# A Question About Ninjutsu



## Muawijhe (Apr 20, 2010)

I have a question.

Why is it ninjutsu, and especially the authenticity of the X-kans, under so much attack (particularly from those who don't even study under it)? It seems like if you study a form of ninjutsu, someone will confront you with, "Hi, I study karate. What you're learning isn't ninjutsu. Have a nice day."

I can understand the need for ninjutsu to maintain its independence from the claims of modern upstarts and poseurs. And I can understand critisizm from within other branches or ideaologies of ninjutsu making claims or attacks to prove its own authenticity. But why from without of that particular field?

Sure, there's the whole marketing ploy of selling the loaded term "ninjutsu" to make a profit teaching a martial art. But if someone is not buying it, nor are they selling it, who made them the moral authority to debunk it?

From what I understand, ninjutsu is what it is: a phenomenon particular to the time, geographical location, political environment, etc. that it was spawned from. As such, it is not strictly a martial art, but encompasses many ideas, concepts, and metaphysical essences that aren't easy to explain, especially to one who is not familiar with the historical time it was created, nor having ever trained in it. 

I'm just confused, I guess. But that's typical with all martial arts for me. The whole problem of tradition versus evolution from within, and the naysaying from without. It just reinforces my opinion that martial arts are like religion: everyone believes theirs is the best, and in the end it requires a dose of faith in many things.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

Why we get that criticism, I don't know. I suspect it is because people confuse us with the neo ninja and feel they need to loudly share their opinion. People being people I guess.



Muawijhe said:


> It just reinforces my opinion that martial arts are like religion: everyone believes theirs is the best, and in the end it requires a dose of faith in many things.



Not really. I don't believe my art is best. It is just what -I- like best. I really like being a member of the Genbukan and I have a number of reasons that I stick with it, which might not be true for anyone else. No more, no less.

I also don't take things on faith. I have spent a significant amount of time researching the various controverses, looking at what is publicly known from various parties, and then making up my mind about them. In that regard, one could argue that it requires a dose of faith. Otoh one could argue that I have looked at the evidence and used reasonable doubt to come to a conclusion.

Sure there is enough stuff that I cannot personally verify, but then it is also of little importance to me and if those things were proven conclusively either way, it would not have a significant amount of impact on me or my membership status.


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2010)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86804

This is a very interesting and informative read.


----------



## Muawijhe (Apr 20, 2010)

Thanks for the response, Bruno!

Let me quickly correct myself:



			
				Muawijhe said:
			
		

> I'm just confused, I guess. But that's typical with all martial arts for me. The whole problem of tradition versus evolution from within, and the naysaying from without. It just reinforces my opinion that martial arts are like religion: everyone believes theirs is the best, and in the end it requires a dose of faith in many things.


 
Replace _everyone_ with _some people, often with the loudest voices_. =)

And to drill down on the _dose of faith_, let me say: Until one has done sufficient research into the art, the body, their instructors, and have trained to a level of competency, one must take it with a dose of faith.

Sorry about being vague, but thanks again. I think its important as you stated, and especially so with martial arts, to train in what you enjoy, and in what you think is best for you and your goals. =D


----------



## Tsuki-Yomi (Apr 20, 2010)

To keep it short and to the point the flack Ninjutsu gets revolves around the fact that there isnt much sparring involved.  The typical response from the ninjutsu crowd is "we do Randori", but that answer never seems to work out.  People see video clips on youtube and feel we telegraph our punches and kicks.  Everything is rehearsed ect, and none of that can be done to a person that is really resisting or throwing real punches or kicks.  There is no aliveness in the training, or why do they hold there hand out like that when they punch.  These are all comments and critisism that have been in the air for a long time, and quite frankly you just have to keep going and learn to ignore stuff like that.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 21, 2010)

Tsuki-Yomi said:


> To keep it short and to the point the flack Ninjutsu gets revolves around the fact that there isnt much sparring involved. The typical response from the ninjutsu crowd is "we do Randori", but that answer never seems to work out. People see video clips on youtube and feel we telegraph our punches and kicks. Everything is rehearsed ect, and none of that can be done to a person that is really resisting or throwing real punches or kicks. There is no aliveness in the training, or why do they hold there hand out like that when they punch. These are all comments and critisism that have been in the air for a long time, and quite frankly you just have to keep going and learn to ignore stuff like that.


 
I will speak to my own experience and only my experience(s) with Ninjutsu and Budo Taijutsu. I first became aware that there was a martial art called Ninjutsu in 1989 at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. It was called Ninjutsu and the head guy was Soke Hatsumi. We did full speed sparring and if you had a back ground in something else it was even more fun; I was actually an EPAK student at this time, rolling full speed with the ninjas.

Later I took a break from "just sitting and watching the ninja class my friend went to," and went into law enforcement in Colorado (I was able to keep up on my Kenpo, luckily).  I missed being OPFOR for the field training though, it was a fun way to put my military field training to use (I was an active duty Security Forces during part of this).

In about 2007 I found a new "Ninjutsu" school opening up near my house and I was able to be an original student. Now though it was called Budo Taijutsu and most of the stuff I did when I rolled with the Utah ninjas wasn't in the current curriculum. At first I thought it was just a instructor thing and that eventually it would change; that wasn't the case.

This was something I expected though, Soke was still in charge after all. But it took me a little while to process this, that Budo Taijutsu was what was being taught and it was (as it appears to me) the hand to hand, the ground hitting skills and the weapons, like most martial arts encompasse today and not the black pajamas, blinding powder throwing, tree climbing, field stalking class of yesteryear.

The climbing, stealth, kugi in techniques and the rest was not taught while I was there, at least formally and yes sparring was absolutely not allowed and neither was randori.

At first I didn't like it and moved to another instructor who was teaching out of his basement. It was the same thing; The Bujinkan was teaching Budo Taijutsu and not Ninjutsu per se.

I made it only as far as 1st kyu and that is not very far and the biggest bulk of my promotion came at once when I "tested out" of a lot of lower belts by one of my Colorado instructors based off of my Utah experience.

As far as I know the Genbukan, based off of my friend in Utah, the one who talked me into "watching" his ninja class 21 years ago, teaches ninjutsu and includes a curriculum as close to what I studied so long ago. I cannot speak for the Jinenkan, To Shin Do (I have some DVD's though) or anything else but this is my experiences so far (condensed version).

Take it for what it is worth.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 21, 2010)

Hi,

There are a variety of reasons that the ninjutsu-related systems get "put down" seemingly more than others... Part of it comes from the "mysterious" secret aspect of the art and it's history, which seems to allow more than the normal number of, shall we say, charletans (I just love that word...) to take advantage, usually with the line that they "were taught by their Master, who choses to remain secret... it was a secret art, you know, that's why you don't find any records.... etc etc". This, combined with some absolutely wonderfully bad films in the 80's lead to the art being looked on as being just fantasy movie stuffs.

Another side of things was the rise of MMA and BJJ, which took tournament competition out of the point-sparring image of karate and tae kwon do tournaments which dominated the public image of martial arts, showing a different image than was previously seen. This lead to people insisting on what they refered to as "alive" training, which is essentially training against another person who is resistant to your techniques, as well as trying to apply their own. While this is great for competitive training, it is not what real violence is about, so it is not a feature of ninjutsu training. There is a form of free-responce training employed, but it looks rather different, and has very different aims, so it is generally discounted, which is a pity, really.

Finally, there is the training itself. The Bujinkan teaches in a particular way, which has it's good and bad points, but a general overview (from another of my posts here http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80187) is:

*Over the years, the Bujinkan has gone through a number of very distinct training approaches. In the 60's and 70's the training was very restricted in terms of numbers, and was focused on hard body conditioning and (sometimes brutal) application of technique. Hatsumi himself has spoken about the way he taught and trained in those days, saying that he often went too hard and too far in the application, but everyone seemed to be fine with it.

This was followed by a focus on basics (such as the Kihon Happo and Sanshin no Gata) as the art spread around the world, particularly to Western countries such as the US. At this time the Ten Chi Jin Ryaku no Maki became the standard teaching manual. However, the art was spreading in many directions, and rather than establish firm control over the organisation, Hatsumi Sensei chose to leave the teaching in the hands of the individual instructors which has had the downside of having vastly wide ranging levels of skill and standards across the organisation.

Due to the large numbers, and very different ability levels, the training developed again into what became known as the Bujinkan's "Happy Heart" training. This was from the late 80's into the 90's, and was characterised by very relaxed movement, and focus on the "feeling" rather than form or power. It is thought that a large part of the reason was to ensure safety for the large number of people now training in the art.

Eventually Hatsumi saw that this was weakening the practitioners, and it was time to change again. The story goes that around 1996 (from memory...) he was teaching a sword technique (using bokken), and the senior Japanese Black Belt was attacking with a "Happy Heart". Hatsumi told him to atack again, properly this time. The Black Belt attacked with a "Happy Heart". Hatsumi told him again to attack properly, and again was presented with a "Happy Heart". This time, Hatsumi struck down in responce to the attacking Black Belts forehead, leaving the watching group in shock. As the blood trickled down the Black Belt's foehead, Hatsumi turned to the mostly Western group there, and said "Playtime is over". Thus the period of "Happy Heart" training came to an end.

And finally, as we have moved into the 2000's, Hatsumi has been spending more and more time focusing on the more "philosophical" aspects of the training, with yearly themes such as Budo of Life, Budo of Zero, Koteki Ryuda, and this year a theme of no theme... This has been reflected in a training method that is slow, and relies on concepts of manipulation of space, distance, angling etc, and is mainly demonstrated on simple attacks to demonstrate the concepts fully, however these attacks and defences are not exactly realistic. And they are not meant to be.

The problem comes about when many members of the Bujinkan believe that they should only train exactly as they have seen in Japan, or more realistically, how they believe it is done in Japan (how they percieved it, even if they were there, is not always accurate) without the requisite background that the Bujinkan as a qhole has gone through, and the background that Hatsumi Sensei has spent many decades accruing. Very simply, by only training the way it is done in Japan, you are skipping to the end, and will not be able to really do what is shown, as you will be missing the basis that is required. However, a good instructor will be able to take you through that part.

It should be remembered that the way Hatsumi teaches is really designed for only the high level practitioners with the requisite background to understand, not the less experienced. But the way that Hatsumi has set things up is by telling everyone that if they are not training with him in Japan, they are not getting the "real" art. This is, I must say, simply a control method. And it again has the downside of leaving many practitioners behind who do not have the experience to get the benefit of the way that Hatsumi Sensei teaches. 

As I'm sure you can see, I feel that the Bujinkan as a whole would benefit greatly from having much stricter standards, people would be able to get more out of the information and education that Hatsumi Sensei gives them, and the art as a whole would be much more positively recieved. These standards are found in organisations such as the Genbukan and the Jinenkan, and as MJS said, they are rarely targeted the same way the Bujinkan is. But the practical upside of everything is that it is entirely Hatsumi Sensei's organisation, and what he says goes as far as the Bujinkan is concerned.
* 
This "happy heart" training, designed to work on the subtleties after years of serious training, is what most people see when looking at ninjutsu-related training, whether on YouTube, or in many classes around the world, and I personally feel that that comes from people wanting to follow what Hatsumi is teaching, but not understanding why he is teaching and training the way he is, or whether or not it is approapriate for them at the particular point in their training. It may be, it may not.

I think that covers most of it. One last thing....



MJS said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86804
> 
> This is a very interesting and informative read.


 
When did that happen? I go away for a few moments, I don't know....


----------



## Muawijhe (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks to everyone for your responses.

Fromt what I gather of reading those, and the posts in the threads that I was linked to, is that ninjutsu takes a lot of flack primarily because of the "ninja" association, and our culture's take on ninja. Between bad 80s movies (was the _American Ninja_ series really all that _bad_? :lol with black clothed super-gymnists and youth-oriented franchise marketing (comic books, actions figures, _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_), our poor culture by and large has no concept of what ninjutsu is.

So on one hand, you have the serious ninjutsu student who isn't taken as serious because the detractors can only picture the above media influences. On the other hand, you have the serious martial artist of another art who looks at the overly-zealous ninjutsu student who has been adversely affected by the media ninja image (ie, he has the cowl on his head in every MySpace and Facebook picture of him). And everything in between.

I think this bi-polarization trickles down and through other views of aspects of the art, such as the training. I won't go into the training, as there is already a great, if not sometimes very heated, discussion thread dealing with that on this forum.. Anyone reading the entirety of it will get the point well, I believe.

So, to wrap up, I blame the media and ignorance of a culture at large. I must say, before I started learning more of ninjutsu, I'm sure I'd have given a cross-eyed glance (in fact, I know I have) to someone I knew who said they were studying ninjutsu (_"Oh, so you learn to skulk around in black pajamas and kill samurai?"_).

But, I think each martial art has had a similar period when it is brought to the attention of American culture at large. Kung fu in the 70s, with David Carradine and horribly dubbed Hong Kong action films. Or karate in the 80s, when most people's only reference to it was a Ralph Maccio and Pat Morita film.

Just imagine if BJJ got its exposure here in the US, not from MMA, but form a children's cartoon...

_Post-teen Abnormal Brazilian Jui-jitsu Rabbits!_


----------



## ElfTengu (Apr 22, 2010)

I think our main downfall is that too many people harp on about how Takamatsu Sensei went around Japan and China kicking *** and proving the effectiveness of his art/training, but out of the hundreds of thousands of practitioners today there is not one who is prepared to do the same. And there are plenty of opportunities in non-mainstream true No Holds Barred events.

In fact, we wouldn't even have to 'win', just survive and avoid damage, which is apparently what we should be about today. I believe Takamatsu Sensei once evaded an opponent for long enough that they were exhausted, and then when he was about to take advantage of this the fight was stopped and he was pronounced the winner without landing a single blow. Surely someone can run and roll around a boxing ring or octagon until the same effect is achieved?

But in true kyojitsu form I will have an opposing view tomorrow to what I said today.


----------



## Jean-Yves (May 5, 2010)

I'm only a very beginner in the Bujinkan but find that the difference between instructors can be immense. I trained for a few moths with one sensei, a 6th dan, who was very hard in his teaching. Believed in toughening the body through pain. Yet we trained on mats. He travels to Japan once a year or so. The one I train with now is a 4th dan, and is much less aggressive in his methods. We train on wooden floors. He is also very much into the feel of the techniques and would occasionally spend a while going into the history or reasons behind a particular movement. 

I am not an aggresive person so feel much more comfortable with the one I am with now. Takes a bit longer for grades but I am much more comfortable learning from him. I guess it is a search for a teacher who matches our personality at the time.


----------



## Satt (May 5, 2010)

In a strange sort of way, it is nice that some people don't respect "Ninjutsu". The more people think I am weak, the stronger I can prove to be should the need arise...MUAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

:jediduel:


----------



## derobec (May 5, 2010)

ElfTengu said:


> I think our main downfall is that too many people harp on about how Takamatsu Sensei went around Japan and China kicking *** and proving the effectiveness of his art/training, but out of the hundreds of thousands of practitioners today there is not one who is prepared to do the same. And there are plenty of opportunities in non-mainstream true No Holds Barred events.
> 
> In fact, we wouldn't even have to 'win', just survive and avoid damage, which is apparently what we should be about today. I believe Takamatsu Sensei once evaded an opponent for long enough that they were exhausted, and then when he was about to take advantage of this the fight was stopped and he was pronounced the winner without landing a single blow. Surely someone can run and roll around a boxing ring or octagon until the same effect is achieved?
> 
> But in true kyojitsu form I will have an opposing view tomorrow to what I said today.


 
Hi,

For the first paragraph, I'd agree for sure.

Second paragraph? Well I'm not too sure -smacks of the infamous Inoki-Alli 'fight', but would the present day spectator, brought up in a media rich environment be happy watching a guy show-boating for a couple of hours and then being awarded the win? Think not. That's not even taking into account whether they would have the stamina to outlast a MMA fighter for a couple of hours. 

_the fight off at the end of the ninja 'Human Weapon' programme showed what a VERY high grade is capable of......and perhapps that's one reason why there's an apparent lack of respect for 'ninja' students. _

With Respect (and some anticipation!),
William


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 5, 2010)

derobec said:


> Hi,
> 
> For the first paragraph, I'd agree for sure.
> 
> ...


 
Well if you look at the "Human Weapon" fight at the end Doug Wilson dismantled his opponent.  How many times did the other guy get hit and decapitated ie. killed.  Even when it went unarmed there was not clear cut victor though I would have to give the edge (literally) to the MMA guy in that one brief segment as when he picked up the sword he may have cut doug. (we just won't know will we)  The fight before that well look at each individuals attributes.  Attributes and athleticism always play a roll in any encounter.  In that particular match I can think of a number of different individuals more capable than Bruce who by the way is a really nice guy!


----------



## derobec (May 5, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well if you look at the "Human Weapon" fight at the end Doug Wilson dismantled his opponent. How many times did the other guy get hit and decapitated ie. killed. Even when it went unarmed there was not clear cut victor though I would have to give the edge (literally) to the MMA guy in that one brief segment as when he picked up the sword he may have cut doug. (we just won't know will we) The fight before that well look at each individuals attributes. Attributes and athleticism always play a roll in any encounter. In that particular match I can think of a number of different individuals more capable than Bruce who by the way is a really nice guy!


 
Hi Brian,

I really don't see an issue with regards to Jason Chambers and Bill Duff loosing their bouts. I was referring more to the way that the 'contests' translated to the TV screen. With the other fight-offs (at least, the ones I've seen) there was a certain 'urgency' which I don't feel was shown in the 'ninja' programme -to me, it came across as a very relaxed practice rather than a gritty I WANT to WIN scrap. There could be many reasons for this but perhaps the most likely is that the Booj doesn't (as far as I'm aware) prepare it's members for competitions so it would have been new ground for all concerned.

All the Best,
William


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 5, 2010)

Oh, Mr. Parker, is there anything you don't know? (-:


----------



## stephen (May 9, 2010)

derobec said:


> it came across as a very relaxed practice rather than a gritty I WANT to WIN scrap. There could be many reasons for this but...



The reason is precisely that _wanting to win_ is pretty much a mortal sin in the Bujinkan. 

Leads to all sorts of dying, which is inconvenient. 

I was told recently by ASIR*: 

1. Be effective
2. Don't lose
(3. But don't try to win either)


*A Shihan I Respect


----------



## stephen (May 9, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> ...*
> 
> Due to the large numbers, and very different ability levels, the training developed again into what became known as the Bujinkan's "Happy Heart" training. This was from the late 80's into the 90's, and was characterised by very relaxed movement, and focus on the "feeling" rather than form or power. It is thought that a large part of the reason was to ensure safety for the large number of people now training in the art.
> 
> ...




Chris, 

Your posts are of a consistently high quality. However, while you speak as if these comments are fact, I would propose that there's a fair bit of opinion in there as well. As a Bujinkan member who has been traveling to Japan frequently (and having an instructor who lived in Japan during a period in the 90s), I'll have to say that, from my background, I've had a distinctly different experience than your statements. (And, I've never heard the phrase 'Happy Heart' before  .)

Where do you develop these opinions? Do you train regularly with Bujinkan instructors in Japan or abroad? 

I guess I'm just asking that you include more 'In my opinion' caveats as your writing style can come off as if you're reading 'settled history' and may also especially read that way to inexperienced people.

As I said, you have consistently high quality posts, so please don't take this with any negativity - it's not meant in that manner.


----------



## jks9199 (May 9, 2010)

stephen said:


> Chris,
> 
> Your posts are of a consistently high quality. However, while you speak as if these comments are fact, I would propose that there's a fair bit of opinion in there as well. As a Bujinkan member who has been traveling to Japan frequently (and having an instructor who lived in Japan during a period in the 90s), I'll have to say that, from my background, I've had a distinctly different experience than your statements. (And, I've never heard the phrase 'Happy Heart' before  .)
> 
> ...


I'd be interested to hear your own opinions and experiences on these issues.  I'm not at all suggesting that Chris has the absolute word or that his interpretation or experiences are some sort of Gospel -- but he does, in my opinion, seem to provide a good, balanced account, but different viewpoints from qualified & honest people always provide more enlightenment on the issue.


----------



## Archangel M (May 9, 2010)

So what happens when Hatsumi passes? Who do you have to go to to get the "real thing" then? I see problems when high levels of an art can only be achieved by seeing one person.


----------



## derobec (May 9, 2010)

stephen said:


> The reason is precisely that _wanting to win_ is pretty much a mortal sin in the Bujinkan.
> 
> Leads to all sorts of dying, which is inconvenient.
> 
> ...


 
Hi,

Interesting philosophy -but is it meant to be taken literally? I can see how 'ASIR' might have been trying to instill the idea of 'letting go' of a narrow perception to try and get his/her students to get stuck in without any concern as to whether they 'win' or loose. BUT, if 'ASIR' was literally saying that you shouldn't try to win then I hope s/he is not claiming (even worse, charging) to teach realistic self defence.

How anyone can learn to be effective if they haven't first developed a will to win I don't know -unless it's by accident.

Best Wishes,
William


----------



## Chris Parker (May 10, 2010)

stephen said:


> Chris,
> 
> Your posts are of a consistently high quality. However, while you speak as if these comments are fact, I would propose that there's a fair bit of opinion in there as well. As a Bujinkan member who has been traveling to Japan frequently (and having an instructor who lived in Japan during a period in the 90s), I'll have to say that, from my background, I've had a distinctly different experience than your statements. (And, I've never heard the phrase 'Happy Heart' before  .)
> 
> ...


 
Hi Stephen,

No, I didn't read any negativity there at all, no worries on that one. Actually, I'm flattered that you speak so highly of my usual humble offerings. So before anything else, thanks!

When it comes to that particular piece, yes, it is a fair bit of opinion, primarily on the reasons the changes occured. It's based on conversations with a number of people who were there "back in the day" as it were, as well as observations of my own and others. I try to always take as many versions of a story as I can, and then come to my own conclusions rather than simply taking anything at face value. That said, this is the picture that I have put together over the last 17 years+, so any blame for inacurracies should lie with me, regardless of source.

Personally, I always thought that one of the strengths of the Bujinkan was it's variety, so for another to have a different experience to mine (and those I spoke to all had different experiences to each other as well, the quoted section is really a conglomerate of a range of experiences) is really almost to be expected. And, as JKS said, if more share their experiences then a more complete picture can come out. But that's just my opinion, you understand...


----------



## Chris Parker (May 10, 2010)

derobec said:


> Hi,
> 
> Interesting philosophy -but is it meant to be taken literally? I can see how 'ASIR' might have been trying to instill the idea of 'letting go' of a narrow perception to try and get his/her students to get stuck in without any concern as to whether they 'win' or loose. BUT, if 'ASIR' was literally saying that you shouldn't try to win then I hope s/he is not claiming (even worse, charging) to teach realistic self defence.
> 
> ...


 
Hi William,

Without wanting to put words in either Stephens' or the Shihan he was quotings' mouths, I would say that the difference is in the emphasis. Wanting to win leads to dangerous practices in real life, as you would miss out on vital details (by overly focusing on "winning"), such as escaping, or other people, weapons, etc.

The focus in Ninjutsu is not on winning, but on survival. So the will to win isn't important, or even desired, but the will to survive is. And that can take many different forms. So I don't think the Shihan was saying you shouldn't try, or shouldn't fight back, just that you shouldn't be so focused on the outcome (especially such an ego-driven one as "winning") that you find yourself getting killed.


----------



## Muawijhe (May 10, 2010)

derobec said:


> Hi,
> 
> Interesting philosophy -but is it meant to be taken literally? I can see how 'ASIR' might have been trying to instill the idea of 'letting go' of a narrow perception to try and get his/her students to get stuck in without any concern as to whether they 'win' or loose. BUT, if 'ASIR' was literally saying that you shouldn't try to win then I hope s/he is not claiming (even worse, charging) to teach realistic self defence.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sure others here of more experience and knowledge can answer this better, but I'm going to take a crack at it from my own interpretation.

I thinking the concept of "winning" can be dangerous, especially in a self-defence situation. I think it implies a sort of "competition" attitude, as well as promoting one's ego ("I have to win!").

If one is effective in their techniques, then the opponent's techniques are not effective (meaning you do not come to harm). If you do not lose, then your opponent's ego cannot win (again protecting you). If you do not try to win, then your ego is not extended (for whatever ill will that can bring about). Therefore, by addressing all three of those you can protect yourself.

Perhaps also "winning" implies beating down your opponent or coming to a one-sided stance of victory in a physical conflict. And from what I gather from my very novitiate knowledge of ninjutsu, is that it is not about winning. Not getting hit, sure. Defending from the opponent's technique, of course. Removing yourself from the path of danger/angle of attack, striking or throwing to momentarily disable your opponent and running away, you got it. Standing over the bloody remains of your opponent and declaring yourself the "winner" for all about, most certainly not. So, in summary, did you evade harm and make away with your life through the proper application of ninjutsu techniques? Yes. Would the average person say you "won" the altercation? No.

Just my toss on this.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 10, 2010)

As far as I can tell with my limited experience, winning is defined differently in ninpo than in e.g. MT.

In MT, winning is defined by knocking out the other person (ignoring the point system for the sake of this discussion). In ninpo, winning is defined as surviving. So suppose I were to get into a fight with Bas Rutten. I know I can't KO him. I should not concentrate on that. I should try to find a way to distract him long enough to make a getaway. Or perhaps I should find a way to avoid the fight by making sure thathe does not lose face. That is winning imo. If all else fails, and I am in a corner, in a lock room, then winning becomes KOing him. If the room is unlocked, then winning would probably be the goal of getting out of that room alive, regardless of whether I KO him or not. (Not, obviously)

If you focus too much on the 'KO' definition of winning, then that is going to work against you when your most important goal should be survival.


----------



## Satt (May 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> So what happens when Hatsumi passes? Who do you have to go to to get the "real thing" then? I see problems when high levels of an art can only be achieved by seeing one person.


 
opcorn:


----------



## derobec (May 10, 2010)

Hi,

I think I pretty well covered the point that the Shihan may not have meant to be taken literally -first sentence of the first paragraph. I have no problem with that attitude at all, the point is, that Stephen's post didn't make that at all clear -hence my question "...is it (the advice) meant to be taken literally".

With regards to having the will to win in a life threatening confrontation being dangerous, I'm certain that not having the will to win is even more dangerous. 

This isn't just about being able to do the basic techniques in their own right, it's about being able to 'switch on' and *if *necessary inflict brutal damage on another human being to save yourself and your loved ones. There have been many instances recorded over the years of people freezing in the face of a brutal attack and being unable to damage their attacker simply because they weren't brought up to do such things -basically because they were nice people.

With regards to 'beating down' an attacker, well what else am I meant to do? Invite him 'round for tea with my girlfriend? I think not. 

Everyone has a right to their own stance on this matter, for myself, having been the victim of more than one unprovoked attack and having seen close family members also become the victims of such attacks I personally now choose a zero tolerance approach. To each their own.

Good Luck,
William


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> So what happens when Hatsumi passes? Who do you have to go to to get the "real thing" then? I see problems when high levels of an art can only be achieved by seeing one person.



Presumably, he will pass the 9 schools to his successor, in much the same manner in which he received them from Takamatsu sensei. Hatsumi sensei himself said in interviews that he did not understand the value of the kuden  given by Takamatsu sensei, when he received them. So his successor will have to continue to grow his understanding, just like he had to do.


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2010)

derobec said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think I pretty well covered the point that the Shihan may not have meant to be taken literally -first sentence of the first paragraph. I have no problem with that attitude at all, the point is, that Stephen's post didn't make that at all clear -hence my question "...is it (the advice) meant to be taken literally".
> 
> ...



The important thing about responding to real violence is to define "win" or "survive" properly.  If the goal of the encounter is to survive -- defined as going home, with no extra holes and unaltered IQ, then the tactics chosen and the extent you go may well be quite different from those used if the goal is to "win" -- defined as standing victorious over your vanquished & submitting, if not dead, foe.  If your simply trying to survive, it may be enough to run before anything has happened other than seeing your foe on the street.  At the same point, if your goal is to win -- then you might set a counter-ambush, and shoot the foe before he even knows you're there.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 10, 2010)

derobec said:


> With regards to having the will to win in a life threatening confrontation being dangerous, I'm certain that not having the will to win is even more dangerous.



I'm fairly certain that having the will to live / survive is better than the will to win. At least from the survival point of view. By wanting to win, you get drawn into the confrontation.

If someone shoves me or wants to hit me, or perhaps he did hit me but I did not go down, this is where wanting to win would draw me into a fight that could end either way, whereas my will to live or survive would have me looking for a way out as long as I have that opportunity.

Fighting can be necessary and if if happens it should be with the desire to survive. But if you can break off a confrontation and escape, that is better. I am not ashamed to admit that in my youth I ran away several times from a fight that was waiting to happen. A fight can end both ways. If you can avoid it, then the odds of achieving the primary goal (getting home) are better if you can escape and avoid the fight altogether.


----------



## ElfTengu (May 11, 2010)

Ahem, 'ninjutsu - the art of _winning_', sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## bwindussa (May 12, 2010)

I thought it was the art of "perseverence" or "endurance"...


----------



## stephen (May 12, 2010)

ElfTengu said:


> Ahem, 'ninjutsu - the art of _winning_', sound familiar to anyone?




Who said that? (I have a guess)


Anyway, as participants in the thread can see, it becomes a bit of a semantic issue. Looking at the biggest picture, it is the art of winning in a way. Surviving _is_ winning after all. But what it's not is the art of winning the fight-outside-the-bar-that-you-shouldn't-have-gotten-into-in-the-first-place. That falls into this category:



			
				Momochi Sandayu said:
			
		

> "Ninjutsu is not something which         should be used for personal desires. It is something which should be used when no other         choice is available, for the sake of one's country, for the sake of one's lord, or to         escape personal danger.  If one deliberately uses it for the sake of personal         desires, the techniques will indeed fail totally."


----------



## repz (May 14, 2010)

I read a lot of things about Hatsumi. Everything from the doubt of authenticity of the scrolls, to his name not being in the ninja muesum, to his past.

Theres a lot of unnesscary controversy in all of this which can be cleared away if Hatsumi allows people to take the scrolls to profesional labs.


----------



## Jon-Bhoy (May 15, 2010)

> to his name not being in the ninja muesum



Oh lawdy, lawdy! His name isn't in the ninja museum!!


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 16, 2010)

repz said:


> I read a lot of things about Hatsumi. Everything from the doubt of authenticity of the scrolls, to his name not being in the ninja muesum, to his past.



When you were reading, did you try to separate fact from fiction, or do you believe everything you read? For example, the 'expert' of the ninja museum is not exactly without controversy himself.



repz said:


> Theres a lot of unnesscary controversy in all of this which can be cleared away if Hatsumi allows people to take the scrolls to profesional labs.



Why would he do that? It seems that the people who actually practice in the Bujinkan care far less than the people outside. Given the irreplaceable nature of those scrolls, and the fact that he himself does not seem to have doubts, I think not letting go of them is the right decision. People are welcome to examine the scrolls, just not to take them away.

Contrary to what you think, the scrolls would not reveal much. At least not all of them would. The ones that are the most controversial are already known to be written down by Takamatsu sensei. There is a good article here which describes in detail why the lineages of Takamatsu sensei are accepted by practitioners.


----------



## derobec (May 16, 2010)

Hi,

I'm going to (briefly) step back in to this one to try and clarify something.

When I refer to 'winning' I am fully conscious of the (I would say, superficial) difference between 'surviving' and 'winning'. Surely, to survive a potentially deadly encounter (however you manage to do so) without succumbing to your attacker's intentions IS an example of winning. I mention this as a reminder of how it's possible to use semantics to drive an argument.

The point which I have tried to make is that in my mind it is necessary to develop a strong will to (yes) win. That winning may take any form you wish it to. Although I personally could never condone the practice of 'escaping' from a crazed attacker, in the full knowledge that s/he will almost certainly go on to hurt someone else. I've said before, and I stand by this, that I believe the idea of self-defence should be extended to protecting our fellow citizens from danger as well as ourselves. It's time that we all stood up to be counted, if we don't make a stand who will? No one in their right mind wants to fight another person for real -but if the fight comes to us then we need to look at the bigger picture rather than trying to save our own skin.

I have no particular axe to grind with regard to the Takamatsu-den arts as I'm not a member of any of those schools, although I did receive my first formal taste of the martial arts in a Bujinkan training group back in the '80s, and have always held those schools in high regard as potentially very effective vehicles for teaching self defence. 

As I wrote before, these are my own opinions. Each to their own. My personal opinions will travel with me wherever I may train.

Good Wishes to All,
William


----------



## stephen (May 16, 2010)

derobec said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going to (briefly) step back in to this one to try and clarify something.
> 
> When I refer to 'winning' I am fully conscious of the (I would say, superficial) difference between 'surviving' and 'winning'. Surely, to survive a potentially deadly encounter (however you manage to do so) without succumbing to your attacker's intentions IS an example of winning. I mention this as a reminder of how it's possible to use semantics to drive an argument.



As I said, it is certainly true that this is a sort of winning. However, while we in the Bujinkan tend to make that distinction between winning and surviving, it is important that we do so, I think. So, while it is semantic, I don't think it's superficial. You might say that 'winning' is a bit of jargon in the Bujinkan. It has a more specific meaning than might exist outside. But, it's natural for some bits of language to become specialized within a profession or field of study. 

It has to do with a lot of the other baggage that the word 'winning' has a tendency to carry around with it which could distort the message that we're trying to get across.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the difference in meaning is superficial to you, we've not done a good enough job in trying to explain the specialized way we use it in the Bujinkan. Which, I guess, isn't surprising because it's notoriously difficult to precisely explain physical things in training with language (which is why the shared jargon comes about, it's a shorthand for things students have experienced). 

To make another try at it, I'd say we use 'winning' to mean something like competitive winning. The sort of way you may use it when you say, 'He won the Boxing match.' There's a competitive mindset included in this sense that is what we're trying to distance ourselves from. 



derobec said:


> The point which I have tried to make is that in my mind it is necessary to develop a strong will to (yes) win. That winning may take any form you wish it to.



I guess, maybe, the message the Bujinkan sends is that you must, of course, develop a strong will, however, that _winning_ may *not* be able to take whatever form you wish _in the moment_. It will take the form that it needs to take. If you're attached to a particular form of winning it may leave you vulnerable and with openings. Think Takuan Soho's 'Abiding Mind' or 'Stopping Mind'.



derobec said:


> Although I personally could never condone the practice of 'escaping' from a crazed attacker, in the full knowledge that s/he will almost certainly go on to hurt someone else. I've said before, and I stand by this, that I believe the idea of self-defence should be extended to protecting our fellow citizens from danger as well as ourselves. It's time that we all stood up to be counted, if we don't make a stand who will? No one in their right mind wants to fight another person for real -but if the fight comes to us then we need to look at the bigger picture rather than trying to save our own skin.



I agree and disagree with this. Certainly, if I escaped from a 'crazed attacker' I would call the police afterward. Seems a prudent thing to do. I certainly believe that we should defend others as well as ourselves, but we're not vigilantes. If we become seriously injured, we might not be able to care for ourselves or loved ones, then we won't be able to help anyone else either.

I'm also concerned that we could become fixated on that goal of defeating that crazed person, which could cause us to not be aware of the bigger picture, which can place us in greater danger.

I like to say that the Bujinkan is the 'art of acting appropriately.' That is, not too much and not too little, but no more. Any more or less creates openings. (One might also call the Bujinkan 'the art of no openings.')



derobec said:


> I have no particular axe to grind with regard to the Takamatsu-den arts as I'm not a member of any of those schools, although I did receive my first formal taste of the martial arts in a Bujinkan training group back in the '80s, and have always held those schools in high regard as potentially very effective vehicles for teaching self defence.



Glad to hear, what do you train now?



derobec said:


> As I wrote before, these are my own opinions. Each to their own. My personal opinions will travel with me wherever I may train.



Shouldn't be any other way!

Cheers!


----------



## Muawijhe (May 17, 2010)

I think the last few threads have really gone a distance to show the difference in martial arts and their guiding philosophies. It's obvious the creators of different martial arts had what they felt was the objective of a physical confrontation (or the avoidance of one), and this principal helped to evolve the physicality of the techniques, mindsets of future students, etc.

In Judo, our self defence consisted of, "throw the attacker down hard and run away in the opposite direction". In To-Shin Do, we learn to (in my broken interpretation) "avoid the attack, get out of the line of harm, counter strike" and then usually run away. In another post on this forum, someone was saying that in Wing Chun you never turn your back to your opponent, not even for a throw, which I found an interesting insight into a different style that varied from my experiences.

So, that said, I think what attracts a lot of us to a martial art is the differences of physical techniques. What keeps us is finding one with a philosphy that speaks to our own perosnal ideas of what we want out of it. Not any martial art is 'right' or 'wrong', just more or less suited to our inidividuality. Just my ramblings. Thanks for reading. =)


----------



## bwindussa (May 17, 2010)

Good comment! I agree. That may be a reason why there are so many diffrent martial arts. The human body only moves in so many ways, but the human mind is limitless in its directions. It would make sense that people are drawn to the art that most closely resembles their own philosophy and experiences in life.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 23, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> When you were reading, did you try to separate fact from fiction, or do you believe everything you read? For example, the 'expert' of the ninja museum is not exactly without controversy himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just got neg repped for the above post. Strangely enough, the message was *'Its ok to ask questions, thats what a forum is, you should take things so serious.'*

I don't understand what was offensive about my post. It's not like I discouraged the OP from asking questions. On the contrary. Asking questions is good. I do a lot of that myself. However, there are ways to ask questions, and saying that you read a lot of things about Hatsumi sensei and then demanding that Hatsumi sensei send out his irreplacable scrolls to convince the sceptics who don't even study his art...  why should he? And what exactly would examination reveal?

Furthermore, the second paragraph of my post links to a very good article going into a detailed explanation of the stituation, and the reasons why the controverse is really not a big deal to the people who care. To me, that seemed a very on-topic reply without bad intent.

So rather than cowardly leaving me neg rep, you could have also replied in the forum and engaged me in a discussion about whether my answer was objectionable or not, and why. After all *'that's what a forum is for' *according to your own words.


----------



## repz (May 23, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I just got neg repped for the above post. Strangely enough, the message was *'Its ok to ask questions, thats what a forum is, you should take things so serious.'*
> 
> I don't understand what was offensive about my post. It's not like I discouraged the OP from asking questions. On the contrary. Asking questions is good. I do a lot of that myself. However, there are ways to ask questions, and saying that you read a lot of things about Hatsumi sensei and then demanding that Hatsumi sensei send out his irreplacable scrolls to convince the sceptics who don't even study his art... why should he? And what exactly would examination reveal?
> 
> ...


 

Maybe its because you sent me a negative rep, since you said something about, "on this again", since you replied to both to this one, and the last question I asked, and you obviously knew it was me. How are you going to say a cowardly move if you did the same and initiated it? I didnt even recall my other post anout ninjutsu until your negative repped comment had me search what your comment meant.

And I am not trying to get people angry or stop an arguement about it. The original post was about the authenticity, was it not? i didnt go off topic, this is *supposed* to get the attention of a message that i posted, because thats what the poster asked and i got a neg rep for it. 

And I have nothing against ninjutsu, it just something i read and figured i could post it on a question that asked about it since it related to my reading, and not have someone get angry about it. I didnt reply to your message for a reason, because I have no desire to, i just answered the post and got negative repped for it. hence my negative rep to you on something that was directly linked to the message asked and nothing more.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 23, 2010)

I suggest the rules regarding the rep system be reviewed folks......


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 23, 2010)

repz said:


> Maybe its because you sent me a negative rep, since you said something about, "on this again", since you replied to both to this one, and the last question I asked, and you obviously knew it was me. How are you going to say a cowardly move if you did the same and initiated it? I didnt even recall my other post anout ninjutsu until your negative repped comment had me search what your comment meant.



Please contact one of the mods or an admin and have them confirm that it was not me who left you a neg rep. I repeat. I did not leave you a neg rep. They won't tell you who did (probably), but they should be able to tell you that it was not me.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2010)

repz said:


> Maybe its because you sent me a negative rep, since you said something about, "on this again", since you replied to both to this one, and the last question I asked, and you obviously knew it was me. How are you going to say a cowardly move if you did the same and initiated it? I didnt even recall my other post anout ninjutsu until your negative repped comment had me search what your comment meant.



Hey, buddy, that was me.  Since I used to be on staff here, I often forget that everyone can't see who left rep, so I don't always remember to sign it.  And just because you don't remember constantly beating a dead horse, doesn't mean the rest of us don't... so don't be surprised when someone says "OMG NOT AGAIN" to you. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## repz (May 23, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Please contact one of the mods or an admin and have them confirm that it was not me who left you a neg rep. I repeat. I did not leave you a neg rep. They won't tell you who did (probably), but they should be able to tell you that it was not me.


 
Ahhh, then I am sorry bruno. I figured since it said "I was on this again", it had to be linked to something I posted twice about, which it was, but i didnt expect it to be someone who decided to drop a negative post and not reply. I can see now how you would have taken a drop in negative comment and not a word of reply as something cowardly.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2010)

repz said:


> I can see now how you would have taken a drop in negative comment and not a word of reply as something cowardly.



OOOH, you burned me there buddy.  LOL.


----------



## Archangel M (May 23, 2010)

People need to get over this negative rep thing.

What is this, grade school?


----------



## jks9199 (May 23, 2010)

Folks, I'm involved in this thread.  As a general rule, we don't moderate in threads we're involved in.  That said... 

DROP THE REP DISCUSSION.  It's derailing what's actually been a good and interesting thread.  If you've got a problem with rep you received, report it.  If you don't want to deal with it at all, you can opt out of the rep system in your User Control Panel.

Before someone who isn't involved takes formal action.


----------



## Muawijhe (May 24, 2010)

As the original poster, I want to thank everyone for their responses. I've gotten a lot of good insight, and appreciate everyone's involvement.

Upon going back and reading my initial question, and from what I've learned in the time since (both here and without), I realize that in the ninjutsu community I asked a particularly loaded question and I apologize for that. 

However I do have to ask, "What next?"

For example, if the authenticity of the scrolls hypothetically were to be _validated_, what do you see as the future or reaction towards the X-kans and ninjutsu?

On the opposite side, should the scrolls hypothetically be _disproven, _then what do you see as the future or reaction towards the X-kans and ninjutsu?

There is so much heated debate on this topic, and many who wage wars to seemingly debunk ninjutsu, and just as many staunchly defending it. But it all seems so short-sight and short-term to me. Should you have your beliefs/wants proven, then what?

NOTE: I know that after apologizing for asking a loaded question before I went and did it again, but I'm curious to see where people would go if they had their way.


----------



## bluekey88 (May 24, 2010)

Rather than what next...I tend to ask, so what?

Does it really matter in the end?  I've done a lot of martial arts in my lifetime.  Some have been old, some new, had some good instrucotrs and some really marginal ones.

In the end, the only things that matter are "am I enjoying my training?" and "am I getting something out of it?"  The nature of the scrolls and the pedigree of ninjutsu are not truly defined by old scrolls.  It's defined by the practictioners...by my teacher, by me.  When he uses me as uke and I end up in  a tangle dheap on the floor...I know his ninjutsu is effective.  When I can somehow approximate that, I know I'm learing.

All the other stuff is just window dressing, speculation or a waste of time (depending on your point of view).  If you find ninjuutsu training to be rewarding and beneficial to your life...than get out and train.  If not, go train in something else.  No big deal.   Life's too short.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Muawijhe (May 24, 2010)

Oh, I agree. It's not important to me, but the question was more phrased to those whom believe it to be important.

So I'll ask it again, with bluekey's added "so what?" to it. What happens next? So what? Why do _you_ feel it is important to prove or not to prove it? What prevents you from just training in the art?

(and by 'you' I mean those who obviously have an issue with the il/legitamcy of it all)


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 24, 2010)

I -don't- feel it is important either way. The scrolls won't prove anything to anyone. We already know Takamatsu sensei wrote the ones which are the source of controversy. When I train with more experienced people, there is no doubt in my mind that they know their stuff and said stuff is effective as hell. So that angle is covered.

For the 'ninjutsu' aspect, everything stands or falls with Takamatsu sensei. Do we believe him or not. The link I supplied holds a logical explanation which leads me to believe that Takamatsu sensei indeed believed he got a full transmission of said systems.

So while we don't have a bullet proof paper trail to prove without a shred of doubt that Togakure ryu existed and is a complete transmission of an ancient art, I am satisfied beyond 'reasonable' doubt that this is the case. It will always be impossible to verify. Beyond that, it comes down to the point: do you get out of the art what you want. And for me that is the case so beyond the intellectual challenge of the argument, this issue does not change anything for me either way.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> For the 'ninjutsu' aspect, everything stands or falls with Takamatsu sensei. Do we believe him or not. The link I supplied holds a logical explanation which leads me to believe that Takamatsu sensei indeed believed he got a full transmission of said systems.
> 
> So while we don't have a bullet proof paper trail to prove without a shred of doubt that Togakure ryu existed and is a complete transmission of an ancient art, I am satisfied beyond 'reasonable' doubt that this is the case.



Indeed, I think Takamatsu would have to have been a bit brilliant, (not saying he might not have been, just saying thats what it would take) with a lot of foresight in to the future to think "I better make sure that the fake ninja art I make up will hold up to scrutiny years from now when people have a better understanding the world over and will examine this" and contain only consistent information that applied correctly to the time period and region for which it was said to have developed, something that almost EVERY "fake" school that we run across has failed to be able to do, as has been pointed out before by other posters.  That is, IMO, the most pressing evidence that the art is PROBABLY not made up.


----------

