are massively different in methodology, context, weaponry used, and more. Shindo Muso Ryu also has a range of fuzoku ryu-ha (assimilated schools), the Isshin Ryu (Kusarigama), Ittatsu Ryu (Hojo), Kasumi Shinto Ryu (Ken), Ikkaku Ryu (Jutte/Tessen), and Uchida Ryu (Tanjo)... all of which are taught, and trained, as part of the Shindo Muso Ryu, and share the mechanics and principles of the "main" school. 

What this means, really, is that the shared history of some schools doesn't mean that they should necessarily all be so similar... even some of the shared ones shouldn't necessarily be expected to be so similar either.

Oh, and while we're looking at Kukishin (now Kukamishin) Ryu and Takagi Ryu, and their separation from the forms taught in the Bujinkan etc, the separation is again only a generation or two... Ishitani taught both schools to Takamatsu, as well as teaching Kakuno Hachiheita, whose students would form the mainline for Takagi Ryu Jujutsu (Tsutsui Tomotaro) and Hontai Yoshin Ryu (Minaki Saburoji). These teachers would then be contemporary of Hatsumi... and, as there is very much shared mechanical approaches, ri-ai, and so on between those two lines that are entirely absent from the Bujinkan (or Genbukan, for that matter) approaches, again, the question would be if Takamatsu changed them (to suit the other schools), or if they have been altered in performance in the current generation. As for Kukishin, well, Takamatsu was a shihan of the school, he was instrumental in re-constructing and restructuring the naginata, rewriting the Amatsu Tatara scrolls, and so on... so we're again only a generation or two removed from the mainline (even after Takamatsu split from them around 1934, some senior members of the ryu were still coming to him for additional training). So why does Bujinkan bojutsu not feature the same mechanics and methods of performance and transmission as the "actual" Kukishin (Kukamishin) Ryu? Again, the most likely is that the kata (sequences) were taught, but built not on Takagi Ryu (or Kukishin Ryu) concepts and principles, instead being basically built on the established movement that Hatsumi had... either realising that the basis of Togakure/Gyokko was going to "work", or that it would take too long to start each school from scratch, or that it would be just too problematic to do each in turn properly (all of which are valid reasons). 

What's interesting is that, specifically in the bojutsu, the Genbukan are a lot more "Kukishin" than the Bujinkan approach... which I feel comes down to Sato Kinbei. He trained a lot longer with Takamatsu, from when he was still with the Kuki family, so likely learnt it more "correctly"... when Tanemura went to study with him, that got drilled more, which explains how that has then influenced everything the Genbukan does (again, there's little separation of the ryu there, as can be seen in the videos from Michael Coleman, or by looking at any Genbukan demo). 



dunc said:


> Apologies for repeating myself, but if you want to go deep into the unique characteristics of any of the ryuha then you can.



And, apologies for repeating myself, but that just isn't seen in any evidence that has ever been seen or presented. Deep into the kata as taught in the Bujinkan? Absolutely, and no argument at all. I just don't see any evidence that there's actual ryu-ha transmission... so you're getting deep study into something else. And, before we get the wrong idea again, that's not a criticism, it's an observation. If you want one system (with a variety of "flavours", but still the same dish, as it were), with consistency of principles, concepts, and so on, then that approach is exactly what should be done... if you want the actual ryu, though, this is never going to give that to you, as the ryu themselves are, by necessity, no longer there.



dunc said:


> There are (or were) teachers who show you these things and whether you had a relationship with them that was conducive to this



Again, I've heard this over and over. And, yet, there has been no definitive example, nor any evidence of such happening. And, to be clear, if you are studying and training in a particular ryu-ha, and doing it properly, then it will be expressed in all movement... and, even up to Hatsumi, including all the senior Japanese, and so on, I have seen exactly zero examples of such. They all express Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu movement, regardless of the "school" they're showing... if they'd been trained in the individual schools, it would show when they did them. Additionally, even if there was someone who had genuinely learnt the schools in this manner, could embody them in the way that would be expected, the fact that that's not the way they're taught in 99+% of cases makes it kinda moot, regarding if the ryu are taught in the Bujinkan, doesn't it?



dunc said:


> It would depend somewhat on what period you were training in



How so? Has Hatsumi forgotten the movement of the schools? Has Noguchi? Ishizuka? Nagato? I ask about them specifically, as they have been named as the new soke for Koto, Gyokko, and Shinden Fudo Ryu respectively... and, other than personal differences, there isn't a ryu-ha difference in their movement or technique. 

Look, again, I get the old claim of "well, when there weren't so many people, you could have done this, but we weren't there...", and, honestly, it's not a real argument. even in footage from "back in the day", there's no evidence of anything like it... despite certain ranks and licences being awarded.



dunc said:


> In my view folks training in the Bujinkan should go through various phases of their development:
> 1) master the basic building blocks of taijutsu (think the TCJ)
> 2) master the forms from the ryuha (& their unique insights, movements, tactics etc)
> 3) learn to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryuha more generally
> Each of these takes quite a long time and a lot of effort and it’s not really a linear progression in practice



That's pretty close to the actual idealised approach, and I'd agree... except to say that your third point is where it falls down. Yes, begin by building a structural base (concepts of kamae, defence, movement, and so on), and the Ten Chi Jin is fantastic for that. Yep, next you go through the kata from the ryu-ha... and that's precisely what you'd be doing. You'd be using the basic structure (attained by studying the TCJ diligently), and then you'd do the sequences (the kata), through the filter of that single basic structure... in other words, you're not doing the ryu-ha, you're doing sequences (kata) from the ryu-ha... which is a big difference. Without that, once you got through the TCJ, what you'd need to do is literally start learning everything all over again... new postural concepts, new ri-ai, new striking and receiving methods, new distances, new ways of organising your body, new ways of thinking, and far more... 

But, as I said, it's the last part that fails... "learn(ing) to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryu-ha more generally". Now, if it was "learning to apply the various principles found in the various kata in a broader sense", that would be fine... there's this complete misunderstanding of classical arts in the Bujinkan, stating things like "all the kata can be used against all different attacks, and can be adapted to any situation" (as well as ideas that all schools also cover all aspects, all weapons, and so on... no, they don't. They just don't. The same way not every book tells every story. They simply can't). Ryu-ha are cultural and contextual studies as much as anything else. The kata are defined, really. Can they be expressed in different ways? Yes... within context. Can the concepts be applied in a broader sense? Yes, but not by doing the kata in different contexts... they're no longer the kata then. In fact, the idea of taking these ideas, and applying them in a variety of contexts, against a variety of attacks, is very much a modern art thing... and very much a Bujinkan one, at that. It's kinda the antithesis of ryu-ha study, in many ways. Yes, the ryu should be something that informs your way of dealing with the world in all ways... but the danger in constantly changing the context is that you're more and more likely to not be true to the school anymore... again, this is exactly how the Bujinkan is designed... where keeping true to the school isn't a factor, because, well, the schools aren't taught.



dunc said:


> Not quite….
> Chris said that you couldn’t learn the ryuha within the Buj



Yep. And you described specifically not learning the ryu-ha... but taking from them to inform something else (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu). Again, this is what all the evidence points to.



dunc said:


> Hi @BrendanF
> Apologies - I rushed my response
> The process i described is absolutely the one to learn Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, in my view that is…



Agreed.



dunc said:


> Having said that you can learn the Ryuha within the Bujinkan if you want



Without any evidence to support that, I continue to be skeptical. Bluntly, the number of Bujinkan members who have the first idea of what ryu-ha training would actually constitute I could probably count on one hand... I think three come to mind straight away, and that's about it... and none of them are Japanese, for the record.



dunc said:


> There are (were) teachers with traditional licenses



Yeah... I've covered the issues with relying on that majorly asterix'd detail, though. The thing is, qualification is one thing, what is actually done with the qualification is quite another. I might have a Masters degree in Classical Music Study, but it means nothing when I'm teaching someone how to play blues guitar... you're not learning classical from me. In other words, the licence only matters if that's what's being taught... and there is no evidence to suggest that's the case.



dunc said:


> & there are teachers in the Bujinkan who teach the ryu as distinct arts. Ie with different body movements and tactics



How are you defining "different body movements and tactics"? The tactics should be dictated largely by the kata, which itself is dictated by the context, so even in a single ryu you get a range of tactics... the "different body movements" is where it gets to it, though... are we talking about variations of an underlying physical structure and body organisation (which, again, is the only thing I've ever seen, in any format, from anyone in the Bujinkan).

I'll give an example from Ellis Amdur, which will hopefully illustrate the change I'm talking about. Ellis Amdur is a senior practitioner of two classical ryu-ha, Araki Ryu Torite Kogusoku, and Toda-ha Buko Ryu Naginatajutsu. Within Araki Ryu, there are techniques for kusarigama, and within Toda-ha Buko Ryu, there used to also be techniques and teachings for the weapon. In fact, the design of the weapons is rather similar, so Ellis was given the opportunity to try to reconstruct the older kusarigama teachings within Buko Ryu. He got together with a few others, and began deciphering the written descriptions of the kata that had been handed down... but, as they hadn't been practiced in a couple of generations, although they had the written (sequence) kata, the movement had not been transmitted... so they didn't teach them. But, with Ellis' understanding of the weapon from his Araki Ryu study, he was granted the chance to change that.

Ellis and his colleagues worked hard on it, and, at the end of their efforts, presented the techniques to Nitta Suzuyo-sensei for her approval. The techniques followed the sequences as written, but Nitta-sensei was not happy with them... they weren't "Buko Ryu". Ellis had allowed aspects of his Araki Ryu to influence the way he was using the weapon. He went back to his work, and, without changing the kata, changed the way the kata were done... using Buko Ryu body structure and organisation. Nitta-sensei was pleased with this version, and had Ellis and his training partner demonstrate them at the next major embu. Today, they are part of the Betsuden (additional teachings) of Toda-ha Buko Ryu... which would not have happened if all Ellis had done was do the sequence.

In a similar fashion, my biggest struggle right now is keeping my body structure and organisation separate for my different schools... Shindo Muso Ryu proving quite an interesting challenge! Now, I can do SMR kata as if it's Katori Shinto Ryu, but then it's not SMR... or I can do them like Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, but, again, that's not SMR. Or I can do them like Kukishin.... or like Budo Taijutsu... but again, not SMR. By the same token, if I do any of those schools like SMR, I'm not doing any of those either... just a sequence. In fact, I often say that Katori Shinto Ryu and Niten Ichi Ryu, despite both being sword arts, are almost exactly opposite to each other... the body organisation is different, the range is different, the cutting mechanics are different, the grip is different, even the way of stepping is completely opposite to each other. And the only way to do them any justice is to only do them... I need to keep them completely segmented. Otherwise, I'm just doing movements, not the ryu... and I'm interested in the ryu.



dunc said:


> Even foundations like the punching and blocking methods are quite different from one ryu to the next



I've seen variation being taught, but nothing that I would say is "quite different"... additionally, I don't think even these variations are accurate... say, here's a sample, as a striking attack, how would you describe the difference between the attacking strikes of Gyokko and Koto Ryu? As well as their blocking methods? I know how I was taught the "difference", but, when it comes down to it, they're variations, more than differences... I'm curious as to your experience there.



dunc said:


> General training (eg at the Hombu) doesn’t really go into this much (a bit but not much) which is why I think @Chris Parker is understandably making his assertion



If I was limiting my observations to just that, then I'd be agreeing... I'm including, not just hombu, or Hatsumi's classes, but, well, everything. Daikomyosai (that were ostensibly specifically about particular ryu-ha), old Manaka seminars that were specifically about the schools, I would suggest thousands of hours of video of practitioners of all levels from all across the world teaching "specific ryu-ha", as well as more general Budo Taijutsu, and, at the end of the day, I have not seen a single frame from anyone, at all, that come close to implying actual ryu-ha transmission and training. Ever. From anyone.



dunc said:


> Personally I have enjoyed going deep into the distinctive characteristics and methods of the different ryu. I feel I’ve benefited from spending time (probably 20 years or so) going deep into this,



To be honest, and this is also from watching your own videos, I would again suggest that you're going "deep" into the kata from the schools as taught and trained as a facet of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu... ryu-ha study is simply not seen there. Good videos, sure... but not ryu-ha accurate... or, rather, not ryu-ha distinct.



dunc said:


> but I appreciate that it’s not for everyone and it’s probably not necessary to achieve the goal outlined above



Which is, really, one of the strengths of the Bujinkan for people who are looking for that. The freedom to explore your own path, to a level you want to. In a ryu, that's not so much the option... you're expected to go as deep as possible into the ryu. and there's not so much picking and choosing what you're interested in (there used to be, but that's a completely different discussion).



dunc said:


> having said that in my view there are some key movements that unless you understand where they come from don’t make sense and I feel any people are missing out because they haven’t been taught these things



Can you give an example of something where the ryu-ha context is something not found in the Budo Taijutsu exploration of a kata? As I said, the kata are context-specific in the first place... looking at it from a Bujinkan or ryu-ha perspective will change that in large or small ways, but can be seen as quite close... in fact, looking at them from the perspective of a Bujinkan context may give you different answers than looking at them from a ryu-ha perspective... check the examples of Takagi Ryu to see what I mean... the mainline has a feeling of "opening" up and extending the attacking limb, often taking a number of steps back away from an attack (after walking towards the attacker first)... I have never seen anything like that in the Bujinkan approach to the school... so what context is the important one? Well, it depends on where you're learning it... if you're in the Bujinkan, then the context implied there is the more valid one... if you're looking for the ryu-ha, though, well... it's a bit different.



dunc said:


> Hope that makes sense?



It does.



dunc said:


> Of course we could debate forever whether going deep into the Bujinkan’s ryuha and learning their distinctive characteristics and methods constitutes learning the ryuha in the traditional sense…



We could, but we could also short-circuit it and say no, no it doesn't. And we could point out that anyone with experience in studying a ryu-ha in a traditional sense says the same thing, and the ones who say it does are almost exclusively (I use the qualifier "almost" to allow for someone outside, but can't think of a single example) Bujinkan members with no actual experience or, bluntly, understanding of what ryu-ha study actually entails and involves.



dunc said:


> There is a distinction between devoting all your training time to one ryu / method (very traditional approach) and training in several discrete ryuha



Well, yeah... however, training in multiple ryu-ha was actually not that uncommon historically... something that gets missed a lot these days.



dunc said:


> I’m defining learning the ryuha as the latter not the former,



To be honest, I'm not sure entirely what you're meaning there. You are defining "learning the ryu-ha" as "training in several discrete ryu-ha"? I'm presuming you are specifically saying that "learning the ryu-ha in the Bujinkan" is what you're defining?



dunc said:


> but there is a spectrum between:
> a) doing forms from different schools without changing your underlying taijutsu
> b) learning the schools as discrete entities and differentiating between their methods, tactics etc (my definition of learning the ryuha), and
> c) devoting yourself to one ryuha / method (or perhaps a couple that have come together over time) which is the more traditional approach / definition



Ah... cool. So, from your spectrum list there, I would suggest that b) is not anywhere near as discrete as you may imagine... again, that is a quite accurate description of exactly how I have gone through them for 25 years... the thing is, without the inherent body structure unique to that ryu, all you're doing (and all I was doing, let's be clear) is going through variations from the schools, and applying your underlying taijutsu/body mechanics/organisation to such. Again, without getting into a ryu, and studying how they operate from the inside, it's not an easy thing to see... but, once you do, it's absolutely obvious.

The majority of the Bujinkan, really, are probably a lot closer to a), and feel they are b)... when it comes to c), that's something that, really, has never been a part of the Bujinkan. Frankly, the Bujinkan is far less "traditional" (and, really, far less "Japanese") than most practitioners realise... but, again, that's another discussion entirely... 



dunc said:


> Hi
> Thanks for this and I tend to agree that going deep into a sophisticated ryu with a very broad curriculum would require a long time and many hours on the mat



Let's take Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu as an example, then... there are 12 long sword kata, 7 short sword, 5 two sword, some 20 bojutsu, a bit of jutte, and some yawara... I don't know that I'd suggest it's a broad curriculum (Deep, yes! Broad? Not compared to others... it may even be a stretch to call it "sophisticated" in many ways, honestly...  I mean, the first kata is pretty much walk up to the opponent, when they cut, evade to the side and stab them in the throat... not much sophistication to that idea!). Despite that, to truly inhabit the school, to embody it in your thought and action, yes, that takes a lot of dedication. And that's with all the aspects to the ryu that are absent from Bujinkan practice that allow you to get to the heart of the ryu... it's even harder with the way the Bujinkan teaches... 



dunc said:


> Using my categorisation a) is the mainstream Bujinkan approach, b) is possible in the Bujinkan, and c) is probably not possible in today’s Bujinkan for westerners (maybe in the future some of the new soke will change things who knows)



I agree with everything except the last part... it would rely on the new soke having actually been transmitted the ryu in the first place... as I think I've expressed, I don't think that's happened... from Hatsumi onwards. The new soke, realistically, aren't soke of anything other than a name... which is a shame... what the Bujinkan actually needed was a defined successor... splitting up titles to schools never taught or transmitted lessens the Bujinkan as a whole, and has no actual benefit. I mean, Nagato isn't teaching Nagato-ha Shinden Fudo Ryu, and no longer doing, say, Ganseki Nage, or Sanshin, or the Kihon Happo... nor is he no longer teaching hanbo, or sword, or bo, or the myriad other weapons. In fact, each of the "new soke" that I've seen comments from have stated that they're going to simply continue teaching as they have been... which means (Bujinkan) Budo Taijutsu... so what's the point of them being soke of anything? There's also people saying, "yeah, these guys are the new soke, but Hatsumi is still the soke, so he's still in charge"... which denies the reality of them being soke in their own right... 

It's really kinda simple. If the ryu are split up, then there's no longer a Bujinkan... if the Bujinkan is continuing, then the ryu aren't a factor, so the new soke don't matter... this, on top of the announcement at the end of 2017 that there are no more Bujinkan Hombu membership cards, or kyu certificates, and that the various Dai-Shihan are to look after their own membership requirements/fees/cards etc, kinda means that, realistically, there is no such thing as the Bujinkan anymore... other than in people's perception. It's an interesting situation...


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 1, 2021)

jergar said:


> Hi Rogue, I studied with a friend of mine for two years who was a ninja trained in Japan, he had the paper work to prove it. We exchanged techniques I’m a student of Kung fu. What I can tell you is Ninjitsu is very similar to kung  fu . It’s not a linear art it is based on circles and triangles . There’s not a lot of blocking mostly move the body out of line of the strike and attack at the same time. There are sub arts , one for knife fighting, hand to hand, short sword, pinching, stealth, clawing with the metal hand claws, juijitsu, throwing, phycology instill fear in your opponent etc. they all come together to form one art . Sorry I couldn’t go into more detail but it’s been a few years . Hope this helps you out. Salute and Peace !





angelariz said:


> I trained at a "ninjutsu" school in the early 90s. It was a Bujutsu, Shotokan, and JJJ blend. From my experience most Ninja schools you find will be of the same type. Karate, jujitsu, and bujutsu mixed. There is no ninjutsu that dates back to feudal Japan.



To be honest, neither of these sound like anything close to what would be considered authentic (from the perspective of the Takamatsuden arts)... more people making stuff up, most likely baselessly to a fair degree... so I wouldn't count either as valid exposure to the arts.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 1, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> This is literally exactly what has been said - this is not the same as the process of studying koryu; it is the process followed when learning Budo Taijutsu.  Koryu training is not the same.



Oh, and just because it's been quite remiss of me... hey, Brendan! I was hoping to get over by the end of the year, but it's looking like that's not happening... say hi to everyone for me!


----------



## BrendanF (Sep 1, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and just because it's been quite remiss of me... hey, Brendan! I was hoping to get over by the end of the year, but it's looking like that's not happening... say hi to everyone for me!



Hey mate - of course, shall do.  Hopefully we'll get on top of this thing pretty soon and things can get back to some semblance of normality.


----------



## dunc (Sep 2, 2021)

Hi

@Chris Parker : Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I always feel like I don't have enough time to respond to all the points you make. So please accept my apologies for summarising (& therefore potentially missing points) in my posts 

@BrendanF & @Chris Parker : I think we can all agree that training in the Bujinkan is very different from training in koryu, and as a result will produce different outcomes. I also think we can agree that that's by design and "each to their own"

@Chris Parker : I think your central point is that you believe that Hatsumi sensei has never taught the ryuha in a detailed and distinct way. As a result no one in the Bujinkan, including those with traditional licences and the new soke, know these things. I believe you base this assertion on your experience of the Bujinkan under Wayne Roy in the early 90s, the videos out there and some more recent training in Japan (I'm not sure how much training you had in Japan, when you were there and for how long and whether you visited the shihan's home dojos)
Presumably you feel that you've gained detailed instruction in the ryuha from other sources (I'd be interested in understanding your perspective on this) and as you've learnt these things you've concluded that there is a marked difference in approach

I'm stating that from my direct personal experience the long term shihan do know these things and will teach them if the conditions are right. For example: you ask and they know and like you, it's in their home dojo where class sizes are much smaller, perhaps Hatsumi sensei has asked them to teach the ryuha (which happened from time to time) etc
Seno sensei would teach Koto ryu his dojo on request or other ryu during the theme years (although as more people started coming to his dojo he moved away from doing this, I think because so few people could do the foundational movements of Koto ryu). Same for Oguri sensei and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Ishizuka sensei with Kukishinden or Gyokko Ryu and so on
Another example was Manaka sensei, when still in the Bujinkan, who went through a phase of showing how various techniques would change if you applied the methods from different schools to them. This was before the hombu was set up, but he did this in his regular well attended classes so probably there are many long term Bujinkan folk who remember those lessons and can back up my claims

I found this training interesting and actively sought it out during a phase of my development. However, I have always been and remain a visitor to Japan so could only go so deep into it

Other than my experience with the older shihan I don't know what training the new soke have had in the various ryuha they've inherited. It certainly seems like Sakasai Sensei at least knows Gikan ryu kamae because there's an article kicking around (in Japanese) with him showing them, to my knowledge they haven't really been taught publicly and they match the way I was taught by one of the older shihan back in the day

I appreciate that you only really have my word for this, but it's not like I have a dog in this fight. I don't have any interest in marketing myself or differentiating myself vs other folk in the Bujinkan or Koryu worlds by claiming some unique knowledge to get folk to attend my seminars (never done a seminar in my life). I have a regular job that pays the rent and just run my dojo my way and do my thing for the love of the art and to better myself as a martial artist

Secondarily you're making a point that because there are several new soke of different ryuha rather than one single soke of the Bujinkan then the Bujinkan no longer exists
On this I'd say it's early days and I doubt anyone will change things while Hatsumi sensei is still alive, but who knows what will happen in the future. Probably a lot of change...


----------



## kfman (Sep 2, 2021)

RogueShooter06 said:


> I am here looking for answers, and I would appreciate it if only those of you who are actually knowledgeable about this matter reply to it, as it is for a research article that I’m writing.
> 
> There seems to be a tremendous amount of debate within the martial arts community regarding the validity of ninjutsu, and those who teach it. I’ve spent several hours tonight online reading different  articles, and walked away with zero answers.
> 
> ...


I used to teach kung fu at a park indoors where we shared the room with a Ninjutsu group. My only comment is that when I watched them, I wondered why they would need to do 3-4 moves to counter an opponent, when only one was needed. For example if an opponent grabs your shirt in the front, a simple wrist lock is all is needed, not many moves to get to the same place. It was like that for most everything I observed. I also recall their instructor saying his master was Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi in Japan and that he had gone there to train. Excuse me if I'm incorrect. I am not passing judgement, only observation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2021)

dunc said:


> Hi



Hi, @dunc .



dunc said:


> @Chris Parker : Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I always feel like I don't have enough time to respond to all the points you make. So please accept my apologies for summarising (& therefore potentially missing points) in my posts



Ha, fair enough... they do tend to go on, don't they? Of course, not sure this one'll be any different... but we'll see how we go!



dunc said:


> @BrendanF & @Chris Parker : I think we can all agree that training in the Bujinkan is very different from training in koryu, and as a result will produce different outcomes. I also think we can agree that that's by design and "each to their own"



Yes, I think that's, to a great degree, what we've been saying. Of course, that needs to be taken to it's logical result... the Bujinkan is very different to training in a koryu, because it's not training in a koryu... or training like a koryu... or training in a way that results in koryu style results. And, for the (I think) 12th time this thread, that's to be expected... the Bujinkan is not teaching ryu-ha... it's teaching Budo Taijutsu... teaching the ryu would actually counter-act that aim. And, likely also for the 12th time, for the aims of the Bujinkan, that's not only okay, it's exactly what should be done. It's ideal. My only point has been that people think that it's covering both bases, when it simply can't. You would need to be literally learning different martial arts... and I don't mean different kata.



dunc said:


> @Chris Parker : I think your central point is that you believe that Hatsumi sensei has never taught the ryuha in a detailed and distinct way.



Yes... but, more than that, I personally doubt he ever learnt them in such a way either... so it's natural that he hasn't taught them that way. Even if he did learn them that way (all logic and evidence aside), it's clear that he has little interest in that method of teaching and transmitting, thinking it inferior to his more free, creative based approach... so why would anyone expect that someone who actively disagrees with this method of teaching and training would actually have taught and trained people this way? It not only doesn't make sense, it denies his own words and actions (believing that, for whatever reason, there are these special few who he broke his own rules for, and went against his own values for, with the end result being that they show no actual affect in anyone's movement or the way any of the schools are taught).



dunc said:


> As a result no one in the Bujinkan, including those with traditional licences and the new soke, know these things.



"Know these things" is getting the wrong idea in there... this isn't a matter of "knowing" (intellectually) the tricks and traits and idiosyncrasies... it's a matter of training it into the body. If it's "known" (physically), then there should be no way of hiding it... and, in fact, that's precisely what we have. Even those with these licences (given under somewhat non-traditional circumstances, really), when you watch them, all belie the same physical "knowledge"... which is Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. No matter what ryu-ha they're doing... because that's what they're actually taught and trained in.

Look, there's considered to be a problem trying to do too many ryu at the one time... you end up with a lot of conflicting ideas and concepts, and it takes a lot to keep them separate effectively (some would tell you it's impossible, and it's hard to argue against that). And, once you start trying to do so many traditions, especially all in the one format/class/context, then they start blending into one... and you're no longer doing any of them, but simply "generic budo". You can take that generic budo and make it into it's own thing (Budo Taijutsu), but what you can't do is make it any of the ryu that went into it in the first place. It simply doesn't work.



dunc said:


> I believe you base this assertion on your experience of the Bujinkan under Wayne Roy in the early 90s, the videos out there and some more recent training in Japan (I'm not sure how much training you had in Japan, when you were there and for how long and whether you visited the shihan's home dojos)



No.

Look, I know the posts aren't short, but I've also go to pains to point out that:
- my understanding of what should be present (and isn't)
- my understanding of how such things would be done (which isn't)
- my expectations of what would constitute proper transmission and evidence of it (which is not present)
and so on come specifically not from my time in the Bujinkan (and as an independent Takamatsuden practitioner), but more from my time studying and training in koryu (for the record, a bit over a decade now, including Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Muso Shinden Ryu, Shindo Muso Ryu [and associated fuzoku ryu-ha], as well as experience with Hontai Yoshin Ryu as a guest, not a member).

I have also gone to pains to point out that, for much of my time, I have also looked at the ryu-ha of the Bujinkan as separate entities in my study (in Mr Roy's schools, we were separating them out for individual study as far back as 1992 or earlier... the black belts had the option of specialising in their study of a school of their choice; my first instructor specialised in Kukishin Ryu, my main teacher specialised in Koto Ryu, and one of the other instructors, and my senior, focused on Gyokko Ryu as his personal study... in addition, from around 1996 onwards, the main classes were also focused on one school at a time... we would study Gyokko Ryu for 6 months... then Togakure Ryu for the next 6... then Koto Ryu...), however my understanding of what constitutes a ryu, and training in one, has developed and improved through my study of various koryu. What Wayne Roy's teachings did, however, was to help me to be able to identify and differentiate such teachings... but I have to point out that the understanding of the ryu I have did not directly come from him... in fact, I disagree with a number of his interpretations, but that's a different story.



dunc said:


> Presumably you feel that you've gained detailed instruction in the ryuha from other sources (I'd be interested in understanding your perspective on this)



No, actually. Frankly, it'd be impossible... from the perspective of the Bujinkan, and it's lines, these ryu are dead. They live on only in parts, and in name... and, even in those parts, they have been separated from what makes them what they were. That's what happens when they're not passed on... as mentioned, I don't think Hatsumi really received them in much more than names and lists, and I don't think he's passed them on in any other fashion... even if he did receive them, he's moved completely away from them, so it's impossible to learn them due to there being no-one who can teach them. 

That's my perspective on them. There are no "other sources", really... the only ones would be the Genbukan or Jinenkan (or Toshindo, etc)... all of which suffer from the same situation... a lack of ryu-ha in favour of a more consistent over-arching martial approach (Budo Taijutsu in the Bujinkan, Jissen Kobudo in the Jinenkan, Ninpo Taijutsu in the Genbukan)... each with their own "flavour", but not that of the individual ryu. Watching Manaka, or Hatsumi, or Tanemura, or any seniors from any of those organisations, it doesn't matter so much which "ryu" they're doing, the underlying approach is the same. What there are, though, are other lines to compare and contrast with...



dunc said:


> and as you've learnt these things you've concluded that there is a marked difference in approach



Not really... frankly, I've known the various ryu should be markedly different in approach for decades, I just didn't have the sense for what they should be... by looking into these other lines, as well as getting a much better sense of how ryu-ha behave (and a range of insights into what to expect with regards to the schools themselves), I'm starting to develop an interpretation of the ryu that is markedly different to what you'd find in any of the X-Kan groups. 



dunc said:


> I'm stating that from my direct personal experience the long term shihan do know these things and will teach them if the conditions are right.



Genuinely, I'd love to believe that... the problem is that I've heard the same thing for a decade and a half, and there has been exactly zero evidence to support it. Additionally, not to put too fine a point on it, but the claims are always from people who I would suggest aren't in the best position to grasp what they should actually be looking at... that's not a slight, by the way, it's simply a fact. I wouldn't have the first clue what I'm looking at to assess proper content and structure for classic French cuisine... you could put anything in front of me and tell me that's what it is, and I wouldn't have any idea if it was or wasn't. That's despite eating a variety of foods my entire life, with much of my diet being European-based... so you'll forgive me if I don't take this personal experience as particularly experienced in the context I'm discussing.



dunc said:


> For example: you ask and they know and like you, it's in their home dojo where class sizes are much smaller,



I completely agree that this would be the circumstance that the senior teachers would cover more in-depth than in regular class, it's just that there is nothing to suggest it's anything like actual ryu-ha transmission. In fact, the fact that it's entirely absent everywhere else would suggest it's not.

Here, what we need to determine is the difference between deeper and more detailed instruction in the Bujinkan kata (from the ryu), and ryu-ha instruction and transmission... to be absolutely clear, one is not "superior" to the other... in fact, both can be depending on the aim. And, if the aim is developing your understanding and skill with Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, and the kata associated with it, then the deeper study that comes with a relationship with one of the shihan, dai-shihan, or new soke (or Hatsumi) is exactly what you should be wanting. The problem I've noticed is the assumption of many Bujinkan practitioners that "I got more detailed instruction in this kata/area from x-shihan, that must have been ryu-ha transmission"... that's wrong on a number of levels, including the idea that "more details " = "ryu-ha transmission"... 



dunc said:


> perhaps Hatsumi sensei has asked them to teach the ryuha (which happened from time to time) etc



So... ryu-ha transmission/instruction happens in small groups, or one-on-one, away from the main classes, in private, not as part of the Bujinkan training methodology, by senior instructors, because Hatsumi asks them to do so? If he wants the ryu practiced and passed on, why not actually teach them himself? And why do it all in private? With seemingly no actual benefit or affect on the practitioner at all?

Sorry, Duncan, it just doesn't pass the smell test, if you will.



dunc said:


> Seno sensei would teach Koto ryu his dojo on request or other ryu during the theme years (although as more people started coming to his dojo he moved away from doing this, I think because so few people could do the foundational movements of Koto ryu). Same for Oguri sensei and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Ishizuka sensei with Kukishinden or Gyokko Ryu and so on



Speaking with all due respect to the passed, having watched quite a fair bit of their performance of kata from those ryu-ha, that's precisely what they would teach... kata from those ryu-ha. A simple example is day three from the 2003 DaiKomyo Sai... with Hatsumi calling on Seno, Noguchi, Nagato, and Oguri to teach from Koto, Gyokko, Shinden Fudo, Takagi, and the Kihon Happo... and the body mechanics and structural organisation, as well as the fists, attacks, defences, distancing, and more, were all very much the same, albeit with slight differences allowing for the kata and the individual... but not taking into consideration actual ryu-ha differences.



dunc said:


> Another example was Manaka sensei, when still in the Bujinkan, who went through a phase of showing how various techniques would change if you applied the methods from different schools to them. This was before the hombu was set up, but he did this in his regular well attended classes so probably there are many long term Bujinkan folk who remember those lessons and can back up my claims



And, honestly, the same thing there... I've seen the footage from the seminars and classes "back in the day", as well as the way Manaka-s teaches today, I have friends in the Jinenkan, and have gone through some comparisons of techniques... again, I would suggest that the differences were more superficial, based around ryu-ha kata preferences, rather than ryu-ha differences.  



dunc said:


> I found this training interesting and actively sought it out during a phase of my development. However, I have always been and remain a visitor to Japan so could only go so deep into it



Good to hear! As I said, this kind of depth into Bujinkan ryu kata can be great, and certainly enhance your Budo Taijutsu knowledge. That still doesn't make it ryu-ha transmission and study, though.



dunc said:


> Other than my experience with the older shihan I don't know what training the new soke have had in the various ryuha they've inherited.



Okay.



dunc said:


> It certainly seems like Sakasai Sensei at least knows Gikan ryu kamae because there's an article kicking around (in Japanese) with him showing them, to my knowledge they haven't really been taught publicly and they match the way I was taught by one of the older shihan back in the day



I'm always a bit cautious when things are claimed to be Gikan Ryu... I've seen a number of conflicting "versions" over the years... at one point, Asayama Ichiden Ryu waza were being taught as Gikan Ryu, as the kata weren't identified as any school. Then we had the Gikan Ryu demonstrated by Hatsumi-s on the Bujinkan Koppojutsu DVD... which doesn't really match the Gikan Ryu that Noguchi has apparently been showing recently... or the Genbukan Gikan Ryu methods... for the record, the only article I found was the Japanese Hiden one introducing him and basically giving his resume (逆井則男　Sakasai Norio | 達人・名人・秘伝の師範たち | 武道・武術の総合情報サイト WEB秘伝)... I'm not sure I'd identify any of it as any particular ryu-ha... but certainly Bujinkan.



dunc said:


> I appreciate that you only really have my word for this, but it's not like I have a dog in this fight.



Well, it could be argued that being Bujinkan gives you at least a pup...



dunc said:


> I don't have any interest in marketing myself or differentiating myself vs other folk in the Bujinkan or Koryu worlds by claiming some unique knowledge to get folk to attend my seminars (never done a seminar in my life). I have a regular job that pays the rent and just run my dojo my way and do my thing for the love of the art and to better myself as a martial artist



Same here.



dunc said:


> Secondarily you're making a point that because there are several new soke of different ryuha rather than one single soke of the Bujinkan then the Bujinkan no longer exists



Functionally, yep.

Realistically, the Bujinkan is Hatsumi... it's his creation, based on his creative approach, with a mechanical base in some of the concepts of some of the ryu, with much of them used as a general basis for the free expression that he is after. This is great... but it does, by necessity, do away with the ryu, leaving Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu as the actual martial art taught and studied. In this case, I would certainly argue that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, in terms of scope at least.

However that all gets problematic when the schools are split again... it's almost like trying to separate a cake back into flour, eggs, milk... they may have gone into it, but good luck separating them properly again. It's even harder here, where, in order to combine them, as well as the way that Budo Taijutsu has developed, there was a lot left by the wayside... starting with unique bodily organisation, moving onto the sense of reigi, zanshin, particular senses of distancing, styles of attack and defence, and so on... I've never seen anything resembling Kukishin Ryu mechanics when it comes to sword, staff, or anything else, for example... these would have conflicted pretty majorly with each other if still maintained as part of Budo Taijutsu, so it makes sense that they'd be removed... but the very act of creating Budo Taijutsu has meant the ryu-ha stopped. 

To take it back to the Bujinkan itself, though, the beginning of the end of the Bujinkan was the de-centralising of ranking certificates and memberships that was announced in 2017... next was the splitting of the soke titles. That split the central information source (at least on paper) and power structure, but realistically means very little in terms of the ryu themselves, as the particular soke aren't about to teach the ryu they're entrusted with... after all, can you see everyone but Ishizuka stopping teaching the Kihon Happo and Sanshin as they're part of Gyokko Ryu? More to the point, can you see him asking them to?

What we're heading to is a whole bunch of different, but related, groups continuing to teach Budo Taijutsu... regardless of the ryu on the title of the head of that faction. Oh, and for the record, there is no "soke" of the Bujinkan... it's an incorrect use of the title. There is a Kancho, essentially a president, which is Hatsumi until he appoints someone else... but if the ryu that make up the methods are no longer held there, what's left? Or would we think that they would continue to use the same methods, which means the holder of the soke title is shown to mean nothing in regards to Budo Taijutsu.



dunc said:


> On this I'd say it's early days and I doubt anyone will change things while Hatsumi sensei is still alive, but who knows what will happen in the future. Probably a lot of change...



True... but I feel the way I've described it is the only real objective way to see it... I appreciate that there are other views, but it would take a lot to convince me.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 3, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> my expectations of what would constitute proper transmission and evidence of it (which is not present)
> and so on come specifically not from my time in the Bujinkan (and as an independent Takamatsuden practitioner), but more from my time studying and training in koryu (for the record, a bit over a decade now, including Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Muso Shinden Ryu, Shindo Muso Ryu [and associated fuzoku ryu-ha], as well as experience with Hontai Yoshin Ryu as a guest, not a member).





Chris Parker said:


> And, to be clear, if you are studying and training in a particular ryu-ha, and doing it properly, then it will be expressed in all movement.





Chris Parker said:


> Despite that, to truly inhabit the school, to embody it in your thought and action, yes, that takes a lot of dedication.





Chris Parker said:


> "Know these things" is getting the wrong idea in there... this isn't a matter of "knowing" (intellectually) the tricks and traits and idiosyncrasies... it's a matter of training it into the body. If it's "known" (physically), then there should be no way of hiding it... and, in fact, that's precisely what we have.


I think these quotes and more like them help clarify the disagreement between yourself and Dunc regarding whether the different ryuha are "taught" at all within the Bujinkan. If I'm understanding you correctly, it goes beyond my earlier description of being aware of distinctions in body mechanics or general tactics between the ryu. You're looking for the full koryu approach to transmission, being fully immersed in a ryu, with all the technical and cultural aspects that entails. That, you are saying, does not exist in the Bujinkan and I suspect you are correct.

When Dunc describes learning the separate ryuha within the Bujinkan, he's probably referring to a different sort of process. I might be able to use an analogy from my own experience.

As a grappler, my primary art is BJJ, but I have varying degrees of experience in a bunch of other grappling arts. (Not to mention that BJJ will steal anything that works from other systems, so we already have influence from a variety of sources.)

When I teach a technique or tactic that exists within multiple systems I can, and sometimes do, explain how and why that technique or tactic might be done differently in different contexts or taught differently in different arts, i.e. tournament BJJ vs Judo vs freestyle wrestling vs MMA vs Sumo vs Ringen vs a street self defense scenario vs a different street self defense scenario. In my mind I am mostly focused on the common underlying physical principles which are expressed differently according to the needs of a different context (much as you are referring to the common underlying principles of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu). On the other hand, I can show significant technical and tactical differences between how those movements are expressed in these different arts. (And I can do it without concern for the "correct transmission" of those arts, since that's not really a thing in the culture I'm working in.) I suspect that this is the sort of thing that Dunc says he has experienced when he says he has learned something of the individual ryuha.


----------



## dunc (Sep 3, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think these quotes and more like them help clarify the disagreement between yourself and Dunc regarding whether the different ryuha are "taught" at all within the Bujinkan. If I'm understanding you correctly, it goes beyond my earlier description of being aware of distinctions in body mechanics or general tactics between the ryu. You're looking for the full koryu approach to transmission, being fully immersed in a ryu, with all the technical and cultural aspects that entails. That, you are saying, does not exist in the Bujinkan and I suspect you are correct.
> 
> When Dunc describes learning the separate ryuha within the Bujinkan, he's probably referring to a different sort of process. I might be able to use an analogy from my own experience.
> 
> ...


Hi
Yes I think that's a good analogy
In the Bujinkan the techniques from whatever ryu are usually done in the way of the individual shihan. That's by design and hence the mainstream - you see this in BJJ for example where people have their own way of doing things which varies to some extent from person to person, but are clearly identifiable as said technique
However, each of the ryuha have their own body movements and "game plan" (footwork, angling, power generation, distancing etc etc) that are different from each other
The sequence of the kata in the schools typically build on the lessons learnt in the preceding kata to create a distinct
art/methodology, it's quite interesting really to see how these curriculum must have evolved to the point at which they are now

The punching methods and kamae (guards) of Shinden Fudo Ryu are completely different from say Koto ryu, which are different to Gyokko Ryu or Kukishinden etc etc

Why would you punch from shizen/natural posture (Shinden Fudo Ryu) into someone standing in a kamae / guarded position (say Koto Ryu) or visa versa? You attack someone in a long guard (Koto Ryu) differently to someone in a short guard (Gyokko Ryu) and so on

It is hopefully obvious that everything downstream changes accordingly. Then you add the characteristics (or in BJJ terms "game") of the school and things become distinct very quickly

For example in the context of basic punching and "blocking"
In Shinden Fudo Ryu the power generation is done with the natural rotation of the spine and swinging of the arms to attack along a vertical centre line. So the receiving (blocking if you will) has to take account of this line and uses the foundational movements of the school (rotating the spine and sinking the knees) to get underneath the attack before rotating the spine back in with a counter attack
In Gyokko Ryu the power generation is by moving the hips and knees along the circumference of a semicircle. The punches have to deal with the guarded kamae so the receiver has to perform tehodokki before receiving the punch with the movement described above. This creates a pulling in or extending motion from a mid distance. The position taken presents particular targets for the attacker that are easily avoided with small hip movements and late avoidances to set up the counter
In Koto Ryu the power generation is done with a long extension of the hips in a straight line. So the attacker's arm can be counter struck whilst the uke is still moving away from the punch. This allows for the uke to use shallow angles and longer distances to force the attacker to over extend and creates time for a counter attack mid way through the (extended) 2nd attack using the long kamae to shift into position along straight lines
Kukishinden uses tilting of the spine and deep posture to create powerful strikes to the arms or receive punches
And so on


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 8, 2021)

Sorry for the delay in response, been a bit busy the last few days... 



Tony Dismukes said:


> I think these quotes and more like them help clarify the disagreement between yourself and Dunc regarding whether the different ryuha are "taught" at all within the Bujinkan. If I'm understanding you correctly, it goes beyond my earlier description of being aware of distinctions in body mechanics or general tactics between the ryu. You're looking for the full koryu approach to transmission, being fully immersed in a ryu, with all the technical and cultural aspects that entails. That, you are saying, does not exist in the Bujinkan and I suspect you are correct.



Well... yes... but it actually goes further than that, especially when it comes to the evidence as I see it. I'll see if I can cover what I'm seeing when I get to Dunc's post.



Tony Dismukes said:


> When Dunc describes learning the separate ryuha within the Bujinkan, he's probably referring to a different sort of process. I might be able to use an analogy from my own experience.



Oh, I get exactly what Dunc is meaning... as I've said, it's exactly what I would have said a number of years ago, and how I would have seen it then as well. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> As a grappler, my primary art is BJJ, but I have varying degrees of experience in a bunch of other grappling arts. (Not to mention that BJJ will steal anything that works from other systems, so we already have influence from a variety of sources.)
> 
> When I teach a technique or tactic that exists within multiple systems I can, and sometimes do, explain how and why that technique or tactic might be done differently in different contexts or taught differently in different arts, i.e. tournament BJJ vs Judo vs freestyle wrestling vs MMA vs Sumo vs Ringen vs a street self defense scenario vs a different street self defense scenario. In my mind I am mostly focused on the common underlying physical principles which are expressed differently according to the needs of a different context (much as you are referring to the common underlying principles of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu). On the other hand, I can show significant technical and tactical differences between how those movements are expressed in these different arts. (And I can do it without concern for the "correct transmission" of those arts, since that's not really a thing in the culture I'm working in.) I suspect that this is the sort of thing that Dunc says he has experienced when he says he has learned something of the individual ryuha.



As I said, I get exactly where Dunc is coming from, however, what I'm talking about is something a fair bit beyond this idea... for one thing, the idea of "the same technique/tactic in different systems" is not a factor at all... in fact, that's the last way these should be looked at if we're looking at them as properly approached distinct schools. There just isn't the cross-over like that other than in largely superficial fashion (most schools having some kind of outer-wrist-twist lock action, for example). The thing is, though, you can't look at them as variations of the same, you have to see them as individual and unique concepts specific to the ryu you're looking at/studying. Without that starting point, you're never going to get anything like actual individual schools... just variations on themes (which is what we have).



dunc said:


> Hi
> Yes I think that's a good analogy
> In the Bujinkan the techniques from whatever ryu are usually done in the way of the individual shihan. That's by design and hence the mainstream - you see this in BJJ for example where people have their own way of doing things which varies to some extent from person to person, but are clearly identifiable as said technique



Sure... of course, this kinda denies the idea of training in specific ryu, but indicates more a personal expression of the concepts of Budo Taijutsu by various practitioners (and teachers) using (or via) the various kata/techniques... and, of course, there's a major distinction between the way such differences/preferences come up in BJJ as opposed to BBT, but that's a whole other conversation again... 



dunc said:


> However, each of the ryuha have their own body movements and "game plan" (footwork, angling, power generation, distancing etc etc) that are different from each other



While true, if you start from the position of Budo Taijutsu as the base (which is the way the Bujinkan operates and teaches), then what you're looking at is superficial variation, not ryu-ha differences... in fact, much of this incorrect starting position is highlighted in your examples, where you look at differences in the way various schools do the same thing, rather than looking at how each school engages in their methods in the first place. Additionally, by starting with the basis of Budo Taijutsu concepts, you end up being lead to a belief that certain things are in the schools (or a part of them), when they're not... instead, you're looking at a way of adjusting the Budo Taijutsu aspects to suit the way the schools do things... taking you in the wrong direction to begin with.



dunc said:


> The sequence of the kata in the schools typically build on the lessons learnt in the preceding kata to create a distinct
> art/methodology, it's quite interesting really to see how these curriculum must have evolved to the point at which they are now



Actually, that's kinda backwards... most schools would start with a few essential concepts and techniques as expressed by the founder fo the school... these would often form the highest level teachings of the school, with the low- and mid-level teachings being developed later, primarily to act as a way to understand the higher level concepts. To use Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu as an example, there's a reasonable amount of evidence that, formally speaking, Musashi taught his five two sword techniques as his school, and not much more than that. Afterwards, the long sword and short sword kata were added, working as building blocks to help develop a range of skills and ideas to help you understand and perform the nito work (the bo was also added later... as were more "foundational" nito methods, although they are no longer taught officially as part of the school). 

The same goes with pretty much all classical arts... what this means is that the higher levels of the school are what you should actually be looking at to get to the "core" of the art... which is why most schools only let full licence holders teach... they're the ones who have gotten to that higher level, and can see what the important facets of the lower and mid-level kata are actually meant to teach. But the problem here is that these higher level concepts and principles are lost (functionally)... instead, the "higher level" ideas aren't those of the ryu, but those of Budo Taijutsu... so that's the filter through which the schools are re-interpretted... leading to observations such as the ones you offer below. Again, the way you're presenting these is pretty much how I saw them as well, until I started looking into things with more of a ryu-ha concept in mind.



dunc said:


> The punching methods and kamae (guards) of Shinden Fudo Ryu are completely different from say Koto ryu, which are different to Gyokko Ryu or Kukishinden etc etc



Well, do we want to start with the fact that Shinden Fudo Ryu (Dakentaijutsu) doesn't have any kamae, so are we talking the Jutaijutsu (Taijutsu) here? Next, when you say "completely different", are you sure about that? Let's look at a couple... and I'll be using SFR Taijutsu as my example here... 

Standing naturally, hands on your thighs or at your sides (Gyokko Ryu Hira no Kamae, Shinden Fudo Ryu Shizentai, Kukishin Ryu Hira no Kamae).

Stand with one foot in front, the arm on the same side extended forwards and open in a Shuto-ken (Kiten Ken), the other hand held back towards the body (Gyokko Ryu Ichimonji/rear hand in Boshi-ken near the lead elbow, Koto Ryu Seigan no Kamae/rear hand in Shuto-ken on the bicep, Kukishin Ryu Seigan no Kamae/rear hand in Fudo ken at the hip, Shinden Fudo Ryu Taijutsu Seigan no Kamae/rear hand held in Fudo ken near the jaw - we could also include Doko from Togakure, Ichi no Kamae from Togakure, Doko no Kamae from Gyokko, and so on. That's before we even get to the weapon kamae, where this forms the basis for Seigan with Bo, Sword, Naginata, and so on). The only real points of difference are the position of the rear hand, how far back your weight is, and how far side-on you stand.

Stand with your feet even, and your hands extended to the sides (Hira Ichimonji no Kamae from Gyokko, Kukishin, Shinden Fudo Ryu Taijutsu, Takagi Yoshin, Togakure, and Koto Ryu, albeit with Kotos' version sometimes shown as on one leg).

These are the basic kamae from each of these schools, and, as you can see (or check from any source), they are really all using the same basic structural concepts with some variation, regardless of the school.

When it comes to punching, it's interesting that you'd bring that up... we'll cover that in a bit... 



dunc said:


> Why would you punch from shizen/natural posture (Shinden Fudo Ryu) into someone standing in a kamae / guarded position (say Koto Ryu) or visa versa? You attack someone in a long guard (Koto Ryu) differently to someone in a short guard (Gyokko Ryu) and so on



Why are you standing in a kamae/guard? Most jujutsu/taijutsu schools don't, you know... "standing in kamae" is almost always reserved for muto dori... when kamae are used, they're almost never as pronounced as found in the Bujinkan/Genbukan/Jinenkan expression... which takes us to whether or not the kamae as taught are actually how they're meant to be done... to which, in most cases, the answer is no. In other words, what you think is Seigan no Kamae for Koto Ryu isn't... nor are any of the other kamae actually what you think they are. What you are used to are Budo Taijutsu adaptations of some aspects of the actual kamae... but, because the starting point is incorrect, the rest is naturally altered to something that isn't actually expressing the way the school operates. And, because you're starting in a kamae that the school doesn't actually use, your movement and ways of performing the techniques are naturally similarly changed and altered... which is where my comment that the schools are being done "wrong" in the various 'Kan's comes from... when looked at from the perspective of the schools themselves, that is. 



dunc said:


> It is hopefully obvious that everything downstream changes accordingly. Then you add the characteristics (or in BJJ terms "game") of the school and things become distinct very quickly



While that's true, I don't think it's going in the direction you think it is... as mentioned, the higher levels of the school are the actual core of it, so to speak... the lower levels should be starting to shape you towards them... but if the lower levels are based on something else, as you head "downstream", so to speak, you actually just end up further from the way the school would intend... 

I would also suggest that "add(ing) characteristics... of the school" is exactly how it shouldn't be done... they should be present initially... if you have to add them, then the immediate implication is that you're adding them to an already existing base, which means you're already starting with the wrong approach.



dunc said:


> For example in the context of basic punching and "blocking"
> In Shinden Fudo Ryu the power generation is done with the natural rotation of the spine and swinging of the arms to attack along a vertical centre line. So the receiving (blocking if you will) has to take account of this line and uses the foundational movements of the school (rotating the spine and sinking the knees) to get underneath the attack before rotating the spine back in with a counter attack



Is it? What do you base that on?

Look, obviously the answer is "that's how I was taught", and that's perfect if you're interested in doing it in the Bujinkan fashion... but once you look past that, things change a fair bit.



dunc said:


> In Gyokko Ryu the power generation is by moving the hips and knees along the circumference of a semicircle. The punches have to deal with the guarded kamae so the receiver has to perform tehodokki before receiving the punch with the movement described above. This creates a pulling in or extending motion from a mid distance. The position taken presents particular targets for the attacker that are easily avoided with small hip movements and late avoidances to set up the counter



Gyokko's interesting for me, in that, along with Togakure Ryu, there's not really another line for me to compare it to to see just how accurate or not it is... however, there's a number of things that indicate to me that at least some of the way it's taught is not accurate... with the first thing being the idea of punching in the first place, and whether there is much at all. In fact, I would posit that there are only two "punching" attacks at all in the school, and potentially none in any response... and no "punches" to the head/face... so, as soon as you start from a standpoint of there being punching attacks, you're already on the wrong path... which leads to a non-Gyokko Ryu power source and movement idea... instead coming up with an adaption of the Budo Taijutsu approach to factor in the kata sequence in the Gyokko Ryu techniques... hmm, it's not so easy explaining this, is it? Let's try, anyway...

We'll start with kamae... as, after all, it's the basic launching pad for all your movement, right? So, what are the kamae concepts of Gyokko Ryu? For one thing, the weight is almost always 50/50... not back. The hips are also largely square onto the focus (often the opponent, but more realistically whatever you're engaging in... the target you're striking, the point of contact/control for a lock, where you're blocking/receiving an attack, and so on. There are some exceptions, which, when you think about them, aren't, but we won't go into that much detail). This goes for Ichimonji, Jumonji, Hicho, Hira Ichimonji, Hira... all the fundamental kamae of the school. Obviously, there's more (the way the knees are bent, what muscles are tensed, how the arms are positioned etc), but this is the actual core of the kamae concept of Gyokko Ryu, which is clear through the fact that it is found across the board. This means that this basic structural concept should be utilised throughout the school... otherwise, what's the point in emphasising it in these kamae (which make up around 80% of the kamae in the school, with the remaining ones largely variations of them)... agreed?

So, why is the primary attack a stepping punch, ending in a side-on position? That's not matching the rest of the school's concepts in body structure and position (of course, it matches Budo Taijutsu just fine)... so what should it be? Well, the attacks would need to keep the hips square on... for a punching attack, that makes little sense, as it basically just limits the effective range and strength of the attack... so what do I think they should be? Well, the most likely would be the following... a downward back-fist (ura-ken), omote and ura shuto-ken (kiten-ken), and tetsui-ken (hammer-fist striking). This then means that the methods of striking and receiving is based more on a rotation of the elbow... which makes the uke nagashi methods make perfect sense... as well as certain rather unusual aspects of the kata themselves (the ken kudaki strike to "the underneath of the elbow/hoshi" in Koku it's just not easy to hit if the attack is a punch, but if it's an ura-ken, then the elbow rotates around, exposing that target, and making the technique make sense.

To be honest, this then fits more with Classical Japanese arts... the idea of a stepping punch, or, really, a punching attack at all, is quite uncommon... the idea of a grab-and-punch attack is also pretty much unheard of... grab and hammer-fist, on the other hand, is pretty common/standard... so all those techniques in the Bujinkan expression where you have a grab and punch? Yeah... wrong, again.

This, by the way, is what I mean when I say I'm doing these schools these days quite differently to the Bujinkan expression... and Gyokko Ryu is still one of the closer ones... they change even more as we go through the other schools... 



dunc said:


> In Koto Ryu the power generation is done with a long extension of the hips in a straight line. So the attacker's arm can be counter struck whilst the uke is still moving away from the punch. This allows for the uke to use shallow angles and longer distances to force the attacker to over extend and creates time for a counter attack mid way through the (extended) 2nd attack using the long kamae to shift into position along straight lines



Yeah, again, this comes from a kamae concept that matches the Budo Taijutsu idea (itself being based in a combination of Togakure and Gyokko, along with some, honestly, simplified approaches to attacking methods)... when you start looking at the school independently of that, and bring in the other lines to gain a wider appreciation, then things change again.

Again, let's start with kamae... the most "signature" kamae of Koto Ryu would likely be Seigan, agreed? In the Bujinkan, it's adopted by standing with one foot in front (let's use the left, but, as you know, it's done as both migi and hidari), with the other behind, turned up to 45-degrees away, and your weight slightly back (about 60% on the right/rear leg, 40% on the lead). The left hand is held extended with the hand open in kiten-ken, fingers pointing towards the opponent's eyes, and elbow bent, and your right hand open in a similar fashion at your bicep. This has your hips turned into a han-hanmi position (45-degrees), loading up power and tension in your rear thigh and hip, allowing for an explosive forward movement by driving your hips forward into the extension you're describing... however... 

If you look at the images in the densho (as shown in Hatsumi's video and DVD on Koto Ryu, for the record), which also match the images in the Ueno Takashi documents, you'll see that the images don't actually match the way it's done... instead, the posture is done with a cross-step action forwards, and the opposite hand held out in kiten-ken (step forward and across your body with your left leg, turning your hips to the left, allowing your rear foot to lift the heel off the ground), and the left hand held across your chest open at your right shoulder. Your weight is also (by necessity) forward, not back, and the entire structure of tension and positioning is markedly different, if not completely opposite, to the way it's done in the Bujinkan (for an illustration, see the videos I linked earlier). This means that the power source/generation is done by twisting/untwisting the hips... think of the idea of unscrewing or screwing on a bottle cap... rather than an overt forwards movement.

A careful reading of the descriptions given in both Hatsumi's "Unarmed Fighting Techniques of the Samurai" and the various translations of the Ueno text show the same thing... it's also interesting to note that the idea of "blocks" in Koto Ryu are minimal... most of the techniques are entered around evasive stepping back (cross-stepping, really)... the only school that actually employs the uke nagashi that we're used to is Gyokko... which makes sense when you consider the idea of rotating the elbow... none of the other schools actually use it at all.



dunc said:


> Kukishinden uses tilting of the spine and deep posture to create powerful strikes to the arms or receive punches
> And so on



Does it? I see that statement being made, usually accompanied by the idea that the school is based in fighting in armour... even though there's really nothing to back that up. The overly deep stances are, again, just variations of the basic structure found across the board in the Bujinkan, and, if one was to be a bit cynical, is likely done largely to differentiate this school... but they still follow the same pattern as the way the Koto Ryu ones are done in the Bujikan (lead hand extended, rear one back near the body, weight back, etc). When you start to look at the techniques from a realistic, and practical sense, the whole lumbering "in armour" movement makes no sense at all... it's just too slow to justify waiting for attack after attack... 

I'm going to use an example from the Jinenkan here, Adam Mitchell. Now, I like Adam, he's a very serious, dedicated practitioner, and highly skilful in the way he performs these techniques... and, as an example of the Jinenkan, he's fantastic. That said, here's a video of Hosetsu (Kukishin Ryu Dakentaijutsu, Shoden Gata):





Compare that with the other group showing the same school (Kijin Chosui Ryu Kukishinden), again, starting around 45 seconds in:





These are the same techniques, but, really, completely different schools... not so much "powerful strikes to the arms", more checks against incoming strikes... more upright (and forward) in the kamae, different methods of punching attacks (and, you'll note, grab and hammer fist, not grab and punch...), giving a much faster way of moving, with a lot more mobility, and so on.

This is the same across the board... Takagi Ryu Jujutsu really doesn't use the same postural concepts, attacking methods, receiving methods, distance management, post-kata zanshin, and more, that the Bujinkan Takagi Yoshin Ryu does (or the Genbukan's Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Ishitani-den does), despite them being the same school from the same source (Ishitani to Takamatsu to Hatsumi, Ishitani to Kakuno to Tsutsui, Yagi to Ishitani and Fujita, Fujita to Mizuta, Mizuta to Takamatsu)... considering the closeness of the schools historically, they should be pretty much the same realistically... the other Ishitani schools (outside of the Takamatsuden) share the same methods of movement, however in the Kan's, they don't... in the Kan's, they share the movement of the overall approach of that Kan... 

One more time, though, if your aim is to follow the Bujinkan, then you should be doing the kata the way the Bujinkan does them. If you want to develop a broader expression of Budo Taijutsu, then do them the way the Bujinkan does, with the differences from ryu to ryu as they're shown there... which is what you've described. However, if you want to understand the ryu independent of the influence of Budo Taijutsu, then you'll start to realise that, from a ryu-ha perspective, they no longer retain their individual character, or, indeed, their original characteristics... in that sense, the actual ryu no longer exist... what is now around is Budo Taijutsu, and Budo Taijutsu adapted and altered schools... you could describe them all as "Hatsumi-ha", as they are realistically "new" versions or expressions... but, realistically, while that's the most generous way to view them, it's also a bit inaccurate... as they're not distinctly being taught as such. Just variations on a theme from Budo Taijutsu... with a few different flavours.


----------



## dunc (Sep 10, 2021)

Hi Chris

I'm sorry, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think your desire to differentiate yourself from the Xkans mixed with an interest in going deep into the ryuha has clouded your judgment somewhat



Chris Parker said:


> Well, the most likely would be the following... a downward back-fist (ura-ken), omote and ura shuto-ken (kiten-ken), and tetsui-ken (hammer-fist striking). This then means that the methods of striking and receiving is based more on a rotation of the elbow... which makes the uke nagashi methods make perfect sense... as well as certain rather unusual aspects of the kata themselves (the ken kudaki strike to "the underneath of the elbow/hoshi" in Koku it's just not easy to hit if the attack is a punch, but if it's an ura-ken, then the elbow rotates around, exposing that target, and making the technique make sense.
> 
> To be honest, this then fits more with Classical Japanese arts... the idea of a stepping punch, or, really, a punching attack at all, is quite uncommon... the idea of a grab-and-punch attack is also pretty much unheard of... grab and hammer-fist, on the other hand, is pretty common/standard... so all those techniques in the Bujinkan expression where you have a grab and punch? Yeah... wrong, again.



Using Gyokko Ryu as a clear example above - I believe your basic premise is that you know better than Hatsumi sensei when it comes to how the kata should be performed
Despite the fact that he is the sole source of this ryuha....

And we have footage of Takamatsu sensei training against a grab and punch and standing in kamae to receive a punch, but you're suggesting that neither of these are correct either

My examples were perhaps too brief in their description, but popping a few comments in below in case they are helpful in explaining where I'm coming from


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 11, 2021)

Hi Dunc,



dunc said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> I'm sorry, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think your desire to differentiate yourself from the Xkans mixed with an interest in going deep into the ryuha has clouded your judgment somewhat



Ha, no, I don't take any kind of offence at that... I understand exactly where you're coming from, and why you would think that, so all cool on that front. Of course, I have no desire to "differentiate" myself from the X-Kans at all... realistically, my desire is to be as honest to my own understanding of the arts as I can be...in fact, I would suggest that the following of what is done in the Bujinkan as being the accurate view of things (regarding the ryu themselves, obviously... when it comes to the Bujinkan approach, of course the Bujinkan and it's leadership is who you should be looking to) is more a case of "clouded judgement". To be blunt, I would say that I'm seeing things a lot more clearly than I have before... 



dunc said:


> Using Gyokko Ryu as a clear example above - I believe your basic premise is that you know better than Hatsumi sensei when it comes to how the kata should be performed



Well, that's a kinda loaded way to put it... "know better"? I don't know about that. What I would say, though, is that in applying my understanding of Classical Japanese arts, and by examining (closely) the body structure and organisation of the school, as well as how it's written (using Hatsumi's book, Unarmed Fighting Techniques of the Samurai as the primary source, as it's supposed to be essentially what is written in the densho, although I take that with a grain of salt or two), has lead me to a range of conclusions that has altered in large and small ways the way I see the school and it's methodologies. What I am not saying is that my version is me "knowing (the school) better" than Hatsumi or the Bujinkan... instead, I'm saying that the school has been necessarily altered to fit in the broader approach of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu... which is a different statement. Essentially, what I'm doing is reverse-engineering to what they were/would have been... am I right in this? Probably not, in a number of ways... but do I feel that it's closer? Yes.

But here's the thing... for yourself, for the Bujinkan, for, well, anyone else, it doesn't matter so much. I'm not trying to convince you to change the way you do things (as I've said, if you're part of the Bujinkan, you do it the way it's done in the Bujinkan, as that's what's "right" there), but hopefully I'm giving you a different perspective that can help broaden your appreciation of these arts.



dunc said:


> Despite the fact that he is the sole source of this ryuha....



Which takes us to the idea of whether or not he's actually a source for it... but, of course, he's not the "sole source"... there's also the Genbukan, the Jinenkan... various off-shoots (including myself, of course), and, to be absolutely clear, technically Hatsumi is no longer the source for Gyokko Ryu... that would be Ishizuka. And, if you still think Hatsumi is "the source" (as opposed to a source), then you're denying his appointing of Ishizuka-s as the new soke, which would indicate that you don't believe that Ishizuka has the knowledge of a soke (or that his Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko, which he got a number of decades ago, is valid as a source)... 

The problem with all of this, of course, is it hinges on a few things... namely that Hatsumi got proper (full) transmission, rather than a partial education and a title from Takamatsu in the first place... then, that Hatsumi has similarly given the same full transmission in the school distinctly and separately... and, thirdly, that there has been no adjustment/adaptation to the methods of the school, drifting it away from it's actual approach. And, simply put, if point one didn't occur, then point two couldn't either, and point three is similarly moot. If point one did happen (full transmission), that's no guarantee that point two also occurred... and, of course, the idea of point three is, as I think I've demonstrated a number of times, something that has absolutely occurred (drift to bring the methods in line with the wider approach of the various Kan that it's found in).

What all of this comes back to, then, is the very first idea I gave in this thread... the schools aren't taught/transmitted as individual schools. They never have been. Functionally, they're dead schools, existing now only in parts that go into the make-up of the various Takamatsu-derived organisations, and as paper titles. And I believe that due to the high likelihood that Hatsumi firstly didn't learn the schools in that sense in the first place, and never taught them in anything like that format, due to his not learning them initially, combined with his views on such transmission and martial approaches (ie he doesn't like it).

Now, I'm going to try to make this clear as well... none of this is a criticism of Hatsumi, the Bujinkan, or anything else (we could get into that, but that's not what I'm doing here). It is, simply, an observation. Hatsumi wanted to create his own approach, which he did in Budo Taijutsu. That's laudable, and shows his creativity above all else... but, and here's where it gets to the point, in order for Budo Taijutsu to be "born", the ryu had to die. There's really no other way. So, either the Bujinkan (Hatsumi and all others) teach Budo Taijutsu, or they teach the ryu... and they don't teach the ryu. They teach material that comes from them, sure... but not the ryu themselves.



dunc said:


> And we have footage of Takamatsu sensei training against a grab and punch and standing in kamae to receive a punch, but you're suggesting that neither of these are correct either



I'll start by saying I don't remember seeing footage of Takamatsu standing in kamae to receive a punch (the grab-and-punch, yeah), but no, what I was saying is that these types of attacks are simply not found in classical arts... they are found in modern ones (especially the stepping punch ones), and are found in a number of Chinese systems, but It's rare (to say the least) to have a stepping punch attack to the head. Say, here's an interesting thing, looking through the text in Unarmed Fighting... it never says "punch" (or tsuki, for that matter)... it simply says to "strike with the fist", or, more often, "strike" (utsu 打つ) as the most common term for the attacks... is that definitive? Nope. But it's an interesting thing to keep in mind... 

To be honest, considering the relatively short time that Hatsumi was training with Takamatsu, both in terms of number of years, and actual training time, and the amount of information that would have needed to have been given, I don't find it particularly surprising to consider that Takamatsu would have used a basic framework to learn much of the technical material... it's also, I feel, a not-unfair statement to say that the uke side of things in Bujinkan training is under-developed, to say the least... whereas in most classical arts, that side is the senior one... in the Bujikan, though, it seems that the "attacker" is basically there to provide a shape/angle for the defender to do their thing... ukemi is focused on, sure, but the uke's role himself? Not so much. Certain teachers might look to that side more than others (before it gets said, no, I haven't seen every Bujinkan training session ever held by everyone), but it would certainly be in the minority in that case... and the question would be where their take on that side came from...



dunc said:


> My examples were perhaps too brief in their description, but popping a few comments in below in case they are helpful in explaining where I'm coming from



As said, I get exactly where you're coming from, so no need to go into further detail... after all, talk to me 5 years ago, I'd be saying pretty much exactly what you are here, albeit with a number of caveats... at that point, I was already looking at how "accurate" the mechanics for things like Kukishin Ryu Kenpo are, which is kinda how this started (my looking more into how things "should" be)... but would have seen things much the same way you do, regarding what the "differences" are between the ryu... from my current perspective, though, that's just not how ryu-ha differences manifest... so I think the bigger issue is not me not following you, but more you not understanding my perspective, as Tony indicated. And that's fine, as I said, I'm not here to get you to move away from the Bujinkan and it's approach... just providing an alternate interpretation that may encourage some to re-think about how things are done, and why.


----------



## dunc (Sep 12, 2021)

Hi

On my phone so can’t really go through every point - apologies once again

On Gyokko: the curved movement applies to the attacks as well as the blocks and you don’t aim to be completely side on so it is different from how you articulate it I think
This form of punching (I agree with your point that the attacks are generally prescribed this is to allow for variations in them) makes uke nageshi the perfect response. I don’t think it’s the perfect response to a hammer fist BTW
By sole source I mean everything we know about the school comes from Hatsumi sensei. Probably each Soke will evolve and change things as they have done over the history of the schools

On Koto: seigan encompasses both footwork. This is an essential point and a key building block for the ryu 
The power generation and footwork is done away from uke not towards them as you describe. This method of creating distance/space/time is a key building block

on Kuki: the tilting of the spine and bending of the knees arent for the reasons you describe. leaning is not great in armour and getting too low in armour is tiring
It’s for a couple of reasons some technical some contextual. You can see it a little in the video you posted and if you look closely the person executing the kata would benefit from leaning a little more (BTW a lot of consistency in the attacking methods using punches between the lineages)
You can also see Takamtsu sensei using his spine with this fundamental method when teaching bo
Interestingly and based on the video you posted I see no attempt from tori to disrupt or slow down his attacker. This seems to be an obvious error both from my understanding of the core teachings of the ryuha (which are manifest throughout including weapons work) and from a basic martial arts perspective (namely it’s almost impossible to apply a technique if you haven’t “worn your opponent down” or compromised them in some way)

On the transmission from Takamatsu to Hatsumi: Who knows for sure? But the facts that Takamatsu gave Hatsumi licences in the ryuha and we can see him teaching Hatsumi the forms from the schools would suggest different
i think we can safely say that Hatsumis understanding would exceed either of ours

I agree that the development of uke is generally neglected somewhat


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> it's also, I feel, a not-unfair statement to say that the uke side of things in Bujinkan training is under-developed, to say the least... whereas in most classical arts, that side is the senior one... in the Bujikan, though, it seems that the "attacker" is basically there to provide a shape/angle for the defender to do their thing... ukemi is focused on, sure, but the uke's role himself? Not so much.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that in koryu arts it is common for the senior practitioner to play the uke role because it allows the more experienced person to feed an attack that provides the correct timing/distancing/energy/structure/etc that is appropriate for the counter being practiced. It also gives uke the option, if tori performs the technique incorrectly, of not going along with it and demonstrating how an attacker would take advantage of the mistake(s) made. Of course this requires that uke clearly understands not only the technique being practiced by tori, but also how to properly and successfully deliver the attack being countered and how to deal with inadequate defenses. (I sometimes do the same thing, in a much less formalized way, with my students.)

Assuming this is what you are referring to, then I agree with your assessment of the Bujinkan training with regard to uke. I think this has a number of detrimental effects. Practitioners end up training against attacks which are not only highly stylized, but also basically incompetent (in the sense that they would have essentially no chance of being successful against a decent fighter in any style). The uke also ends up being conditioned to respond to the counters in an unrealistic and overly cooperative manner, and this is one of the elements which ultimately leads to some instructors demonstrating completely nonsensical techniques. 

This is why when I'm teaching, even while drilling cooperative reps, I check to make sure the uke isn't just feeding the correct energy to their partners to allow the technique to work. I also check to make sure they aren't making the technique too easy by having bad structure or balance or taking a dive when the technique is done incorrectly.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2021)

I know I'm gonna do a little bit of a thread necro here.

Just to try and clarify for myself:  Hatsumi published the "Togakure Ryu Ninpo" book in the early 80's.  Based on reading through here, it sounds like that was the "banner" that was being used at the time and the things explained and shown in the book are not exclusively from the Togakure school, but also included large parts of the other schools (mainly Gyokko Ryu?)


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 26, 2021)

Hi Dunc,

Sorry for the delay in response.



dunc said:


> Hi
> 
> On my phone so can’t really go through every point - apologies once again
> 
> ...



I've tried to put together a response to this a few times, but, in the end, I think there's not a lot of point to it... mainly as it'll basically come down to my saying that all the Bujinkan schools (as taught there) apply the same basic structure and concepts with variations within them, but not in any way that indicates actual distinction between ryu, and you'll respond that "these are the distinctions", where I'll say "no, those are variations", and we'll go round in circles... in essence, my point is that, outside of faith in Hatsumi and the Bujinkan approach, all evidence points to the conclusion that the schools are not really individual schools there... with logical conclusions being either that Hatsumi changed them all to match a single approach, or that he never really got them as distinct, separate schools from Takamatsu in the first place.

But here's the thing... if your only real exposure is within the Bujinkan and it's approach, and you use internal Bujinkan understanding to validate that belief, then I would be highly doubtful that you would ever really see what I'm saying. That's not a slight, of course, just saying you can only see what you understand... and, as said, it is mainly through my koryu exposure that I've come to realise this to the degree that I have now... in other words, only by going well outside the Bujinkan's methods could I start to understand, and therefore, see what I had already suspected. Especially because I do multiple koryu.

To go through a couple of your comments, though, as I do feel they deserve an individual response, there are a few things I'd like to clarify:

(re: Gyokko Ryu)


> This form of punching (I agree with your point that the attacks are generally prescribed this is to allow for variations in them) makes uke nageshi the perfect response. I don’t think it’s the perfect response to a hammer fist BTW



I would recommend playing with it a bit... see how easy it is to strike the jakkin with uke nagashi when the elbow is rolled over (hand vertical in a punch), or kept underneath (tetsuiken). You'll also find that the range shortens a bit, making the target much more attainable than a fully extended "punch"... but, really, there's no issue with you keeping doing things the Bujinkan way... I'd expect that you would, really! 

I do think you've missed the point about how the attacks are written, though... it's not at all that they were written just saying "strike", or "strike with the right" or similar to allow for variations... that's, bluntly, a common thing I hear that I attribute to a lack of education in the subject. What needs to be remembered is that a) the documents aren't "teaching notes", they're often rather shorthand descriptions (sometimes just names) presented to people who have been training in the techniques for a length of time... the strike doesn't need to be absolutely identified, as the person with the scroll knows exactly what strike it refers to... b) the "assumed knowledge" (which includes that you've trained the techniques correctly for a time) needs to be understood in cultural context... and the cultural context for types of attacks and violence found in old systems is that, simply, straight punches to the head almost don't exist... straight punches to the body, yeah, but to the head it's almost always a hammer fist or shuto-style strike.... because none of them are meant to be hand strikes. They're representative weapon attacks (stab the body, cut to the head/neck), and c) a more vague description means that someone from another school getting hold of the scroll won't know the exact method or angle of the attack/strike. To think that this means you can "choose" or explore whatever strike you want is to completely misunderstand the reasons for the way the scroll is written.



> On Koto: seigan encompasses both footwork.



Here's where the real disconnect is... I'm not talking about a variation in footwork, I'm talking about a completely different body structure and organisation... so, yeah, the way you describe things is how they're done in the Bujinkan... but not necessarily in Koto Ryu (if you were to find it separated from the X-Kan). What you're describing is an adaptation of the actual school into the mechanics and organisational structure (body) of the Bujinkan's Budo Taijutsu approach... again, we can go round in circles, but we're describing two different things... which is the point I've been making.

This also then ties into the whole "Hatsumi is the sole source we've got"... if you only take the way that these methods are taught within the Bujinkan, with Hatsumi as the "sole source", then, simply, you're not going to see what I'm talking about... which is fine if your aim is to understand and follow the Bujinkan (and Hatsumi). I'm not tied to that at all, so I'm free to look well and truly beyond him... however, I will note that, by taking that as the "sole truth" it can lead to some rather blinkered understandings when looking at the wider world.



dunc said:


> Interestingly and based on the video you posted I see no attempt from tori to disrupt or slow down his attacker. This seems to be an obvious error both from my understanding of the core teachings of the ryuha (which are manifest throughout including weapons work) and from a basic martial arts perspective (namely it’s almost impossible to apply a technique if you haven’t “worn your opponent down” or compromised them in some way)



This is what I'm talking about... you're only seeing this through the frame-work of your understanding of the "core teachings of the ryu-ha"... well, who says your understanding of the core teachings are actually the core teachings of the ryu, and not just the expression of some facets of the school (or even not from the ryu itself at all) as taught within the context of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu? What makes you think (other than faith in Hatsumi) that what you do is true to the "core teachings of the ryu-ha"? How do you qualify that to mean? How do you know what the weapons work is meant to be like (to clarify that, I have yet to see what I would identify as correct weapons usage in the Bujinkan, mainly as I don't think it's a factor in the way weapons are explored [rather than "taught"] there...)?

On another forum, a video was posted of Inoue Kyoichi-sensei, 19th Soke of Hontai Yoshin Ryu (at that time, his father, Minaki-sensei, was the 17th soke, and Inoue's father, Inoue Tsuyoshi-sensei would later become the 18th... for clarification, Hontai Yoshin Ryu is a branch of the Takagi Ryu, with Minaki being a student of Kakuno Happeita, who also received his licence from Ishitani [read as Ishiya here and in other lineages... interesting that only the Takamatsuden arts use the pronunciation "Ishitani"...] Takeo) performing some bojutsu, which is described in the school as being from Kukishin Ryu. Inoue-sensei performed these techniques solo, being made up of about 4 of the kihon waza, and a couple of sequences taken largely from their kumitachi methods (the school has 10 kamae, 8 kihon, and 10 kata (for reference, I have trained with the local Hontai Yoshin Ryu group in their Bo, Hanbo, Iai, and Ken methods), with the last one being based on their 8th kata, Nagi Ranpu... in your comments, you described them as "just posing"... "the strikes are ok, but (the spinning) gets a bit silly, imo"... 

Now, one could point out that the Hontai Yoshin Ryu has gone through a fair amount of change between Kakuno-sensei and Minaki-sensei's leadership, with the school being restructured, creating a whole series of more fundamental throwing, locking, and striking kata, reducing the bo to 10 kata (the mainline of Takagi Ryu maintains 24 bojutsu kata, similar to Kukishin Ryu mainline... the mainline of Takagi Ryu also traces back to a student of Kakuno), and keeping pretty much only the Omote no Kata from the Shoden, and some Muto (Tachi) Dori, as well as some new methods for Tantodori and so forth... so it could be expected that the Hontai Yoshin Ryu is less likely to be representative of the school, so the Bujinkan could have it right... however, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu matches the Takagi Ryu mainline, Shingetsu Muso Yanagi Ryu (another school tracing from the Takagi Ryu, but from a much earlier generation), and has a lot of similarities to the Kukishin branches, including the mainline... really, the outlier is the Bujinkan approach... so taking the Bujinkan as the "correct" method is, using Occam's razor, not the most likely... 

In addition to this, there are any number of facets that I would point to that further reduces the likelihood of Bujinkan approaches of accuracy in the teachings... on the same forum, when the topic of embu came up, a Bujinkan member made the comment that "Embu is something of a demo, or a presentation of the art, often theatrical. It is done in a manner to present the art to the public, and a way of showcasing the movements and ideas within it." This is, frankly, completely backwards... they aren't about "demonstrating to the public", nor are they "theatrical" (quite the opposite), and so on... but, of course, these ideas do match the concept of a Bujinkan embu, which is where the ideas came from... however it really goes against a lot of the basic tenets and concepts of classical systems. You also have a rather popular video (among Bujinkan members) of Someya showing sword etiquette and handing (non-combative), often accompanied by comments that "this should be watched by everyone", or "this is very important information!"... except, of course, that what he shows isn't really anything like the standard etiquette for sword handling in a number of facets... the way he teaches to hand a sword over, for example, is just... honestly, a bit bizarre. There are comments about how, if you don't do what he's showing at something like a sword store, people will consider you ill-educated... frankly, the opposite is true. Do what is shown, and you'll be the "strange foreigner" who doesn't know what they're doing, but hey, at least they're trying! Then there's the inconsistencies in mechanics of weapon handling, and more, all of which add up to the comments I've been making here.

What I'm basically saying is that, if what you see from anywhere group teaching a related art doesn't match what you expect, it doesn't mean it's lacking in the "core concepts" of the art... it's just as likely that what you're seeing is showing how the Bujinkan expression doesn't match the core concepts of the ryu... in fact, I would say more likely.



dunc said:


> On the transmission from Takamatsu to Hatsumi: Who knows for sure? But the facts that Takamatsu gave Hatsumi licences in the ryuha and we can see him teaching Hatsumi the forms from the schools would suggest different



Does it? Do we have footage of Hatsumi being taught all the forms from all the systems? We have some basic locks and throws, as well as a couple of Takagi-ryu kata, and some basic weapon handling... but that's not the same thing at all. In addition, integrating the ryu is a lot more than just learning the sequence of movements (and, again, the simple time involved would likely indicate that even that didn't happen over Hatsumi's time with Takamatsu), it's a matter of training your body to conform to particular body organisation and structure, mindsets, movement methods, distancing concepts, power generation, and more... all of which are unique to the individual schools themselves. And, looking through the footage we have, the focus seems more on learning sequences, not about integrating a ryu-centric understanding (although, of course, we have snippets at best of a 10-year period... so this is also far from absolutely conclusive... the footage we have could be from the very beginning of Hatsumi's study, after all, and the focus could have changed a fair bit as time went on... I don't personally believe that, but that's not something we have an answer to).



dunc said:


> i think we can safely say that Hatsumis understanding would exceed either of ours



I like the optimism here, and logically, it would make sense... the problem is that there has been little to no evidence of any such understanding. As I said, this is probably the most controversial line of discussion I could give... but, honestly, it's only based on what we have to work with. We know that Hatsumi trained with Takamatsu (after Ueno). We know that Takamatsu licenced him in at least 6 ryu, with one more being something he potentially just got some documents on, another purely as "paperwork", and a third as something that mysteriously got added a number of years after Takamatsu's passing. We know that he got these licences within 10 years of starting his training with Takamatsu. We have footage of Hatsumi learning a few techniques with Takamatsu, including some ryu-ha kata, and some kihon (both weapons and unarmed). 

We can also see that the ryu-ha are far less "distinct" within the Bujinkan as outside, and that there are some major and notable differences between the schools taught in the Bujinkan and outside. We also know that Hatsumi has been critical of how he perceives classical arts (koryu), and teaches in a way that is pretty much opposite to such arts, with more emphasis on creativity and "feeling" than on accuracy of technique and transmission. We know that, for much of the first couple of decades of the Bujinkan, there was no distinction made between where any of the techniques or methods came from, and that, even today, principles, concepts, actions, movements, techniques, and so on from various schools are (almost casually) borrowed from each other constantly with no regard for any kind of purity of the schools. We know that membership are ranked in Hatsumi's creation of Budo Taijutsu, not the ryu-ha, although some of the older members had specific school licences (and now soke titles), these aren't really done, and the manner in which they were given out was not really linked to actual study of the ryu from any indication we have. 

So, we have a situation where ryu aren't taught and transmitted in a way that would ensure the schools are treated properly, in fact, the very methodology that would ensure that is actively worked against, and the head of these systems is not a fan of the approach that would be deemed as necessary... His understanding might very well be there... but it makes no appearance in any aspect of the organisation other than in name and some variations to a base approach applied across the board.

Mind you, if I'm going to continue to insist that the schools aren't taught correctly, might I request that you indulge me in answering a few questions? They're really quite simple, and shouldn't tax you, nor are they giving away any "secrets" in any way... they're simply about the kamae found within certain areas (not how they're done, just what they are, really). Thanks.

Can you name the schools that have Hira Ichimonji (standing flat, hands held straight out to the sides) within them?
Can you name the kamae for Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu Keiko Sabaki Gata?
Can you name the primary kamae for Kukishin Ryu Kenpo?

Thanks!



dunc said:


> I agree that the development of uke is generally neglected somewhat



To be honest, I don't know that many in the Bujinkan would understand what the role of the uke actually is... as, again, it isn't a factor in the way the Bujinkan operates.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that in koryu arts it is common for the senior practitioner to play the uke role because it allows the more experienced person to feed an attack that provides the correct timing/distancing/energy/structure/etc that is appropriate for the counter being practiced. It also gives uke the option, if tori performs the technique incorrectly, of not going along with it and demonstrating how an attacker would take advantage of the mistake(s) made. Of course this requires that uke clearly understands not only the technique being practiced by tori, but also how to properly and successfully deliver the attack being countered and how to deal with inadequate defenses. (I sometimes do the same thing, in a much less formalized way, with my students.)



That's a part of it all, yes. There are other technical aspects, and there are a range of philosophical aspects as well (I sent out an email to my students recently covering this aspect by pointing out some of the facets of In-Yo Taoist dualities that are enshrined in such practices), and some pedagogical reasons, for both sides. One of the biggest is on the nature of the transmission, and ensuring that the school is passed down correctly at all levels. The rest is more assurances that that's the case.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Assuming this is what you are referring to, then I agree with your assessment of the Bujinkan training with regard to uke. I think this has a number of detrimental effects. Practitioners end up training against attacks which are not only highly stylized, but also basically incompetent (in the sense that they would have essentially no chance of being successful against a decent fighter in any style). The uke also ends up being conditioned to respond to the counters in an unrealistic and overly cooperative manner, and this is one of the elements which ultimately leads to some instructors demonstrating completely nonsensical techniques.



Yeah, I think these are all fair assessments.



Tony Dismukes said:


> This is why when I'm teaching, even while drilling cooperative reps, I check to make sure the uke isn't just feeding the correct energy to their partners to allow the technique to work. I also check to make sure they aren't making the technique too easy by having bad structure or balance or taking a dive when the technique is done incorrectly.



Good plan. That's how it should be. Of course, it also needs to be relative to the level of the student, but I'm sure you're taking that into consideration as well.



punisher73 said:


> I know I'm gonna do a little bit of a thread necro here.



Ha, no, I've been meaning to come back to this thread for these responses for a bit...



punisher73 said:


> Just to try and clarify for myself:  Hatsumi published the "Togakure Ryu Ninpo" book in the early 80's.  Based on reading through here, it sounds like that was the "banner" that was being used at the time and the things explained and shown in the book are not exclusively from the Togakure school, but also included large parts of the other schools (mainly Gyokko Ryu?)



Very much so. In fact, the "Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu" book (sometimes loving called "the purple book" from it's cover) is really just a somewhat early version of the Tenchijin Ryaku no Maki... which is the closest thing the Bujinkan has to a standardised syllabus (if it was used that way universally, and followed with consistency and quality control, the Bujinkan would, I feel, be a much different organisation... of course, it's a text of Budo Taijutsu... but we'll get to that). In fact, let's look at the contents:

Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu is divided up into sections: Ten Ryaku no Maki, Ten-Chi no Maki, and Jin Ryaku no Maki.
The Tenchijin Ryaku no Maki is divided up into sections: Ten Ryaku no Maki, Chi Ryaku no Maki, and Jin Ryaku no Maki.

The Ten Ryaku no Maki for TRNT is as follows:
- Authors Introduction
- Bujin Shoku to Seikatsu (Warrior Food and Lifestyle)
- Junan Undo to Kokyuho (Stretching/Conditioning and Breathing)
- Ryutai Undo ("Dragon Body" Conditioning)
- Kokyuho (Breathing Methods)
- Shinkokyu San'aun (Deep Breathing Three "Aun" - a form of Buddhist mantra in meditation)
- Taihenjutsu ("Body changing skills" - methods of receiving)
- Kaiten (rolling)
- Shiho Tenchi Tobi (Four directional Heaven/Earth Leaping)
- Zenpo Ukemigata to Ryusui (Forward Break-falls and Flowing Methods of Receiving)
- Shinken Gata Taihenjutsu (Evasion and Receiving Methods Against a Real Sword/In a Real Situation [Gyokko Ryu])
- Ukemi no Jutsu to Ankoku Toshijutsu (Receiving Skills and Night-sight Development)
- Kamae to Sonso Gata (Postures and Movements - for reference, the kamae are: Fudoza [Shinden Fudo], Ryuho [Gyokko], Ryuho Fusetsu. [Gyokko], Shizen [various], Hoko [listed in my copy as "Hi no Kamae", Koto], Doko [Togakure - there's also a similar one with the same name in Gyokko], Jumonji [Gyokko], Hicho [Gyokko], Ichi [listed as "Ichimonji", this is Togakure Ryu's Ichi no Kamae, as opposed to Gyokko's Ichimonji], Ihen [not a specific kamae or school, similar in this instance to nageuchi no kamae, or the posture of throwing a strike], Hira Ichimonji [named here as Hira - various])
- Shoten no Jutsu ("Heavenly Climbing" Skills [Togakure Ryu])
- Ukenagashi (Receiving Flow/Blocking)
- Hiken Juroppo (16 Secret Fists/Striking Methods - for reference, listed here are: Kikakuken [headbutt], Shukiken [elbow], Fudoken ["regular" fist], Kitenken [hand edge, also called Shutoken], Shishinken [end of the fingertip], Shitanken [extended fingers], Gyokakuken ["demon horn fist", extending the index and little finger], Sanshitanken [extending the three main fingers], Shishitanken [extending all four fingers together], Shuken ["beak" fist], Shakoken ["hand claw"], Shitoken [also called Boshiken, the tip of the thumb], Shikanken [extended knuckles - two forms are shown, all four fingers first knuckles, or just the middle finger, which is the Gyokko Ryu form], Koppoken [middle knuckle of the thumb], Happaken [palm], Taiken ["body fist" - striking items not covered, such as hips, or shoulders], Sokuyakuken [sole of the foot], Sokkiken [ knee], Sokugyakuken [top of the foot], Kiken ["spirit fist"]
- Sanshin no Kata ("Three Hearts" Techniques [Gyokko Ryu])
- Kihon Happo (Fundamental Methods [Gyokko Ryu])
- Koshi Dai Ippo-Dai Sanpo ("Hip" Methods 1-3/Kihon Happo Striking Techniques, also called the Moto Gata)
- Torite Gata Dai Ippo-Dai Goho (Seizing Methods 1-5, Kihon Happo Grappling Methods)
- Kyusho to Kiai (Striking Points and Kiai/Energy Harmonizing)
- Koppojutsu Kinketsu Teisoku Kasho Meisho (Striking Points Lists)

Ten Ryaku no Maki from TCJRnM
- Ukemi Gata Taihenjutsu (Receiving Body Changing Techniques)
- Kyuhen no Kata (9 Changing Techniques)
- Taihen Ukemi Gata - Mae Gaeshi (Forwards "Turn Over"/somersault)
                                    Zenpo Kaiten (Forwards Roll)
- Yoko Gaeshi (Sideways Roll)
- Ushiro Gaeshi (Backwards Roll)
- Zenpo Ukemi (Forwards Break-fall)
- Ryusui (Flowing Like Water)
- Shiho Tenchi Tobi (Four Directional Heaven/Earth Leap)
- Shoten no Jutsu ("Heavenly" Climbing Techniques)
- Hokojutsu (Walking Methods)
                  - So Shin So Soku Ho
                  - Hyojo Hoko
                  - Mu-on no Ho
- Shizen Gyoun Ryusui (Flowing Naturally In Response)
- Soshin Gokei Gogyo no Kata/Sanshin no Kata ("Three Hearts" Patterns [Gyokko Ryu])
- Kihon Happo Gata [Gyokko Ryu]
                   - Kosshi Kihon Sanpo (Fundamental Three Methods of Kosshi, also known as the Moto Gata)
                   - Torite Kihon Gata Goho (Five Methods of Seizing Fundamentals)
- Kyu Kamae (Nine Kamae - listed are: Fudoza [Shinden Fudo], Shizen [various], Hira Ichimonji [various], Ichimonji [Gyokko], Doko [Togakure], Hicho [Gyokko], Hoko [Koto], Kosei [Kukishin], Jumonji [Gyokko])
- Taihenjutsu Mutodori (Body Changing Sword Defence [Gyokko Ryu])
- Hoken Juroppo Ken (16 Striking Treasures - listed are: Kikaku Ken [headbutt], Shukiken [ Elbow], Fudoken ["regular" fist], Kitenken ["hand sword", Shutoken], Shishinken [tip of one finger], Shitanken [extended fingers], Shakoken [hand claw], Shitoken [tip of the thumb, also called Boshiken], Shikanken [extended knuckle], Koppoken [thumb knuckle], Happaken [palm], Sokuyakuken [sole of the foot], Sokkiken [knee], Sokugyakuken [top of the foot], Taiken ["body" weapon], Shizenken ["natural" weapons, teeth, nails, etc])

Ten-Chi no Maki (TRNT)
- Keri (Kicks)
     - Keri ni Taisuru Uke Gata (Receiving Against Kicking Attacks)
     - Ken no Tsukai Kata Inashigata (Methods of Using Fists)
- Aite to Kumu Koko Kogamae (Principles in Grappling With An Enemy)
     - Tehodoki (Grip Escapes)
     - Oyagoroshi, Kogoroshi (Killing the Parent, Killing the Child - note: these are Tehodoki methods)
    The next list are various joint locks. 
     - Takeori ("Bamboo Breaking" [Kukishin])
     - Omote/Ura Oni Kudaki (Outer/Inner Demon Crushing [Kukishin/Takagi])
     - Muso Dori ("No Thought" Capture [Koto, Kukishin, Takagi])
     - Ogyaku to Henka ("Big Reverse" variations)
     The next list are chokes.
     - Shime Waza (Strangling Techniques)
     - Koroshi Jime ("Killing" Choke)
     - Jigoku, Gokuraku, Yume no Makura ("Hell", "Paradise", "Dream Pillow" - a section, with these names coming from Kukishin and Takagi methods)
      The next section deals with throws.
      - Nage (Throws)
      - Harai Goshi, Harai Otoshi (Sweeping Hip, Sweeping Drop)
      - Gyaku Nage (Reverse Throw)
      - Taki Otoshi ("Cataract" Drop)
      - Osotonage to Hiki Otoshi (Rear Throw and Pulling Drop)
      - Uchimata Uchigake (Inner Thigh, Inner Hook)
      - Haneage (Snapping Lift)
      - Itamiken Nage ("Painful Weapon" Throw)
      - Nage ni Taisuku Waza (Defences Against Throws)
      - Ransetsu to Soto (these are two sacrifice-throw kata from Koto Ryu)

Chi Ryaku no Maki (TCJRnM)
- Hajutsu Kyu Ho (Nine Methods of Breaking [grips/structure])
     - Tehodoki (Grip Breaks)
     - Taihodoki (Body Grip Breaks)
     - Oya Goroshi (Kill the Parent [Tehodoki])
     - Ko Goroshi (Kill the Child [Tehodoki])
     - Koshi Kudaki ("Hip Crush", Throw Breaking)
     - Keri Kudaki (Kick Breaking)
     - Keri Kudaki (Kick Breaking [listed twice])
     - Ken Kudaki (Strike Breaking)
- Torite Kihon Dori (Fundamental Grabbing and Capturing Methods)
      - Migite Omote Gyaku (Right Hand Outer Reversal)
      - Ura Gyaku (Inner Reversal)
      - Suwari Gata (Seated Techniques)
               - Ichi Geki
               - Osae Komi (these two kata are similar to some Shinden Fudo Ryu Taijutsu methods, but are not strictly from any known ryu)
- Happo Keri Henka no Koto (Eight Methods/Directions of Kicking Variations)
      - Sukui Keri (Scooping Kicks)
      - Hito
      - Kappi
      - Konpi (the above are three kata from Koto Ryu)
      - Jumonji
      - Keri Sukui
      - Ashi Dome (these are not from a defined school)
- Gyaku Waza (Joint Lock/"Reversal" Techniques)
      - Take Ori (Kukishin)
      - Omote Gyaku (various)
      - Ura Gyaku (various)
      - Hon Gyaku (various, found in Gyokko, Takagi dominantly... the name comes from Asayama Ichiden Ryu, though...)
      - Omote Oni Kudaki (Kukishin, Takagi)
      - Ura Oni Kudaki (Kukishin, Takagi)
      - Musha Dori (various)
      - Muso Dori (Koto, Kukishin, Takagi)
      - O Gyaku (various)
- Nage Kata (Throwing Techniques - dominantly from Kukishin, Takagi)
      - Ganseki Nage 
      - Harai Goshi
      - Gyaku Nage
      - Taki Otoshi
      - Osoto Nage
      - Uchimata Uchigake
      - Hane Nage
      - Itami Nage
      - Ryusui Iki (Sacrifice Throw)
              - Tomoe Nage
              - Tachi Nagare
              - Yoko Nagare
              - Temakura
- Shime Waza Go Gata (Five Choking Techniques - dominantly from Takagi)
     - Hon Jime
     - Gyaku Jime
     - Itami Jime
     - Sankaku Jime
     - Do Jime

Jin Ryaku no Maki (TRNT)
- Kumi Uchi (Close Combat Methods)
      - Ashirau Ippo-Yonpo (Footwork Methods 1-4)
      - Musan (Shinden Fudo)
      - Rakurai (no defined ryu)
      - Chikusei (Shinden Fudo Ryu Taijutsu)
      - Fudo (Shinden Fudo)
      - Koku (Gyokko)
      - Konpi (Koto)
      - Hito (Koto)
      - Kappi (Koto)
      - Gyakuryu (Gyokko)
      - Katamaki (Koto)
      - Koyoku (Koto)
      - Renyo (Gyokko)
      - Shiho Dori (Kukishin)
      - Kasasagi (Gyokko)
      - Ko (Gyokko)
      - Ku, Gyaku Otoshi (the name is from Takagi Ryu, but the method shown is Hissaku from Koto Ryu)
- Joseigoshinjutsu (Women's Self Defence Techniques)
      - Roto (Shinden Fudo)
      - Hane Kujiki (no defined school)
      - Ryo Yoku (the name is found in Shinden Fudo, but it's a different technique)
      - Shinsen (Koto)
- Ichi Tai Tasu (One Versus Many)
- Shinken Shirohadome to Shiroha Dori ("Real Sword" Stopping and Capturing the Edge of a Blade)
- Muto Dori (Unarmed Sword Capture)
      - Sekiryoku (Koto)
      - Koryo (Gyokko)
      - Chingan (Gyokko)
      - Hissaku (Koto - variation)
      - Fumo (Gyokko)
      - Bakko (Koto)
      - Muko Dori (Takagi)
      - Shika Ashi (Kukishin - variation)
      - Shuriki (Koto)
      - Akuken (Shinden Fudo - variation)
      - Gokuraku (Takagi - variation)
      - Fudo (Shinden Fudo - variation)
      - Shiroha Dome (principle from Takagi)
      - Shiroha Dori (principle from Takagi)
-Totekijutsu (Throwing Blade Art)
       - Tsubute and Kurumi
       - Ishi Nage (stone throwing)
       - Senban Nage (throwing blade)
       - Metsubushi (blinding powders)
       - Ita Shuriken/Hira Shuriken (flat shuriken)
- Kakushi Buki (Hidden Weapons)
       - Shuko
- Shinden Gokui (Divine Secret Transmissions)
- Atogaki (Afterword)

Jin Ryaku no Maki (TCJRnM)
- Ichi Geki
- Osae Komi
- Ude Ori (the three above are based on Shinden Fudo Ryu Taijutsu, but not found in the school itself in these forms)
- Kana Shibari
- Tengu Dori (the above two are based on Takagi Ryu kata, and make a pair)
- Ketsu Myaku (Gyokko)
- Tai Jime (based on Takagi Ryu)
- Jigoku Otoshi (based on Takagi Ryu)
- Keri ni Taishite (Against Kicks)
     - Koto (no defined school)
     - Huko Sono Ichi (no defined school)
     - Huko Sono Ni (no defined school)
- Nage Kaeshi (Throw Counters)
     - O Gyaku (Koto)
     - Atami Dori (no defined school)
     - Fu Kan (Shinden Fudo)
     - Koyoku (Koto)
     - Hoteki (Koto)
     - Ate Nage (Takagi)
     - Setto (Koto)
     - Hissaku (Koto)
     - Hito (Koto)
     - Seion (Kukishin)
     - Yume Makura (Kukishin)
     - Ryote Kake (Takagi)
     - Fudo (Shinden Fudo)
     - Gokuraku Otoshi (Takagi)
     - Teiken (Gyokko)
     - Setsu Yaku (Shinden Fudo)
     - Musan (Shinden Fudo)
     - Gekkan (Shinden Fudo)
     - Katamaki (Koto)
     - Konoki (Koto)
     - U Gari (Shinden Fudo)
     - Shizen (Shinden Fudo)
- Haibu Yori (Rear Grab Breaking)
      - Yuki Kudaki (Gyokko)
      - Sakketsu (Gyokko)
      - Kin Kudaki (no defined school)
      - Unjaku (Shinden Fudo, also called Hibari)
      - Kito (no defined school, also called Keta Otoshi)
      - Shiho Dori (Kukishin)
      - Moguri Dori (Kukishin)
      - Koku (Gyokko)
      - Renyo (Gyokko)
      - Saka Nagare (Gyokko)  
      - Kasasagi (Gyokko)
      - Ko (Gyokko)
      - Soto (Koto)
      - Ransetsu (Koto)
- Muto Dori Kata (Unarmed Sword Defence)
      - Ken Kobushi/Ken Nagare (generic, name from Takagi)
- Santo Tonso no Kata ("Practice Forms of the Escaping Rat" - all from Togakure)
       - Kata Ude Tonso
       - Migi Ude Tonso
       - Hidari Ude Tonso
       - Migi Tonso
       - Kubitsugi Tonso
       - Atekomi Tonso
       - Kote Uchi Tonso
       - Migi Uchi Tonso
       - Sayu Kumogakure Tonso
       - Kosei Kirigakure
       - Happo Kirigakure

So, what you can see by these is that the basic structure is the same, as well as a good degree of the content... in addition, most of it is from schools other than Togakure (the end of the Tenchijin is specifically Togakure, but that doesn't feature in the Togakure Ryu book itself...).


----------



## dramonis (Dec 2, 2022)

Sorry to revive this post!

But after reading all this, *my conclusion* is Takamatsu changed the Ryu-ha when he transmitted it to X-kan sokes. And the break of Bujinkan in multiple sokes is an attempt of Hatsumi to make each of the schools recover their original characteristics as ryu-ha and better quality control, as we can see now anyone can train in Hombu dojo would be a move to this direction.


----------



## Gyakuto (Dec 2, 2022)

Ninja - a secretive, ill-defined, covert school of espionage, many hundreds of years old who rarely transcribed their ideas or techniques for fear of discovery which is miraculously rediscovered, replete with intricate details on techniques, philosophy and magic spells…🤔

Koryu schools of martial arts, who _did_ try and transmit their principles (amongst their devoted students, that is), kept written records, had teaching curricular and awards of proficiency, often have big holes in their curriculum in the 21st century because of records being lost through natural disasters etc.

Thus, my conclusion is that ‘the ninjitsu’ is _very_ unlikely in the way Hatsumi/Hayes/Lustbader _et el. _present it.

However, real espionage _does_ still exist and is used by MI5, MI6, the CIA, the FSB, Mossad and, I suspect, the Boy Scouts 😳. Maybe _they_ are the true successors to the ‘arts of the ninja’, albeit in a very modern, western manner and totally unrelated to Japanese ‘ninjitsu’.


----------



## dramonis (Dec 2, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Boy Scouts 😳


100% Ninja, this one.
---

I believe that Takamatsu has proven knowledge like Kukamishin Ryū probably in other schools too,

*My assumption* is he tried to help students learn faster by showing the katas of others schools but performed by systems of what they already learned. In this way, you can learn how to use multiple weapons and strategies with some room for adaptation. I have to agree with @Chris Parker, Bujinkan's Kukishin-ryū Iwata Yoshio is not the same as Kukishinden Tenshin Hyōhō, and I believe never meant to be, otherwise, the name would be the same. Takamatsu changed to fit a style, maybe his own style, and pass this style ahead.

Bujinkan can be a great tool for you to increase strategies of your stand fight to grappling distance, even learn attack and grappling with weapons, Kyusho strike and defense, and you have some knowledge of kata from ancient schools that manage to survive.

The only thing that I'm against the methodology is not the fact that we lose some of the traditional ways of the Ryu-ha but many times the lack of intention. what do I mean by lack of intention? as an excuse to not hurt your partner some ppl do the training without aggression or avoiding hitting the person if they commit a mistake is not even the resistance but the clear desire of "if I'm punching, I will really try to hit you if I grapple I really will try to throw". But this is more the training philosophy than the actual combat system.

In any way sorry if I said some ********. everything I said is my experience and my point of view is not the ultimate truth


----------

