# Do vs. Jutsu



## puunui (Jan 30, 2012)

Gemini said:


> Many years ago, I was reading an  article written  in the early 50's in an American paper about the Korean Fighting Art of  Taekwondo. Much is vague now but I remember the article speaking of how  devastating American troops found the art to be. Didn't mention anything  about sport.



Couldn't have been an article written in the early 50s in an american  newspaper because the name taekwondo wasn't used until after April 11,  1955 (mid fifties) and the first American student did not begin training  until 1956, in Korea. If you still have the article, I would like to  see it, because it certainly would be the first mention of taekwondo in  the english language, if it were as you say, published in the early  1950s.




Gemini said:


> How about Iado or Haedong Kumdo, neither of which  are a sport oriented? Their sport aspect is covered by Kendo, yet they  retain the "Do". As for Aikido, I don't practice the art, nor have any  knowledge of the intent of its origins other than I heard it was the  hand technique taught to Samurai for self defense. Whether that's true  or not I have no idea, so I'll let someone learned in Aikido enlighten  me as to the origins of Aikido. How about Hapkido? Philosophical  alsothen?



Iaido is not an art that is used for "self defense" but rather for self  discovery, which is an expansion of the concept or philosophy that  underlined the creation of arts like judo or kendo, which were also for  self discovery and not self defense. I suppose you could use iaido for  self defense, but I do not believe that is its purpose, at that is what  my friend who does iaido says about it. I don't know much about haedong  kumdo, other than it is a modern creation. as far as I know, it used  live swords and not jookdo and therefore it probably a misleading name,  confusing to actual kendo or kumdo. Aikido, which was the first martial  art that I studied when I was a kid, was not hand technique taught to  samurai for self defense. As for Hapkido, it is an art of self defense,  but also one that is focused on self discovery and self knowledge.  Having said that, I think that the name is misused, at least with  respect to the original intent and purpose as used in Japan. I think  hapkisool is a more fitting name for what we hapkidoin do. 




Gemini said:


> As for the Olympic charter, I am familiar to what  it says, but there is no correlation between that charter and the  mention of "Do". That statement was written for and encompasses the  spirit of the Olympics for every participant of every sport. Taekwondo  as an art expands far beyond the Olympics as a sport.



Of course it does not mention "do" specifically, since it is written in  english. It does state what the definition of sport is, a philosophy of  life, a way of life. A more accurate statement would be to say that your  definition of sport is much narrower than what the actual meaning is,  at least with respect to taekwondo and the olympic movement.

Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and  judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 30, 2012)

All I have to say is, How is Iaido Applied?
Because it is not in Meditation.
It never was.


----------



## puunui (Jan 30, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> All I have to say is, How is Iaido Applied?
> Because it is not in Meditation.
> It never was.



I don't know what you are asking. Can you rephrase?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 30, 2012)

puunui said:


> Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and  judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?



Many years ago on Martial Warrior, we had this very same discussion i.e. Jutsu vs. Do.  One of our senior members (Dan rank, not post-wise) named Alex offered this reply in that topic.  A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread.  I'll offer it for the discussion;



> Firstly- the notion  that a koryu cannot use dan/kyu grades is absurd.  Daito-ryu uses them  nowadays (in concert with their old license system), and I don't think  you'll hear anyone (credible) claim that they're somehow "less  classical" because of it.  I wonder how someone could likewise state  that Daito-ryu would lose any claim to its (mightily impressive)  heritage by adopting it.
> 
> The distinction between "do" and "jutsu" was practically non-existant  until after WW2.  Prior to this, and especially prior to the Meiji  period, they were used with virtual interchangeability, and sometimes  omitted altogether.  This is particularly true of the iai schools,  virtually none of which identified themselves as anything other than  "iai" ("Itto-ryu iai", "Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iai", etc.).
> 
> ...


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> I don't know what you are asking. Can you rephrase?


Iaido is not used for Self Defense - It was designed to Kill, and it gave You all the usual Philosophy along the way. If You were to carry a Sword in Modern Times, it would be Self Defense and then some.
Much like Judo and Kendo. Compare their Intention when They were Designed, to how Theyre used nowadays.
Judo does Ippon Kumite, and Kendo is practicing the fine art of Killing Your Opponent with a Sword using various methods.

Is Eskrima Self Defense? Is Kali Self Defense?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Iaido is not used for Self Defense - It was designed to Kill, and it gave You all the usual Philosophy along the way.



Just for the record, Iai was, in many systems cases, considered the "self defence" curriculum. It dealt with a sudden, unannounced attack, and how you respond to it, as opposed to duels or battle itself.



Cyriacus said:


> Kendo is practicing the fine art of Killing Your Opponent with a Sword using various methods.



Er, no. Not really. Not at all. And that is said with all due respect to Kendo and it's practitioners, but, uh, nope. Not at all.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Just for the record, Iai was, in many systems cases, considered the "self defence" curriculum. It dealt with a sudden, unannounced attack, and how you respond to it, as opposed to duels or battle itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Not really. Not at all. And that is said with all due respect to Kendo and it's practitioners, but, uh, nope. Not at all.


To the First - Thats more or less My Point. In Modern SD, We dont carry Swords. Therefore it isnt SD. But it was designed to that end.

To the Second, Youre slashing each other, right? The Swords may be Wooden, but Im sure that wasnt always the case.
Im curious to learn more, however. I know plenty about Kendo in its usage, but not so much about Kendo itself.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 31, 2012)

Beat me to it, Chris .  I was just going to say that, yes, Iai *is* intended for self-defence in a variety of non-battlefield conditions ... but it provides that defence by the swiftest, least fuss, method of rendering your attacker dead .


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> To the First - Thats more or less My Point. In Modern SD, We dont carry Swords. Therefore it isnt SD. But it was designed to that end.



Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.



Cyriacus said:


> To the Second, Youre slashing each other, right? The Swords may be Wooden, but Im sure that wasnt always the case.
> Im curious to learn more, however. I know plenty about Kendo in its usage, but not so much about Kendo itself.



Kendo teaches you to hit (not cut) with bamboo replicas of swords to targets that are not actually open against an armoured opponent, to move in ways that would be less possible and far less advisable with real swords, and more. The only part that deals in using a sword is the Kendo no Kata, and many practitioners don't like to train that, only doing it for gradings when required. In fact, Seitei Iai (the modern form of Iai) was largely developed to give Kendoka an idea of what using a sword is actually like.


----------



## Jenna (Jan 31, 2012)

To answer the OP question: Do.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.
> 
> 
> 
> Kendo teaches you to hit (not cut) with bamboo replicas of swords to targets that are not actually open against an armoured opponent, to move in ways that would be less possible and far less advisable with real swords, and more. The only part that deals in using a sword is the Kendo no Kata, and many practitioners don't like to train that, only doing it for gradings when required. In fact, Seitei Iai (the modern form of Iai) was largely developed to give Kendoka an idea of what using a sword is actually like.



*nods

Upon some closer inspection, You seem to be quite correct. Armed with that knowledge, it becomes incredibly obvious that while it would probably be okay, it doesnt take very much into account as to the actual usage of a Sword. And Armour is another important consideration. Much Obliged


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

Oh, also, it seems I missed a question.
So:
Judo: More about Throws.
Jujitsu (Or is it jujutsu?): Has Strikes in it and more Wrestling.

I consider Judo to be better for being more Specialized. JJ is fine as well, but tends to offer too many tools, I feel.
Judo has a smaller Arsenal, but a rightly inclusive one, and it gets pretty good at using it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Oh, also, it seems I missed a question.
> So:
> Judo: More about Throws.
> Jujitsu (Or is it jujutsu?): Has Strikes in it and more Wrestling.
> ...



Oh boy. Wow. Uh, again, not necessarily. It depends entirely on the system you're discussing. Judo is throwing heavy, but so are some Jujutsu systems. Other ones are more focused on joint locks. Striking is rarely a heavy feature in Japanese Jujutsu systems, although there are some that do have such a focus. 

As to the "larger or smaller arsenal", well, exactly what is contained depends on the system itself... there are some with smaller curriculums, similar to modern Judo, then there are highly complex ones as well. Such generalisations really can't be made, honestly.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy. Wow. Uh, again, not necessarily. It depends entirely on the system you're discussing. Judo is throwing heavy, but so are some Jujutsu systems. Other ones are more focused on joint locks. Striking is rarely a heavy feature in Japanese Jujutsu systems, although there are some that do have such a focus.
> 
> As to the "larger or smaller arsenal", well, exactly what is contained depends on the system itself... there are some with smaller curriculums, similar to modern Judo, then there are highly complex ones as well. Such generalisations really can't be made, honestly.



Well, this is just an signal of how little ive read into JJ. I know enough to get by, but much like Kendo, whilst I know of JJ in use, I know little of JJ itself. I know more than i probably need to about Judo however.
I shall take this under advisement, Good Sir.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 31, 2012)

Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system.  By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it. 

Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's.  I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general.  Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf

I think that "jutsu" and "do" don't have different techniques etc. just that a "do" art usually places emphasis on character development first and self-defense second.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 31, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system.  By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it.
> 
> Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's.  I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general.  Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
> http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf
> ...


Thats quite unusual, the Book.
Curious, though.

And I suppose I focused on Judo, because even in its Sport Form, does it really spend more time developing Character than it does practicing Takedowns and Throws?
In any case, I know Judo has Striking and whatnot, but the Original System is barely if at all going to be present. It will have changed, for better or worse.


----------



## Gemini (Jan 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> Couldn't have been an article written in the early 50s in an american  newspaper because the name taekwondo wasn't used until after April 11,  1955 (mid fifties) and the first American student did not begin training  until 1956, in Korea.


Could have been '55 instead of '54. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, it had nothing to do with American students, it was American military. As I said it was a long time ago. I'm sorry I don't have the article. I wish I did.  



puunui said:


> Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and  judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?


 I'm the first to admit I'm out of my element here, but I'm enjoying reading posts from those more knowledgeable on the subject and learning a few things. While I see the discussion shift between priorities of self defense and philosophy, I don't see anyone supporting "Do" as a reference for sport.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.



I think we (my iaido friend, you and I) agree more than we disagree. I'm too lazy to call him up to confirm it though. 

What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any? I don't think you really addressed that.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Many years ago on Martial Warrior, we had this very same discussion i.e. Jutsu vs. Do.  One of our senior members (Dan rank, not post-wise) named Alex offered this reply in that topic.  A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread.  I'll offer it for the discussion;



Gee, the best post on the board.... Don't know what to say about that. Anyway, let's see if I can respond before I have to go racing off. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Firstly- the notion  that a koryu cannot use dan/kyu grades is absurd.   Daito-ryu uses them  nowadays (in concert with their old license  system), and I don't think  you'll hear anyone (credible) claim that  they're somehow "less  classical" because of it.  I wonder how someone  could likewise state  that Daito-ryu would lose any claim to its  (mightily impressive)  heritage by adopting it.



Never said that Daito Ryu or koryu cannot use dan ranks. They can do whatever they want. I would say that if they do adopt such things, that it is a new innovation and not something passed down for hundreds of years, like the techniques are or were.




Kong Soo Do said:


> The distinction between "do" and "jutsu" was practically non-existant   until after WW2.  Prior to this, and especially prior to the Meiji   period, they were used with virtual interchangeability, and sometimes   omitted altogether.



Really, when was the first documented use of the term karatedo prior to the meiji restoration? I'd like to see that. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> This is particularly true of the iai schools,   virtually none of which identified themselves as anything other than   "iai" ("Itto-ryu iai", "Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iai", etc.).



Not in hawaii, where the art is identified as shinkage naginata jitsu. http://www.hawaiinaginata.org/




Kong Soo Do said:


> Many schools didn't even use titles to describe which methods they   taught- Araki-ryu being a good example.  One went to learn the subject   the way that school taught it- whatever weapons or methods they happened   to teach.



But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate tournaments did go international, like it is today.



Kong Soo Do said:


> The distinction came with polarization.  The martial arts became   polarized after the Meiji period.  Those schools that adopted "do" where   they had previously (or in previous incarnations) used "jutsu", did so   to dissociate themselves from the defunct and unpopular samurai- not  to  mention, to avoid government-ordered oblivion.  When the "return to   traditionalism" hit Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, some schools became   ardently "jutsu" in order to affect the aforementioned "return".  The   distinction is an artificial and semantic one, which has lasted for a   sufficient number of decades to become "gospel".



And part of that polarization was in the form of a competitive or tournament orientation, as opposed to battlefield weapons, tactics and strategies. No one believed that they would be taking a kendo bamboo shinai into war for example.



Kong Soo Do said:


> So yes, while there is a small distinction (in the koryu sense, anyway)   between "do" and "jutsu", it is just that- a small difference.   Over   time, the difference becomes even less significant, as life asserts   itself and the various aspects of budo blend together in the   practicioner and become indistinguishable from one another.  Those who   make a major difference out of it, need to spend less time analyzing   names and words, and more time living budo.




I agree. This discussion came about because Kong Soo Do stated that Taekwondo practitioners who concentrate on "sport" should at least identify themselves as such, no doubt to separate them from the "real" taekwondoin who are concentrating on self defense. But if people spent more time analyzing names, words and history, then things wouldn't blend together and they wouldn't become indistinguishable from one another, to the point where those who never did such study now claim that those who use the Do suffix are not entitled to use that anymore. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Leave it to an academic to speak in broad declaratives about such a   complex, nuanced, and rich subject.  IHS's refrain of "This is koryu,   this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" is the opinion of folks   who fail to realize that history does not pause while the reader   concludes one chapter and begins the next.  It's the opinion of people   who, rather than having twenty or thirty years of experience, have one   year of experience twenty or thirty times over.



I don't believe I said this is gendai this is koryu, and never the twain shall meet. I think people train in the martial arts, specifically taekwondo, for lots of reasons, all of which is valid. And I do not believe that those to train for competition should be separated from those who train for other reasons, which is what Kong Soo Do is advocating, because that would be a case of "This is koryu,   this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Nowadays, you'll note that many of the seasoned practicioners omit it   altogether- "aiki" instead of aikido or aikijujutsu, "iai" instead of   iaido or iaijutsu, "naginata" instead of naginata-do or naginata-jutsu,   and so on.



Not in hawaii. I don't think I have ever heard of someone calling is simply "aiki". I have heard of aikido, aikijutsu and aikibudo though. I have heard of iai, iaido and iaijustu, and here in hawaii, they call it naginata jutsu. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> This is, to my mind, a very healthy "return to traditionalism"- it   harkens back to when the real practicioners didn't give a crap about   artificial distinctions, because their practice served more than a   single purpose.  It wasn't just technical (or "jutsu"), it wasn't just   about enlightenment (or "do").  It was an all-consuming, life-affirming,   all-encompassing practice which supported and nourished their bodies,   minds, and spirits.  It was their work, their sport, their duty, their   spirituality, everything, all wrapped up into one package.



When was that? 



Kong Soo Do said:


> It harkens back to when budo was real life, rather than a hobby or an academic pursuit (i.e. "hoplology").  So, while the IHS folks are busy contemplating which method produces   "more superior" people, I'll be at the dojo, living and breathing the   practice of bu(do or jutsu).



I don't know which one produces "superior people". I do know that there is no need for taekwondo competitors to designate themselves in any special way like kong soo do wants, which was the original topic of discussion.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Gemini said:


> Could have been '55 instead of '54. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, it had nothing to do with American students, it was American military. As I said it was a long time ago. I'm sorry I don't have the article. I wish I did.



Was it in stars and stripes? The first military student, Dale Drullilard, was stationed in Korea in the army I believe, started learning tang soo do moo duk kwan in 1956, and was awarded his 1st dan in 1957. One of his instructors was GM LEE Moo Yong, who was USTU President in the 1980's. 




Gemini said:


> I'm the first to admit I'm out of my element here, but I'm enjoying reading posts from those more knowledgeable on the subject and learning a few things. While I see the discussion shift between priorities of self defense and philosophy, I don't see anyone supporting "Do" as a reference for sport.



I think that is because you do not wish to see it. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> Gee, the best post on the board.... Don't know what to say about that.



Why do you act like that Glenn?  Why do you respond with negative or sarcastic comments to those of a different opinion or those that are simply expressing their viewpoint?  It isn't polite, constructive or needed on the board.  You're not even reading posts with the goal of understanding.  For instance, here is what I said;



			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread.  I'll offer it for the discussion;



The best post in the thread Glenn, not the entire board which at that time had hundreds of members and thousands of threads.  I'd really appreciate it if you'd make a concerted effort towards civility, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well.  Thank you.


----------



## Gemini (Jan 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> Was it in stars and stripes? The first military student, Dale Drullilard, was stationed in Korea in the army I believe, started learning tang soo do moo duk kwan in 1956, and was awarded his 1st dan in 1957. One of his instructors was GM LEE Moo Yong, who was USTU President in the 1980's.


 Again, interesting but not relevant to my point.



puunui said:


> I think that is because you do not wish to see it. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


That's true and if your statement was based solely on your opinion, I can respect that, disagree with it though I may. As you say, we're all entitled. However, since you initially made the statement as fact, I merely asked you to support it, which you have not done, nor has anyone else on your behalf. As I stated before, when you opened this thread I felt I was out of my element and listened to what others had to say.  If I can do that and all the while "not wish to see", that would make me a truly unique individual indeed. More likely I think, there is nothing there to see. Not one person has supported your "Do" statement in either thread. That's not an opinion. It's there in black and white. At this point, I'd say we're beating a dead horse. I'm done.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Gemini said:


> Again, interesting but not relevant to my point.



It is relevant to the discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. And I am interested in the article. Do you know where it was published? What newspaper or magazine?




Gemini said:


> That's true and if your statement was based solely on your opinion, I can respect that, disagree with it though I may. As you say, we're all entitled. However, since you initially made the statement as fact, I merely asked you to support it, which you have not done, nor has anyone else on your behalf. As I stated before, when you opened this thread I felt I was out of my element and listened to what others had to say.  If I can do that and all the while "not wish to see", that would make me a truly unique individual indeed. More likely I think, there is nothing there to see. Not one person has supported your "Do" statement in either thread. That's not an opinion. It's there in black and white. At this point, I'd say we're beating a dead horse. I'm done.



It isn't a majority vote type of thing. Just because everyone thinks the earth is flat or that the moon is made up of green cheese, doesn't make it so. I will say that if you are happy training for self defense and are equally happy with your kukkiwon certification, then I am happy for you. 

I will say this. When I was your level, I didn't have any opinions, none that I voiced anyway. I just listened to my teachers and seniors and asked a question once in a while. No one asked for my opinion and I didn't volunteer one. Even when I started attending USTU annual national meetings I sat there and just listened for five or ten years. Today, a lot of people ask for my perspective on a lot of different things. I haven't figured out yet if the way I was raised in the martial arts is better or worse than the way students are now. I have to think about it some more.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'd really appreciate it if you'd make a concerted effort towards civility, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well.  Thank you.



I was and am civil. But in any event, I don't think that the "best post" that you offered helps your position. In fact I think it cuts against your original proposition. Compare your statement below with the anti "This is koryu,   this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" theme of the post you quoted:



Kong Soo Do said:


> I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it.  For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport  have those venues available.  My request is that those that do teach  TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for  the sake of the student.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 31, 2012)

No Glenn, you're not civil.  Your sarcastic.  You misrepresented my words to make a sarcastic remark.  That kind of thing just isn't needed.



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> I don't think that the "best post" that you offered helps your position



I didn't offer it to support my position.  I haven't stated my opinion in this thread.  I offered it to be considered as part of the whole of this discussion.  At least a couple of people seemed to like it as well.  It contained information for the reader to consider one way or the other.


----------



## Gemini (Jan 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> It is relevant to the discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. And I am interested in the article. Do you know where it was published? What newspaper or magazine?


The article is not what's irrelevant. What you're continually taking from it is. Regardless, I will continue to look for it and share it with you if I find it.



puunui said:


> It isn't a majority vote type of thing.


Apparently not. In your opinion, your opinion is enough. Check.



puunui said:


> I will say this. When I was your level, I didn't have any opinions, none that I voiced anyway.


LOL.  Wow!....just...Wow! I'll request Bob change my account to "Read OnlY".


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Gemini said:


> The article is not what's irrelevant. What you're continually taking from it is. Regardless, I will continue to look for it and share it with you if I find it.



Ok, thanks. I appreciate it. It would be the first article on taekwondo in english, which is significant.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No Glenn, you're not civil.  Your sarcastic.  You misrepresented my words to make a sarcastic remark.  That kind of thing just isn't needed.



You're free to interpret what I write the way you want. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I didn't offer it to support my position.  I haven't stated my opinion in this thread.  I offered it to be considered as part of the whole of this discussion.  At least a couple of people seemed to like it as well.  It contained information for the reader to consider one way or the other.



You did state a position earlier (see above), which that post you submitted in this thread, in my opinion, doesn't support. That's all.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 31, 2012)

I don't see it as win or lose.  I thought it was a good post back then, and still has relevant points, which is why I offered it for others to consider.  I felt it would be a good contribution to your thread.  And I think it is a good thread with many good point.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 31, 2012)

FWIW an article of Do vs. Jutsu, circa 1998

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

As the only iaido student who hasnt commented here. 
Listen to my words here folks:
IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU CALL IT DO OR JUTSU, what matters is actually getting your *** into the dojo and training. Call it flower arranging if it makes you happy, just get into the dojo. Not one of the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] dans Ive ever trained with every made it an issue, they shrugged their shoulders and said, it doesnt matter, just train. All these years later, thats what I do.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> IT DOESN&#8217;T MATTER IF YOU CALL IT DO OR JUTSU, what matters is actually getting your *** into the dojo and training. Call it flower arranging if it makes you happy, just get into the dojo. Not one of the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] dans I&#8217;ve ever trained with every made it an issue, they shrugged their shoulders and said, it doesn&#8217;t matter, just train. All these years later, that&#8217;s what I do.



I can see your point for iaido. What about for other martial arts? For example, do you agree or disagree with this statement: 

[/QUOTE]I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it.  For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport   have those venues available.  My request is that those that do teach   TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for   the sake of the student.[/QUOTE]


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

I read this article, or post I think it is: 

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

and there was this quote: 

Donn Draeger tried to pin down "jutsu" and "do" to stict definitions, and, 
if you read him carefully and follow the definitions, they can be useful.

So I think Draeger Sensei agrees with me, but let me confirm it when I go home tonight. I am thinking that he discussed this in his budo bujutsu series of books, which I have.


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 31, 2012)

> What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any?


The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.

That's been my personal experience with the whole do vs. jutsu debate.

P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.



You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood. 




pgsmith said:


> P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.



What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 31, 2012)

> You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood.


  Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer. Your comment is both irrelevant and inflammatory, but that seems to be the nature of your discourse.



> What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?


  That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version. However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.


----------



## puunui (Jan 31, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer.



My suggestion is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that our experiences mirror everyone else's. Some people may be closer to their roots than you are for example, especially asians who are actively involved in the asian martial arts. Personally, even if you say that you cannot fry bread or track a deer, I still wouldn't presume that I have a better understanding of native american culture and traditions than you do. 




pgsmith said:


> That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version.



we agree then.




pgsmith said:


> However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.



I'll go check out what Draeger Sensei has written on the subject. Do you know where those discussions are specifically in his books? In articles?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 1, 2012)

Er, this'll be a long one... 



puunui said:


> I think we (my iaido friend, you and I) agree more than we disagree. I'm too lazy to call him up to confirm it though.



Possible, but not based on your post. But if you aren't going to seek clarification, not sure where things can go from there on that point...  



puunui said:


> What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any? I don't think you really addressed that.



Because the only distinction is what term a particular system decides to use... which can change over time. In other words, the only distinction is artificial and inconsistent, so no "real" distinction can ever be made. 



puunui said:


> Never said that Daito Ryu or koryu cannot use dan ranks. They can do whatever they want. I would say that if they do adopt such things, that it is a new innovation and not something passed down for hundreds of years, like the techniques are or were.



Just to clear up on ranking systems (the question of Daito Ryu being Koryu being left off for the moment...), there are two different and unrelated ranking systems in place in Japanese martial arts. The first is the Menkyo (licence) system, which is a way of granting permission to certain levels, such as teaching up to a certain section of the curriculum, or permission to open a school, or even up to starting your own branch. Different systems will allow different things at different ranking levels, some won't allow you to teach until you've achieved Menkyo Kaiden (or it's equivalent - full mastery/fully licenced), others allow it from lower ranking levels.

The second is the Kyu/Dan ranking system, originally taken from the board game "Go", and adopted and popularized for martial arts by Kano Jigoro, founder of Judo. Kano also instigated the idea of coloured belts as rank indicators. In this ranking system, the rank is more related to levels of experience and competence on a personal level, and as such don't confer any authority the way the Menkyo system did. The main reason the Kyu/Dan system was adopted was simply that, unlike in previous arts where there would only be one dojo, and the instructor knew everyone and their levels quite well, Judo (through Kano's connections to the education sector) was being pushed as part of physical education at quite a number of schools and universities across Japan... and Kano needed a way to quickly know the rough experience and skill level of the students gathered around him (especially for any that he was using as Uke) even if he'd never seen them before.

When it comes to Koryu ranking, to generalize, the larger the organisation, and the wider-spread the dojo, the more likely it is to adopt the Dan ranking system. For example, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu under Otake Sensei doesn't use the Dan ranking system, as all authority comes from him, and you need to be a student of his to be ranked. The Sugino Dojo, on the other hand, is far more widespread, with dojo around the world, and has adopted the Dan ranking system. So, really, some Koryu will use the Menkyo system exclusively, some will use both, and some are basically just Dan ranking (sometimes with licences given at particular Dan ranking levels, just to make it confusing...)



puunui said:


> Really, when was the first documented use of the term karatedo prior to the meiji restoration? I'd like to see that.



Honestly, Glenn, that comment just shows how little your understanding in this area is... there was no Karate in Japan prior to the Showa period (early 20th Century), let alone "Karatedo"... but, for the record, "Karatedo", and, really "Karate" itself, were terms that were adopted after the introduction to Japan in the first place. There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either, so looking for that isn't going to help you in finding a distinction between "jutsu" and "do". Early terms used in Okinawa were primarily Te, Tode, Shuri-te, Naha-te etc.

But if you want to look to usage of "Do" versus "Jutsu" from before the Meiji restoration, the term Judo was known to be used in the Jikishin Ryu in the early 18th Century (there is documentation from Inoue Jibudayu using that term from 1724), as well as probably being used earlier, Kendo was used interchangably with Kenjutsu or Kenpo since the late 16th Century, as well as many other examples. 



puunui said:


> Not in hawaii, where the art is identified as shinkage naginata jitsu. http://www.hawaiinaginata.org/



I really don't know where your argument about the lack of "jutsu" or "do" in Iai systems is by citing a Naginata school... 

Additionally, I might point out that the site you linked itself shows some rather obvious errors, such as the use of the incorrect spelling "jitsu", the very odd (elongated) grip on the bokken in the picture on the "history" page, the lack of the term Atarashii Naginata (which is the actual term for the modern Naginata-do, and literally means "new naginata"), instead using the Zennichi Naginata name... which is the grouping that created Atarashii Naginata, not the system itself. I'm not saying anything against the teachings of the instructor there (Miura Sensei), as there isn't anything that looks particularly out of place. The 8th Dan ranking is legitimately used in Jikishinkage Ryu, the mention of Kusarigama and tanto are certainly part of the system, however I might question the "only high ranking instructor outside of Japan"... might need to look into that one. But overall, the site has issues. I wouldn't look to it for support, especially when it doesn't actually have anything to do with the claim you were countering.



puunui said:


> But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate tournaments did go international, like it is today.



Nope, I'd pretty much disagree with that entirely. Some arts that use the term "do" post Meiji are concerned with self discovery, or personal development, but others aren't in the slightest. Jukendo, for instance, developed in the early 20th Century out of sojutsu (spear fighting) primarily to give the Japanese military methods of killing people with bayonets when they invaded Manchuria and other areas. No real spiritual ideal there, just stabbing (in some cases) unarmed populaces, women, children, surrendering and malnourished prisoners, and so on.

Then you have systems pre-Meiji which did deal with personal development. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a system of sword combat which came directly out of bloody experience and is one of the most direct, straight-to-the-point (ha!) kenjutsu systems I've come across... but it is also deeply imbued with the Buddhist Sutras, to the point where it is considered that unless you understand them, you won't (and can't) understand the system. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu was also deeply concerned with such things. And then there are many that run the gamut from one end of the scale to the other, in both Jutsu and Do disciplines.

In short, "Do" does not imply sport, it does not imply "personal development over efficacy", all it implies is that the term used is "Do".



puunui said:


> And part of that polarization was in the form of a competitive or tournament orientation, as opposed to battlefield weapons, tactics and strategies. No one believed that they would be taking a kendo bamboo shinai into war for example.



Oh boy... you really should see what "Kendo" was like in the time you're discussing here... it included a range of other weapons (such as kusarigama), striking, grappling, groundfighting, and more. Oh, and the idea of "jutsu" only referring to "battlefield" as opposed to "competition, or tournament"? Nope, not in the slightest. It really depends on the system itself.



puunui said:


> I agree. This discussion came about because Kong Soo Do stated that Taekwondo practitioners who concentrate on "sport" should at least identify themselves as such, no doubt to separate them from the "real" taekwondoin who are concentrating on self defense. But if people spent more time analyzing names, words and history, then things wouldn't blend together and they wouldn't become indistinguishable from one another, to the point where those who never did such study now claim that those who use the Do suffix are not entitled to use that anymore.



You know how to distinguish, using terminology, between TKD practitioners who focus on sport and those who don't? Easy. They say they're training in, you'll love this, "sport Tae Kwon Do". Or not. The "Do" suffix really doesn't mean it at all, honestly.



puunui said:


> I don't believe I said this is gendai this is koryu, and never the twain shall meet. I think people train in the martial arts, specifically taekwondo, for lots of reasons, all of which is valid. And I do not believe that those to train for competition should be separated from those who train for other reasons, which is what Kong Soo Do is advocating, because that would be a case of "This is koryu,   this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet"



To be frank, I'm having a hard time seeing how the idea of Koryu or not is even partially related to Tae Kwon Do at all... from a number of levels.



puunui said:


> Not in hawaii. I don't think I have ever heard of someone calling is simply "aiki". I have heard of aikido, aikijutsu and aikibudo though. I have heard of iai, iaido and iaijustu, and here in hawaii, they call it naginata jutsu.



So you're basing your understanding of terminology in Japanese martial traditions on what is around the corner from you, and nothing else? You do realize that there are more than one form of, say, Iai, or Naginata, or Ken, yeah? And yes, sometimes just the term "Ken" is used to refer to a sword art. Oftentimes it's just a form of shorthand, but it does show the lack of importance for the suffix itself.



puunui said:


> I don't know which one produces "superior people". I do know that there is no need for taekwondo competitors to designate themselves in any special way like kong soo do wants, which was the original topic of discussion.



"Superior people"? Even the most ardent Koryu snobs don't really think that way... the IHS included. What they are is very serious about what they do, but that's a different issue entirely. I will say that I don't agree with Kong Soo Do in a number of his comments, such as there even being a distinction between "jutsu" and "do", that "jutsu" refers to systems concerned only with technicalities, and so on... and most importantly that he is going to a dojo and studying Bu(do or jutsu), as he is training in a Korean system, so, by definition, he's not in a dojo or training in Budo or Bujutsu. Yeah, it sounds pedantic and picky, but it's like saying that my Japanese arts are being taught in a kwoon and training kung fu. Nope, not at all.



Ken Morgan said:


> FWIW an article of Do vs. Jutsu, circa 1998
> 
> http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html
> 
> ...



And that really just sums it up. Nicely put, Ken.



puunui said:


> I can see your point for iaido. What about for other martial arts? For example, do you agree or disagree with this statement:


I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it.  For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport   have those venues available.  My request is that those that do teach   TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for   the sake of the student.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Not wanting to answer for Ken, but I really don't see the relevance. The "jutsu/do" argument really has nothing to do with Tae Kwon Do, sport applications or not at all. There is no connection, there is no distinction, and there is no terminology issue that isn't solved with adding the word "Sport" to TKD if applicable.



puunui said:


> I read this article, or post I think it is:
> 
> http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html
> 
> ...



Draeger Sensei was instrumental in the popularization and education of the classical Japanese martial arts by introducing them to a Western audience who were largely ignorant of the very fact that there was anything older than Judo in Japan. As such he was attempting to find a way to explain a range of things, and some things (such as the jutsu/do distinction) were largely simplified to the point of inaccuracy (compared to the way they were seen and used in Japan). One other factor that has been put forth is that Draeger Sensei was not American by birth (although he was a Marine in the US Military), he was German. And German was his first language, with English being second, and Japanese third (in fact, his Japanese level has been described as "adequate, but not fluent"). The over specificity of German terminology and culture could very easily be a factor in his attempts to completely pigeonhole the terms he came across in Japan. He also made a number of other generalizations which aren't really accurate, such as the idea that all Koryu systems are based in spiritual visions or similar, as opposed to actual experience and development. While both his two Koryu systems (Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu and Shinto Muso Ryu) feature such things in their histories, it is not a universal truth. 

So while his place in the understanding and development of Koryu in the West is very highly regarded, some of the information he put out is not considered accurate. It's a matter of learning what to listen to, and what to ignore. 



pgsmith said:


> The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.
> 
> That's been my personal experience with the whole do vs. jutsu debate.
> 
> P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.




Just quoted for accuracy, really. So yeah, what Paul said.



puunui said:


> You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood.



Then you might be amazed at how little most of the Japanese in Japan know or care about such aspects as the terminology in martial traditions. Blood doesn't mean as much as knowledge and interest.



puunui said:


> What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?



Well, Draeger Sensei died in 1982, so it might be hard to get a definite answer... but, as said, his take on jutsu/do is not considered the most accurate that you can find.



pgsmith said:


> Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer. Your comment is both irrelevant and inflammatory, but that seems to be the nature of your discourse.


 
You've noticed, huh Paul?



pgsmith said:


> That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version. However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.



You may note, Glenn, that this is not saying even that Draeger was correct, just Paul telling you the stance that he took.



puunui said:


> My suggestion is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that our experiences mirror everyone else's. Some people may be closer to their roots than you are for example, especially asians who are actively involved in the asian martial arts. Personally, even if you say that you cannot fry bread or track a deer, I still wouldn't presume that I have a better understanding of native american culture and traditions than you do.



You did miss the point, didn't you Glenn... 

Tell you what, let's spell it out. The structure that Don Draeger employed to distinguish why he was using separate terms (Bujutsu and Budo) does not match the usage of such terms in Japan, let alone Japanese martial arts... but the average Japanese would most likely not even be aware of that.



puunui said:


> we agree then.



I might point out that you are then agreeing with an outdated and inaccurate interpretation of the Japanese arts.



puunui said:


> I'll go check out what Draeger Sensei has written on the subject. Do you know where those discussions are specifically in his books? In articles?



Other than the books you've already got, I'd visit www.koryu.com, chat with Meik Skoss (who knew Draeger sensei himself), and the IHS. See what they say now, rather than what was written 30 years ago.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 1, 2012)

I agree with Mr. Parker on this,  a name is just a name for what the founder wanted to call it.  Going with a non-sport martial art (to clear up ANY ideas that -do is equated to sport and -jutsu isn't).  Ueshiba changed the name of his art at least a couple of times, including changing the name from aikijutsu to aikido.  Why?  Because he wanted to, that's why.  He could have just as easily kept it the same and still had the same ideas, techniques and philosophy.

Mr. Parker is more well read on this, so maybe he can shed some light on it.  I have read that one of the reasons for the "-do" vs. "jutsu" labelings was that after WW2, the US banned the practice of the martial arts.  The styles that said that they were "-do" and focused on character development were allowed to be practiced, but not the "jutsu" styles.  So many changed their name or added it to their name to continue.  I don't know if this is urban legend or not, but interesting idea.


----------



## frank raud (Feb 1, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system.  By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it.
> 
> Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's.  I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general.  Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
> http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf
> ...



Hancock's books(including The Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu) do not show judo , so it is difficult to compare if any of this is practiced in most judo schools. There are books from that same era(1900-1910) that do show judo as it was taught in the early ears, which would be better for comparison between "the good old days" and the current practice of judo. The Book Judo Kyohan comes to mind.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 1, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Mr. Parker is more well read on this, so maybe he can shed some light on it.  I have read that one of the reasons for the "-do" vs. "jutsu" labelings was that after WW2, the US banned the practice of the martial arts.  The styles that said that they were "-do" and focused on character development were allowed to be practiced, but not the "jutsu" styles.  So many changed their name or added it to their name to continue.  I don't know if this is urban legend or not, but interesting idea.



I have read the same and would also be interested to hear if we have any definitive or compelling evidence one way or the other.


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Because the only distinction is what term a particular system decides to use... which can change over time. In other words, the only distinction is artificial and inconsistent, so no "real" distinction can ever be made.



Do you see judo, kendo or karatedo switching to another suffix anytime soon? 




Chris Parker said:


> Just to clear up on ranking systems (the question of Daito Ryu being Koryu being left off for the moment...), there are two different and unrelated ranking systems in place in Japanese martial arts.



I didn't realize there was anything to clear up on ranking systems in japanese martial arts. 




Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Glenn, that comment just shows how little your understanding in this area is... there was no Karate in Japan prior to the Showa period (early 20th Century), let alone "Karatedo"... but, for the record, "Karatedo", and, really "Karate" itself, were terms that were adopted after the introduction to Japan in the first place.



Actually there was karate in Japan prior to the showa period (which started in 1926). Funakoshi Sensei came to Japan in 1922 and by 1924, he was giving dan rank to students and also establishing karate clubs in Keio dai and other Japan universities. This is of course assuming that you ignore the fact that Okinawa was annexed by Japan in 1872, was made a Japanese prefecture in 1879, Okinawa citizens were given the right to vote in 1890 and Okinawa remains a part of Japan, as it has been for about 140 years, over 50 years prior to the showa period. 

Even if none of that were true, "karate" (written with the characters for "empty hand"), unrelated to the okinawa's toude, is mentioned in 19th century japanese books. Some speculate that this native japanese "karate" inspired Funakoshi Sensei to change the first character from tou or tang, to kara or empty, as a bridge to making toude truly japanese. The term was already known and used in Japan, and if you remember, the objections to the character change from tang to empty came from Okinawa and Okinawans, not Japan or mainland Japanese. 




Chris Parker said:


> There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either, so looking for that isn't going to help you in finding a distinction between "jutsu" and "do". Early terms used in Okinawa were primarily Te, Tode, Shuri-te, Naha-te etc.



That would be a valid argument if we ignored the following book titles:

Rentan Goshin Toude-jutsu (1925) by FUNAKOSHI Gichin
Ryukyu Kenpo Toude-jutsu. Kumite-hen' (1926) by MOTOBU Choki
Watashino Toude-jutsu' (1932) by MOTOBU Choki

I would also point out that two of three books listed above were published prior to the showa period, which started in late December 1926 with the beginning of the reign of Emperor Hirohito. Of course you could argue that toudejutsu is not the same term as karatejutsu, but that really isn't a valid argument, seeing how the books were published in Japan for Japanese readers. 




Chris Parker said:


> But if you want to look to usage of "Do" versus "Jutsu" from before the Meiji restoration, the term Judo was known to be used in the Jikishin Ryu in the early 18th Century (there is documentation from Inoue Jibudayu using that term from 1724), as well as probably being used earlier, Kendo was used interchangably with Kenjutsu or Kenpo since the late 16th Century, as well as many other examples.



I was thinking about this last night, about the whole battlefield concept, koryu, self improvement, do jutsu, etc. I then realized that since the Tokugawa era, there really was no battlefield wars being fought, and there wasn't any for over 350 years. So really, all the martial arts during that entire period consisted of arts being passed down by practitioners who had no battlefield experience themselves. Perhaps there were some bushi had to "defend" themselves against attacks, but in general Japan was a peaceful, non-violent country, with a disarmed people (with the exception of the samurai), just like it is today. So really what you had were archaic antiquated martial arts being "preserved", but not used, which lead eventually to "contest" type challenges to test one's skill, such that today, we have "sports" like judo, kendo, and karatedo (which has been shortlisted for consideration by the IOC for inclusion into the 2020 Olympic Games).




Chris Parker said:


> I really don't know where your argument about the lack of "jutsu" or "do" in Iai systems is by citing a Naginata school...
> Additionally, I might point out that the site you linked itself shows some rather obvious errors, such as the use of the incorrect spelling "jitsu", the very odd (elongated) grip on the bokken in the picture on the "history" page, the lack of the term Atarashii Naginata (which is the actual term for the modern Naginata-do, and literally means "new naginata"), instead using the Zennichi Naginata name... which is the grouping that created Atarashii Naginata, not the system itself. I'm not saying anything against the teachings of the instructor there (Miura Sensei), as there isn't anything that looks particularly out of place. The 8th Dan ranking is legitimately used in Jikishinkage Ryu, the mention of Kusarigama and tanto are certainly part of the system, however I might question the "only high ranking instructor outside of Japan"... might need to look into that one. But overall, the site has issues.



Someone else brought up the topic of naginata in an earlier post in this thread, it came to mind, so I put it in. But if you have any issues about language, claims, techniques or whatever else, I suggest you contact Miura Sensei directly and tell her how you feel. I am sure she would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. 




Chris Parker said:


> Nope, I'd pretty much disagree with that entirely. Some arts that use the term "do" post Meiji are concerned with self discovery, or personal development, but others aren't in the slightest. Jukendo, for instance, developed in the early 20th Century out of sojutsu (spear fighting) primarily to give the Japanese military methods of killing people with bayonets when they invaded Manchuria and other areas. No real spiritual ideal there, just stabbing (in some cases) unarmed populaces, women, children, surrendering and malnourished prisoners, and so on.



You're thinking about jukenjutsu, an art which was taught at the Toyama Military Academy during the meiji period. Jukendo is an art comparable to kendo, except they use wooden rifle looking implements and kendo looking gear when engaged in matches. Here is an example:






But you said that you disagree with that part you quoted in its entirety. However, you did not go into detail about the majority of that passage, which had to do with the development of Kong Soo Do in Korea. What do you disagree with regarding that, and why? Here is the passage you said you disagreed with in its entirety:

"But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part  self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do  especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name  used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo  on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was  raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong  Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of  karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams  from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate  tournaments did go international, like it is today."

I think you discussed why you disagreed with the first sentence, but not the rest of the paragraph.



Chris Parker said:


> Then you have systems pre-Meiji which did deal with personal development.



I am sure there are, given the fact that there were no battlefield action in Japan for over 350 years during the Tokugawa period. I'm sure that the majority realized at some point that their skills would never be used for the battlefield and instead turned to other philosophical reasons to continue training.



Chris Parker said:


> In short, "Do" does not imply sport, it does not imply "personal development over efficacy", all it implies is that the term used is "Do".



That is, if you ignore the elephants in the room such as Jujutsu/Judo, Kenjutsu/Kendo, Karatejutsu/Karatedo and now, baby elephant Jukenjutsu/Jukendo. 



Chris Parker said:


> You know how to distinguish, using terminology, between TKD practitioners who focus on sport and those who don't? Easy. They say they're training in, you'll love this, "sport Tae Kwon Do". Or not.



I prefer not to mix languages, like your preference. But assuming we take your suggestion, does that mean that we should be calling it sport judo, sport kendo, sport jukendo, sport karatedo as well? Why do that when people already know these arts are sport oriented and sport focused already, with the addition of the sport prefix? 




Chris Parker said:


> So you're basing your understanding of terminology in Japanese martial traditions on what is around the corner from you, and nothing else?



No, just giving examples from around the corner, in response to Kong Soo Do. 



Chris Parker said:


> And yes, sometimes just the term "Ken" is used to refer to a sword art. Oftentimes it's just a form of shorthand, but it does show the lack of importance for the suffix itself.



Just because someone uses a shorthand doesn't necessarily show a lack of importance to the suffix itself. 




Chris Parker said:


> "Superior people"? Even the most ardent Koryu snobs don't really think that way... the IHS included.



I was responding to Kong Soo Do's post, which mentioned "superior people". That's not from me.




Chris Parker said:


> I will say that I don't agree with Kong Soo Do in a number of his comments, such as there even being a distinction between "jutsu" and "do", that "jutsu" refers to systems concerned only with technicalities, and so on... and most importantly that he is going to a dojo and studying Bu(do or jutsu), as he is training in a Korean system, so, by definition, he's not in a dojo or training in Budo or Bujutsu. Yeah, it sounds pedantic and picky, but it's like saying that my Japanese arts are being taught in a kwoon and training kung fu. Nope, not at all.



I agree. I don't think it is a good idea for taekwondoin to use japanese terms or karateka to use chinese terms. I think it leads to confusion and gives people the wrong idea, that these things don't matter. Sort of like saying there is no difference between the terms do and jutsu. There is a difference, although I will agree that people disregard that difference and say that it doesn't matter. 




Chris Parker said:


> Not wanting to answer for Ken, but I really don't see the relevance. The "jutsu/do" argument really has nothing to do with Tae Kwon Do, sport applications or not at all. There is no connection, there is no distinction, and there is no terminology issue that isn't solved with adding the word "Sport" to TKD if applicable.



So if I walk into a kendo dojo and start calling the art kenjutsu, and the teacher tries to correct me, then my response to him is that there is no distinction between do and jutsu? Let me try that and see how it goes. 




Chris Parker said:


> Draeger Sensei was instrumental in the popularization and education of the classical Japanese martial arts by introducing them to a Western audience who were largely ignorant of the very fact that there was anything older than Judo in Japan. As such he was attempting to find a way to explain a range of things, and some things (such as the jutsu/do distinction) were largely simplified to the point of inaccuracy (compared to the way they were seen and used in Japan). One other factor that has been put forth is that Draeger Sensei was not American by birth (although he was a Marine in the US Military), he was German. And German was his first language, with English being second, and Japanese third (in fact, his Japanese level has been described as "adequate, but not fluent"). The over specificity of German terminology and culture could very easily be a factor in his attempts to completely pigeonhole the terms he came across in Japan.



Either that or the over specificity of German terminology and culture is what made Draeger Sensei define those terms precisely, said precision being largely ignored by today's practitioners. But thank you for your response. It relieves me of my obligation to go confirm what Draeger Sensei wrote and having to write all of that out in a post.



Chris Parker said:


> So while his place in the understanding and development of Koryu in the West is very highly regarded, some of the information he put out is not considered accurate. It's a matter of learning what to listen to, and what to ignore.



We agree on that point. And you must regard him highly, because you referred to him as Draeger Sensei, and not simply Draeger. I don't think you do that too often, not even with the head of your style, you I remember you often refer to as simply Hatsumi. 




Chris Parker said:


> Then you might be amazed at how little most of the Japanese in Japan know or care about such aspects as the terminology in martial traditions. Blood doesn't mean as much as knowledge and interest.



But if they do have interest, the knowledge comes much easier and quicker, due to their understanding of Japanese culture, and language. When I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of my own situation I suppose. I am not korean by birth or blood, but I have focused on the korean martial arts of late. I did study japanese martial arts primarily growing up, which among other things impressed upon me the importance of learning and understanding the root culture and language of the arts, because it is so intertwined with the martial arts. So I try as much as possible to study korean culture and language. I ask millions of questions, read all the books, try to practice as much as possible to where I get to a point that I think that I am finally getting it. Then I will see a 16 year old korean born boy with no training, naturally and easily demonstrate his understanding of korean language and culture that blows past my poor and meager attempts to learn. It is humbling to come to the realization that he does so easily what I cannot do, at least to his level, even though I have been studying and trying for more than twice as long as he has been alive. It's to the point where I don't think I will ever get it, at least not to the level of that 16 year old boy. 

But if you or Paul or others think that you can suppass a Japanese person in this way, then more power to you. I am unwilling to do that, at least at this point. 




Chris Parker said:


> Well, Draeger Sensei died in 1982, so it might be hard to get a definite answer... but, as said, his take on jutsu/do is not considered the most accurate that you can find.



Not considered the most accurate, by some. But it's ok. 



Chris Parker said:


> Tell you what, let's spell it out. The structure that Don Draeger employed to distinguish why he was using separate terms (Bujutsu and Budo) does not match the usage of such terms in Japan, let alone Japanese martial arts... but the average Japanese would most likely not even be aware of that.



If you say so. 




Chris Parker said:


> Other than the books you've already got, I'd visit www.koryu.com, chat with Meik Skoss (who knew Draeger sensei himself), and the IHS. See what they say now, rather than what was written 30 years ago.



I've known about koryu.com as was Skoss Sensei and his wife, but for some reason I choose not to purchase their books or other materials. I don't know why it is. But I do wish to be polite to you so I took your suggestion and visited koryu.com . I did find a listing of koryu arts, but for some reason they all have the suffix jutsu listed. None have Do. I am sure you have a good lengthy explanation for that about how that doesn't matter and doesn't prove anything. 

http://www.koryu.com/guide/ryuguide.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 1, 2012)

It's okay to have a point of view, it is even good to try and make the case for that point of view.  But it is also good to give due credence to the opinions of those who do not agree with you but *do* know what they are talking about.

This is an odd thing to be having a lengthy disagreement on, for it is indeed the case that every martial artist of rank that I have ever met holds the view that we have espoused here in various ways i.e. Jutsu or Do makes no practical distinction in the name of art with regard to what that art teaches.


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> It's okay to have a point of view, it is even good to try and make the case for that point of view.  But it is also good to give due credence to the opinions of those who do not agree with you but *do* know what they are talking about.



On that note, have you seen this list on koryu.com? Not a single do art listed. I wonder why. 

http://www.koryu.com/guide/ryuguide.html

*Ryuha list by name*



Araki-ryu kogusoku 
Asayama Ichiden-ryu heiho 
Daito-ryu aikijujutsu 
Higo Ko-ryu naginatajutsu 
Hokushin Itto-ryu kenjutsu 
Hontai Yoshin-ryu jujutsu





Hozoin-ryu Takada-ha sojutsu 
Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu kenjutsu 
Isshin-ryu kusarigamajutsu 
Kage-ryu battojutsu 
Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryu kenjutsu 
Kashima Shinryu kenjutsu 
Kashima Shinto-ryu kenjutsu 
Katayama Hoki-ryu iaijutsu 
Kogen Itto-ryu kenjutsu 
Kurama-ryu kenjutsu 
Maniwa Nen-ryu kenjutsu 
Mizoguchi-ha Itto-ryu kenjutsu 
Mugai-ryu iaijutsu 
Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iaijutsu 
Muso Shinden-ryu iaijutsu 
Ono-ha Itto-ryu kenjutsu




Owari Kan-ryu sojutsu 
Sekiguchi Shinshin-ryu jujutsu 
Shingyoto-ryu kenjutsu 
Shinmuso Hayashizaki-ryu battojutsu 
Shinto Muso-ryu jojutsu




Shojitsu Kenri Kataichi-ryu battojutsu 
Sosuishitsu-ryu jujutsu 
Suio-ryu kenjutsu 
Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin-ryu jujutsu




Takenouchi-ryu jujutsu 
Tamiya-ryu iaijutsu 
Tatsumi-ryu heiho 
Tendo-ryu naginatajutsu 
Tenjin Shinyo-ryu jujutsu 
Tenshinsho-den Katori Shinto-ryu heiho




Toda-ha Buko-ryu naginatajutsu




Toyama-ryu battojutsu 
Uchida-ryu tanjojutsu 
Yagyu Seigo-ryu battojutsu 
Yagyu Shingan-ryu taijutsu 
Yagyu Shinkage-ryu hyoho




Yoshin-ryu naginatajutsu


----------



## pgsmith (Feb 1, 2012)

> I am not korean by birth or blood, but I have focused on the korean martial arts of late. I did study japanese martial arts primarily growing up, which among other things impressed upon me the importance of learning and understanding the root culture and language of the arts, because it is so intertwined with the martial arts. So I try as much as possible to study korean culture and language. I ask millions of questions, read all the books, try to practice as much as possible to where I get to a point that I think that I am finally getting it. Then I will see a 16 year old korean born boy with no training, naturally and easily demonstrate his understanding of korean language and culture that blows past my poor and meager attempts to learn. It is humbling to come to the realization that he does so easily what I cannot do, at least to his level, even though I have been studying and trying for more than twice as long as he has been alive. It's to the point where I don't think I will ever get it, at least not to the level of that 16 year old boy.



I can totally understand that, given the attitude that you've shown in this thread. In order to learn, you first have to assume that you don't already know something. Everything you've written implies that you already know what you know, and you don't care how many people tell you that isn't the way it really is.
I was under the apparently mistaken ompression that you were looking for information, and not just validation of your own ideas. Since that obviously isn't the case, I apologize for intruding in your thread.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> What about for other martial arts? For example, do you agree or disagree with this statement:





			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it.  For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport   have those venues available.  My request is that those that do teach   TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for   the sake of the student.



You're misunderstanding what I've stated here Glenn.  This isn't a 'Do' vs. 'Jutsu' comment.  This is a self-defense vs. sport comment.  In otherwords, if you are a dojo/dojang that has a sole emphasis on sport application, then don't advertise it as self-defense and vice-versa.  There are separate considerations for both.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 1, 2012)

I wonder why that site lists things only in that way too, *pu*.  

The art that I practise is Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido .  As I near my fourth dan I ponder, "Could it be that it is the "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu" part that is what defines the art rather than if you put "Iaido" or "Iaijutsu" at the end?".

All I can tell you is what every other koryu sword art practitioner here has already told you.  You want to call what I do Iaijutsu, go ahead.  I call it Iaido; so does my sensei; so did his sensei.  Even more importantly, very senior teachers such as Iwata Sensei made no distinction between the terms; for one means the Way and the other means the Method.  There are different shades of interpreted meaning to the words but the kata will be the same either way in technique and intent.  

If you choose to make it mean that Do is more about improving yourself and Jutsu is more about a warlike, externalising, mindset then there is nothing to stop you doing so.  But it is more useful to have the mindset that there is the calm centre that it yourself and there is a sphere that is marked by the reach of the tip of your sword.  Anything that you do not wish to allow within that sphere is going to be cut.  {Katsumoto Voice}That is Iai!{/Katsumoto Voice}.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> I am sure there are, given the fact that there were no battlefield action in Japan for over 350 years during the Tokugawa period. I'm sure that the majority realized at some point that their skills would never be used for the battlefield and instead turned to other philosophical reasons to continue training.



I just wanted to pick up on this section, the arts Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of 'battlefield action'. The idea that they turned to spiritual development afterwards due to a lack of large scale combat is inaccurate, as both systems have history of being used in such times (that being said, HNIR's history is more about Musashi being a part of 2-3 battles, rather than the school itself being battlefield oriented, but that's neither here nor there.).


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This isn't a 'Do' vs. 'Jutsu' comment.  This is a self-defense vs. sport comment.  In otherwords, if you are a dojo/dojang that has a sole emphasis on sport application, then don't advertise it as self-defense and vice-versa.  There are separate considerations for both.



oh


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> I can totally understand that, given the attitude that you've shown in this thread. In order to learn, you first have to assume that you don't already know something. Everything you've written implies that you already know what you know, and you don't care how many people tell you that isn't the way it really is.



Actually if you read the quote carefully within the context of my other responses to you, then it is the exact opposite. As for the mob mentality, everyone at one time thought that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise, I suspect that you would get the same reaction that I am getting. But no matter. 




pgsmith said:


> I was under the apparently mistaken ompression that you were looking for information, and not just validation of your own ideas. Since that obviously isn't the case, I apologize for intruding in your thread.



I am looking for information, not just unsubstantiated opinions piled on top of each other. But please do not feel that you are intruding. In fact, if you are ever in Hawaii please look me up. I can invite you to the house, we can hang out in the double tatami room upstairs, drink some tea, or if your prefer, some sake and you can tell me all the things that I don't know about the japanese language, culture and martial arts. I also have a lot of japanese art hanging on the walls which you hopefully can explain to me.  And I just remembered, this year's USAT nationals/JOs is in Dallas I believe. Maybe we can stop by your dojo and watch a class. Wednesday and Friday nights, right? 

PS: Congratulations on winning bronze in the nidan division at the batto do tournament. Your teacher, Sensei Ray Hall, as well as the founder of your Ryu, Sensei Michael Park, must be proud of you.


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> The art that I practise is Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido .   As I near my fourth dan I ponder, "Could it be that it is the "Muso  Jikiden Eishin Ryu" part that is what defines the art rather than if you  put "Iaido" or "Iaijutsu" at the end?".



I don't know the answer to your pondering question. What I do know is that your style is listed on koryu.com as  Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaijutsu by Sensei Meik and Sensei Diane Skoss.  If you are disturbed by the inaccuracy, then perhaps you should contact  them. Please do not get angry at me for checking out a webpage suggested  by Parker Sensei. 

http://www.koryu.com/guide/eishin.html



Sukerkin said:


> All I can tell you is what every other koryu  sword art practitioner here has already told you.  You want to call what  I do Iaijutsu, go ahead.  I call it Iaido; so does my sensei; so did  his sensei.  Even more importantly, very senior teachers such as Iwata  Sensei made no distinction between the terms; for one means the Way and  the other means the Method.



Again, I don't wish to call  what you do iaijutsu; all I did was go to the webpage koryu.com that was  suggested by Parker Sensei. The owners of that page calls your art  iaijutsu, not me. If you wish to get upset, please get upset at them, not me. It's not my webpage.




Sukerkin said:


> There are different shades of interpreted  meaning to the words but the kata will be the same either way in  technique and intent.



Well, that is different than  saying there is no difference between the terms Do and Jutsu. There are  differences. You just said so.



Sukerkin said:


> If you choose to make it mean that Do is more  about improving yourself and Jutsu is more about a warlike,  externalising, mindset then there is nothing to stop you doing so. But  it is more useful to have the mindset that there is the calm centre that  it yourself and there is a sphere that is marked by the reach of the  tip of your sword.  Anything that you do not wish to allow within that  sphere is going to be cut.  {Katsumoto Voice}That is Iai!{/Katsumoto  Voice}.



Which Katsumoto are you talking about? The one in the movie Last Samurai who was the Emperor's teacher? I don't know who you are talking about.


----------



## puunui (Feb 1, 2012)

Sanke said:


> I just wanted to pick up on this section, the arts Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of 'battlefield action'. The idea that they turned to spiritual development afterwards due to a lack of large scale combat is inaccurate, as both systems have history of being used in such times (that being said, HNIR's history is more about Musashi being a part of 2-3 battles, rather than the school itself being battlefield oriented, but that's neither here nor there.).



And I am sure that if a group preserved the battlefield tactics, weaponry and uniforms from the revolutionary war, they also would say that their methods saw a lot of battlefield action, two hundred something years ago. But say no one used those in a war for the next 200 years, but rather they were simply passed down from generation to generation, without being used in a war. Do you think those revolutionary war tactics (marching on the field in bright red uniforms, all in a line, firing flintlocks and then doing a bayonet charge) still hold validity today, because it was field tested over 235 years ago?


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm not upset with you, *pu*, I don't think you're taking on board what people are saying, which means that we're wasting our time, but that is the extent of it.  

It's also important to bear in mind that "You" in English has the annoying useage of being both person specific or general and context doesn't always help tell which is which, especially when both inferences are in the same text.

More definiteively, yes, I do mean Katsumoto from the Last Samurai, specifically stealing the inflection from the passage where he says "Life in every breath; that is bushido!".


----------



## Sanke (Feb 2, 2012)

puunui said:


> And I am sure that if a group preserved the battlefield tactics, weaponry and uniforms from the revolutionary war, they also would say that their methods saw a lot of battlefield action, two hundred something years ago. But say no one used those in a war for the next 200 years, but rather they were simply passed down from generation to generation, without being used in a war. Do you think those revolutionary war tactics (marching on the field in bright red uniforms, all in a line, firing flintlocks and then doing a bayonet charge) still hold validity today, because it was field tested over 235 years ago?



Glenn, you may have missed the point of what I was talking about there. 
I was referring to the fact that many koryu schools have a strong emphasis on spiritual development, as well as being ones that saw heavy battlefield use, so the idea that the more 'spiritual' systems were developed post-meji is rather off. 

Their effectiveness is a modern context has literally nothing to do with this topic, so I'm not sure why you've answered with this honestly. 

As for jutsu vs do, for me, there is only as much separation as the systems say there is. 
On that list from koryu.com is Muso Shinden Ryu Iaijustu. I practice in that system, but our particular line (and many others) refer to it as iaido. So which one is it? Personally (if we are sticking to the ridged definitions) I would say both. 
In fact, I'd go so far as to say the same about every koryu system I've been exposed to. So yeah, I don't see the difference in that way. 


Sanke on the move.


----------



## pgsmith (Feb 2, 2012)

> I am looking for information, not just unsubstantiated opinions piled on top of each other. But please do not feel that you are intruding. In fact, if you are ever in Hawaii please look me up. I can invite you to the house, we can hang out in the double tatami room upstairs, drink some tea, or if your prefer, some sake and you can tell me all the things that I don't know about the japanese language, culture and martial arts. I also have a lot of japanese art hanging on the walls which you hopefully can explain to me.



Nice try, but you don't do smarmy nearly as well as a great many other people I know. Go ahead and feel as superior as you wish (since you're trying so hard), it's a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification. I know several anime geeks that are friends of my eldest son. I would describe their houses pretty much the same way that you described yours. None of them practice koryu arts either, so they don't have any greater understanding of them than you seem to.



> And I just remembered, this year's USAT nationals/JOs is in Dallas I believe. Maybe we can stop by your dojo and watch a class. Wednesday and Friday nights, right?



No, we meet Mondays 6:30 to 9:30. What makes you think I would I want a bunch of Tae Kwon Do people to stop by and interrupt our class?



> Congratulations on winning bronze in the nidan division at the batto do tournament. Your teacher, Sensei Ray Hall, as well as the founder of your Ryu, Sensei Michael Park, must be proud of you.



Just so that you're up to date on your information (since you obviously aren't) I was yusho at the last West Coast Batto Do Tai Kai competing in the yondan and up division. Ray Hall was my instructor until he retired from teaching somewhere around 1999 or so. I studied Shin Shin Sekiguchi ryu under Carl McClafferty and Yamada Yoshitaka. I was scheduled to test for my chuden menkyo when knee problems forced me to withdraw from the school (tobiichigai was my downfall). I then began practicing Meishi-ha Mugai ryu under Tony Alvarez and Niina Toyoaki. I am scheduled to test for yondan in that school at this year's gasshuku prior to the West Coast Tai Kai in September.

Now you can update your stalker file so you won't sound quite so foolish. Well, at least not when referring to me.


----------



## puunui (Feb 2, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm not upset with you, *pu*,



You sound upset *Suk*, but if you say you aren't then I believe you. 




Sukerkin said:


> I don't think you're taking on board what people are saying, which means that we're wasting our time, but that is the extent of it.



I'm taking everything everyone is saying on board. I wonder though, can you say the same thing about what I am saying? 




Sukerkin said:


> It's also important to bear in mind that "You" in English has the annoying useage of being both person specific or general and context doesn't always help tell which is which, especially when both inferences are in the same text.



This one is a little vague. Are you saying that you used the word "You" in both the person specific and general within the same text of a post, and that you are apologizing for the confusion that may cause?




Sukerkin said:


> More definiteively, yes, I do mean Katsumoto from the Last Samurai, specifically stealing the inflection from the passage where he says "Life in every breath; that is bushido!".



I liked the movie the Last Samurai, one of my students played the guy who manned the gattling gun and mowed down every except Tom Cruise towards the end of the movie. Now he plays parts in Hawaii FiveO, along with another student of mine, his best friend. I don't remember the specific quote you are referring to though. 

As for learning from Japanese movie characters, I think there can be times when lessons can be gleaned from them. I would also say that sometimes the wrong things can get learned. I don't know if you watch the show on FoodTV called Iron Chef America. It pits the Iron Chefs against high level competitors from around the country, using a certain ingredient that the Chairman (Mark Dacascos) has selected for them. Anyway, before they announce the winner, the Chairman bows to each competitor. Some bow with their hands on their hips, legs spread apart, others look at the chairman's eyes when bowing. Whenever I see that, I wonder if they got that from the Karate Kid movie, where Miyagi Sensei sternly instructs Daniel San to "Look eye! Always look eye!" when bowing.


----------



## puunui (Feb 2, 2012)

Sanke said:


> Glenn, you may have missed the point of what I was talking about there.
> I was referring to the fact that many koryu schools have a strong emphasis on spiritual development, as well as being ones that saw heavy battlefield use, so the idea that the more 'spiritual' systems were developed post-meji is rather off.
> 
> Their effectiveness is a modern context has literally nothing to do with this topic, so I'm not sure why you've answered with this honestly.
> ...



I don't know how I or anyone else was supposed to get your point, given your original post. Here it is for comparison to what you write above:



Sanke said:


> I just wanted to pick up on this section, the arts  Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the  Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of  'battlefield action'. The idea that they turned to spiritual development  afterwards due to a lack of large scale combat is inaccurate, as both  systems have history of being used in such times (that being said,  HNIR's history is more about Musashi being a part of 2-3 battles, rather  than the school itself being battlefield oriented, but that's neither  here nor there.).



But no matter. On to your new points:



Sanke said:


> I was referring to the fact that many koryu schools have a strong  emphasis on spiritual development, as well as being ones that saw heavy  battlefield use, so the idea that the more 'spiritual' systems were  developed post-meji is rather off.



Sure, they had to, to survive. No argument about that. And I have no doubt that is what is going on today. You have to do what you have to do to get people interested. 




Sanke said:


> Their effectiveness is a modern context has literally nothing to do with  this topic, so I'm not sure why you've answered with this honestly.



Because in your prior post, you talked about how "the arts  Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the  Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of  'battlefield action'". I just made a comment that the "battlefield action" that you are talking about happened in the 1600s. So again, really all these koryu are doing essentially is what they were trying to do during the tokugawa era, which is preserve something that may have been used in battle, hundreds of years ago. And like those who are preserving revolutionary war tactics, strategy, and weapons, there has to be a reason for doing that other than battlefield effectiveness. I was watching the Japan channel and they had a show about how every year in Japan they reinact famous battles in Japan's history, on the actual battlefield locations. They get dressed up in full samurai armor and then charge each other in sort of a mock battle. To me, koryu is similar to that, except they pay more attention to the details of the moves, and not so much on the battle itself.


----------



## puunui (Feb 2, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Go ahead and feel as superior as you wish (since you're trying so hard), it's a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification.



Not really trying hard, just inviting you over if you ever in the area. Perhaps you frequently travel to Japan for training or tournaments. A lot of people who visit asian countries make a stop here. Breaks up the long flight. 



pgsmith said:


> I know several anime geeks that are friends of my eldest son. I would describe their houses pretty much the same way that you described yours.



I think their houses are probably nicer. 



pgsmith said:


> None of them practice koryu arts either, so they don't have any greater understanding of them than you seem to.



Thank you. It is true that I am still learning. 




pgsmith said:


> No, we meet Mondays 6:30 to 9:30. What makes you think I would I want a bunch of Tae Kwon Do people to stop by and interrupt our class?



Once a week. Gee you must have to cover a lot of ground for your students to advance. We'll try to make it if we can. Thanks for giving us the information on the correct day and times. That helps. 



pgsmith said:


> Just so that you're up to date on your information (since you obviously aren't) I was yusho at the last West Coast Batto Do Tai Kai competing in the yondan and up division. Ray Hall was my instructor until he retired from teaching somewhere around 1999 or so. I studied Shin Shin Sekiguchi ryu under Carl McClafferty and Yamada Yoshitaka. I was scheduled to test for my chuden menkyo when knee problems forced me to withdraw from the school (tobiichigai was my downfall). I then began practicing Meishi-ha Mugai ryu under Tony Alvarez and Niina Toyoaki. I am scheduled to test for yondan in that school at this year's gasshuku prior to the West Coast Tai Kai in September.



Congratulations. Sounds like you got promoted to sandan since your bronze medal batto do tournament win. And all of the above sounds quite impressive, I think, but keep in mind that some may consider boasting about those sorts of things may be a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification. 



pgsmith said:


> Now you can update your stalker file so you won't sound quite so foolish. Well, at least not when referring to me.



Don't really have a stalker file, but it was relatively easy to find your webpage, which looks designed to tell the world about who you are and what you are about. I don't really have my own webpage. Not into it. I don't want people to think that me having something like that might be a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification.("you" used in the general sense, not the specific).


----------



## Gemini (Feb 2, 2012)

puunui said:


> When I was your level, I didn't have any opinions, none that I voiced anyway. I just listened to my teachers and seniors and asked a question once in a while. No one asked for my opinion and I didn't volunteer one.


Peanut gallery here. I've been keeping my mouth shut while watching and "learning". Give me a nudge when we reach the level of "I know you are, but what am I?"

pffft.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 2, 2012)

puunui said:


> I don't know how I or anyone else was supposed to get your point, given your original post. Here it is for comparison to what you write above:



It helps if you actually read the posts in their context. Lets take a look, shall we?



puunui said:


> But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art.




Which you were saying in reference to the naginata school you'd posted above that.
Chris then responded saying that was inaccurate:



Chris Parker said:


> Then you have systems pre-Meiji which did deal with personal development. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a system of sword combat which came directly out of bloody experience and is one of the most direct, straight-to-the-point (ha!) kenjutsu systems I've come across... but it is also deeply imbued with the Buddhist Sutras, to the point where it is considered that unless you understand them, you won't (and can't) understand the system. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu was also deeply concerned with such things. And then there are many that run the gamut from one end of the scale to the other, in both Jutsu and Do disciplines.




And that bring us to the post I originally responded to (which, as it's quoted above, I'll leave you to look up for that one). So now that we're all up to date, lets continue.



puunui said:


> But no matter. On to your new points:



Yup, lets get going.



puunui said:


> Sure, they had to, to survive. No argument about that. And I have no doubt that is what is going on today. You have to do what you have to do to get people interested.



And here we get to the crux of the matter, which you're just not getting. The arts I am referring to did not add their spiritual development ideas post-meji to continue interest in the system, they were there from the very founding, in a time period where battles were still commonplace. That's why I brought up battles in the first place, because you had implied that these ideas of spiritual development were brought in because there were no wars to be fought, and there had to be something else to keep people interested. And that is, frankly, wrong.




puunui said:


> Because in your prior post, you talked about how "the arts  Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the  Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of  'battlefield action'". I just made a comment that the "battlefield action" that you are talking about happened in the 1600s. So again, really all these koryu are doing essentially is what they were trying to do during the tokugawa era, which is preserve something that may have been used in battle, hundreds of years ago. And like those who are preserving revolutionary war tactics, strategy, and weapons, there has to be a reason for doing that other than battlefield effectiveness. I was watching the Japan channel and they had a show about how every year in Japan they reinact famous battles in Japan's history, on the actual battlefield locations. They get dressed up in full samurai armor and then charge each other in sort of a mock battle. To me, koryu is similar to that, except they pay more attention to the details of the moves, and not so much on the battle itself.



All this section tells me is that you have never practised a koryu art before, and have no understanding of why they were practised the way they are then or why they are today. 
And again, the idea that the spiritual side of things is added purely for self-preservation is also completely off.
If you think that they are comparable to recreational society groups, then clearly your research method needs a lot of work, because that's not even close.


----------



## puunui (Feb 2, 2012)

Sanke said:


> It helps if you actually read the posts in their context. Lets take a look, shall we?



I tried to follow all of that, but it requires going back and forth between posts, ADHD set in and I got distracted. Let's just assume that you are correct. Easier that way. Not bad for one of Parker Sensei's 7th kyu ninjutsu students. During my distraction, I did do as your Sensei suggested and poked around koryu.com . They have some very interesting, and harsh, opinions on things. Let's see how it fits into the present conversation. 




Sanke said:


> And here we get to the crux of the matter, which you're just not getting. The arts I am referring to did not add their spiritual development ideas post-meji to continue interest in the system, they were there from the very founding, in a time period where battles were still commonplace. That's why I brought up battles in the first place, because you had implied that these ideas of spiritual development were brought in because there were no wars to be fought, and there had to be something else to keep people interested. And that is, frankly, wrong.



I don't know if I said that. This is the quoted part to which you responded: 

"_I am sure there are, given the fact that there were no battlefield action in Japan for over 350 years during the Tokugawa period. I'm sure that the majority realized at some point that their skills would never be used for the battlefield and instead turned to other philosophical reasons to continue training._"

I had to dig around and found this quote: "But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art." I think I was talking about the Do suffix, but even still, no mention about when they added their "spiritual development" post meiji, which seems to be your main complaint. 



Sanke said:


> All this section tells me is that you have never practised a koryu art before, and have no understanding of why they were practised the way they are then or why they are today.



Either that or you misread what I actually wrote, and came to a conclusion without foundation. But practicing a koryu, that is an interesting concept. I read this from Sensei Diane Skoss. Do you agree with it? 

*

Another point that is often forgotten is that the very definition of a  classical art is that it is handed down via traditional Japanese  methods of transmission. A koryu MUST be transmitted directly from  master teacher to student, _jikiden_. There is no other way. You  can't learn it through books; you can't learn it through videotapes. In  the modern arts it is sometimes possible (though I'd still argue that it  is inadvisable) when no fully qualified teacher is available, for a  senior student to take charge of instruction. But this will not work  with classical arts. Certainly, there are qualified and authorized  instructors of classical schools who are selling books and videos, but  no one who uses such books can ever be said to have "entered" or worse,  be teaching, that school.


 A lot of so-called classical Japanese schools are springing up all  over the place these days. Each time an unqualified person claims to  teach a Japanese classical tradition it diminishes all authentic  traditions. People are, in some cases, forming their impressions of  koryu based on what is essentially a lie. It's as if someone passed off a  forgery of a great artist as the real thing--it cheats both the artist  and the viewer, and it may well harm the forger too. Just as museum  curators diligently guard against thieves and the taint of counterfeits,  at the same time caring for and preserving the often fragile items in  their charge, so too the _montei_ (student/disciple) of a  Japanese classical bujutsu must protect and conserve the koryu. Too much  information made too readily available makes frauds and  misunderstandings easier to perpetrate. Hence, Meik's seemingly  obstructive comment, "You want koryu. You come to Japan."


 So what is a person who cannot relocate to Japan in order to pursue  training in classical Japanese arts to do? One evening after our  Wednesday afternoon Toda-ha Buko-ryu naginatajutsu training session,  Meik, Liam Keeley, and I talked about the difficulties people face when  trying to identify qualified non-Japanese koryu practitioners outside of  Japan. We came up with a set of criteria that may be useful. Such a  person is probably over thirty years old (getting competent in koryu  takes time); they have spent at least five consecutive years in  Japan--this is an absolute minimum, ten or fifteen years is better; they  are able to function in the Japanese language; they hold a license,  presented to them by the headmaster or a master teacher (_menkyo kaiden_),  in one of the classical traditions that are members of either the Nihon  Kobudo Shinkokai, or the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (admittedly, there are a  very small number of schools that for political reasons fall through the  cracks here, but essentially a tradition must be documentable in  Japan); finally they must be able to describe the history and lineage of  the school (this doesn't mean that they can recite these facts off the  tops of their heads, but that when queried they can produce and explain  the information). A person who fulfills all these requirements can claim  to be a qualified practitioner of a koryu. Those who have been awarded  teaching licenses are also authorized to teach.


 So you do have a choice--come to Japan, or find one of the dozen or  so truly qualified instructors teaching outside of Japan and begin  training. While a trip to Japan may not be absolutely essential to train  in the koryu (and I do believe it is a must for those who would teach),  it is vital to learn from someone who has truly "done time in Japan."

*

My question is, are you learning from someone who is: a  person is probably over thirty years old (getting competent in koryu  takes time); they have spent at least five consecutive years in  Japan--this is an absolute minimum, ten or fifteen years is better; they  are able to function in the Japanese language; they hold a license,  presented to them by the headmaster or a master teacher (_menkyo kaiden_),  in one of the classical traditions that are members of either the Nihon  Kobudo Shinkokai, or the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (admittedly, there are a  very small number of schools that for political reasons fall through the  cracks here, but essentially a tradition must be documentable in  Japan); finally they must be able to describe the history and lineage of  the school (this doesn't mean that they can recite these facts off the  tops of their heads, but that when queried they can produce and explain  the information). A person who fulfills all these requirements can claim  to be a qualified practitioner of a koryu. Those who have been awarded  teaching licenses are also authorized to teach.

*



Sanke said:


> And again, the idea that the spiritual side of things is added purely for self-preservation is also completely off. If you think that they are comparable to recreational society groups, then clearly your research method needs a lot of work, because that's not even close.



Here is more from Diane Sensei:

First of all, in the modern world, the koryu are cultural artifacts,  perhaps no longer useful for their original purposes, but worth  preserving as part of the heritage of Japan. We do not train in these  arts in order to be able to use these techniques on the battlefield, but  to further our self-development and to keep four- or  six-hundred-year-old traditions alive. In order to do this we must  always keep our training grounded in an enormously complex cultural and  historical context--one that simply does not exist outside of Japan.  While it may be possible for good aikido to flourish under the guidance  of someone who has not had extensive experience in Japan, this is not  the case for the koryu.

*

But more to the point of the discussion: "Modern arts developed primarily for spiritual and social  self-improvement; the classical arts were for fighting. "Do" is  spiritual; "jutsu" is technical. The bujutsu were the arts practiced by a  specific class for use on the battlefields of Japan, the budo have been  opened up to folk of all classes and nationalities.  These distinctions seem pretty clear-cut, but, in general, contrast  the characteristics of bujutsu of the past with the goals of budo in the  present. This seems to cause confusion."

But even if they cause confusion, they are not "the same" as so many here have attempted to point out.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 3, 2012)

Okay, Glenn, I said you hadn't seen me go for a really big post yet, so, strap in, here we go....



Sukerkin said:


> I have read the same and would also be interested to hear if we have any definitive or compelling evidence one way or the other.



I've heard the same thing, but it comes across to me as, really, a bit of an urban myth. For one thing, "Do" arts predate WWII, so that isn't the reason for the prevalence in modern arts. Next, while all martial arts were originally banned, the ones that were allowed (such as Kendo) weren't allowed because they "focused on spiritual development", it was more to do with not forcing the Japanese so far down that the only option would be to revolt or be thoroughly "culturally" destroyed.



puunui said:


> Do you see judo, kendo or karatedo switching to another suffix anytime soon?



Why would they? Seriously, why would they? 



puunui said:


> I didn't realize there was anything to clear up on ranking systems in japanese martial arts.



Yet your short comment showed a lack of understanding of what the different ranking systems actually relate to. I may think twice before trying to add to your education in future. After this post, mainly cause I'm just a little ticked off at the way you're questioning those who have been there, done that, and, in many cases, continue to do.



puunui said:


> Actually there was karate in Japan prior to the showa period (which started in 1926). Funakoshi Sensei came to Japan in 1922 and by 1924, he was giving dan rank to students and also establishing karate clubs in Keio dai and other Japan universities. This is of course assuming that you ignore the fact that Okinawa was annexed by Japan in 1872, was made a Japanese prefecture in 1879, Okinawa citizens were given the right to vote in 1890 and Okinawa remains a part of Japan, as it has been for about 140 years, over 50 years prior to the showa period.
> 
> Even if none of that were true, "karate" (written with the characters for "empty hand"), unrelated to the okinawa's toude, is mentioned in 19th century japanese books. Some speculate that this native japanese "karate" inspired Funakoshi Sensei to change the first character from tou or tang, to kara or empty, as a bridge to making toude truly japanese. The term was already known and used in Japan, and if you remember, the objections to the character change from tang to empty came from Okinawa and Okinawans, not Japan or mainland Japanese.



In terms of Japanese Karate, no there wasn't. There was an introduced system of Okinawan Te by Gichin Funakoshi (first in 1918, from memory), but until Shotokan was developed (in the Showa period) there was no "Japanese Karate". Additionally, the term "Karate" wasn't used (with those kanji) until the 30's (1936, to be precise). And I'm not ignoring the annex, but the Ryukyu Islands were still considered their own kingdom, not really part of Japan, more like the way Australia is a colony of England, not English.



puunui said:


> That would be a valid argument if we ignored the following book titles:
> 
> Rentan Goshin Toude-jutsu (1925) by FUNAKOSHI Gichin
> Ryukyu Kenpo Toude-jutsu. Kumite-hen' (1926) by MOTOBU Choki
> ...



You mean that books written for a Japanese audience to take advantage of the Japanese interest in this new martial art used common terminology (added "jutsu") in order to give some sense of what the art contained are what you're looking at in terms of the actual usage for the origins of the Okinawan art? You do realize that each of those people referred to their art simply as "Te" ("Tii" in the Okinawan dialect), or "Tode/Todii", with no reference to "jutsu" whatsoever. It was added for the books to give a reference to Jujutsu, which was a commonly known term referring to an unarmed martial art.



puunui said:


> I was thinking about this last night, about the whole battlefield concept, koryu, self improvement, do jutsu, etc. I then realized that since the Tokugawa era, there really was no battlefield wars being fought, and there wasn't any for over 350 years. So really, all the martial arts during that entire period consisted of arts being passed down by practitioners who had no battlefield experience themselves. Perhaps there were some bushi had to "defend" themselves against attacks, but in general Japan was a peaceful, non-violent country, with a disarmed people (with the exception of the samurai), just like it is today. So really what you had were archaic antiquated martial arts being "preserved", but not used, which lead eventually to "contest" type challenges to test one's skill, such that today, we have "sports" like judo, kendo, and karatedo (which has been shortlisted for consideration by the IOC for inclusion into the 2020 Olympic Games).



Who mentioned "battlefield"? You were talking about pre-Meiji, I only addressed the idea of "do" arts (and terminology) being used pre-Meiji... But for the record, uh, wrong. Look to things like the Shimabara Rebellion... while the Sengoku Jidai was over, it didn't mean that everyone just packed up their weapons and sat around twiddling their thumbs, there was still a military force maintained. And, again, the idea of the rest of the populace being "disarmed" is wildly inaccurate. Anyone who could afford them could get weapons, many rich merchants, social leaders, and others had quite a bit. The only restrictions on owning weapons was that only the samurai could wear the Daisho (long and short swords as a pair). Anyone could wear just a long sword, or just a short sword, or a long sword and a jutte, or have a range of other weapons. Police would often be commoners, and they'd be nicely armed as well (jutte, short sword, sodegarami, hojo, and so on).

And finally, where is it written that "battlefield" experience is what makes the martial art? Look to dueling systems, they aren't related to battlefield combat, as they deal far more with personal one-on-one combat, and they are absolutely martial arts. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a great example, I'd also look to the primary kenjutsu system, such as the various Itto Ryu, the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, arts such as Masaki Ryu (chain weapons), Shinto Muso Ryu (jo), Nito Shinkage Ryu (kusarigama and sword), Negishi Ryu (shuriken), and many many many others.

You may also want to revise your take on the "competition" approach of old Japan, cause again, you're way off in a range of ways.... 



puunui said:


> Someone else brought up the topic of naginata in an earlier post in this thread, it came to mind, so I put it in. But if you have any issues about language, claims, techniques or whatever else, I suggest you contact Miura Sensei directly and tell her how you feel. I am sure she would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.



Except you used it to counter a direct comment about Iai, which made no sense. As to the website, I don't think Miura Sensei would be to blame about the errors, but whoever put the site together. And yes, there are errors there. There's no question on that.



puunui said:


> You're thinking about jukenjutsu, an art which was taught at the Toyama Military Academy during the meiji period. Jukendo is an art comparable to kendo, except they use wooden rifle looking implements and kendo looking gear when engaged in matches. Here is an example:



Please tell me you're not trying to educate me on Jukendo there Glenn. 



puunui said:


> But you said that you disagree with that part you quoted in its entirety. However, you did not go into detail about the majority of that passage, which had to do with the development of Kong Soo Do in Korea. What do you disagree with regarding that, and why? Here is the passage you said you disagreed with in its entirety:
> 
> "But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part  self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do  especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name  used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo  on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was  raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong  Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of  karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams  from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate  tournaments did go international, like it is today."
> 
> I think you discussed why you disagreed with the first sentence, but not the rest of the paragraph.



I took the first sentence (the reason for the usage of "do") as being the formative premise of the entire paragraph, so by disagreeing with that construct, I was dismissing the reason given for the rest. Kong Soo Do might give that as part of it's reasoning, but it just comes down to the founders/leaders of the art deciding to use the term for whatever reasons they decided to, nothing inherent about "do" necessarily meaning "self discovery".



puunui said:


> I am sure there are, given the fact that there were no battlefield action in Japan for over 350 years during the Tokugawa period. I'm sure that the majority realized at some point that their skills would never be used for the battlefield and instead turned to other philosophical reasons to continue training.



And there are some systems that are very much from serious battle experience that deal quite strongly in personal development/spiritual teachings as well. Seriously, you're rather out in your assumptions here.



puunui said:


> That is, if you ignore the elephants in the room such as Jujutsu/Judo, Kenjutsu/Kendo, Karatejutsu/Karatedo and now, baby elephant Jukenjutsu/Jukendo.



Please tell me you're not trying to educate me on these systems as well, Glenn. As said, Karate-do doesn't necessarily mean sport, as there are quite a few forms that don't deal with sport at all. Same with the usage of Kendo in some old traditions. Jukendo is not the sporting form of Jukenjutsu, mainly as pretty much all usage of the term "Jukenjutsu" is used in modern groups, who also deal with sporting competition. There were a range of Jujutsu systems that dealt in forms of competition, as well as Kenjutsu groups that did, a famous Koryu Sojutsu (spear) system, Owari-Kan Ryu, begin their training with free-form competition (shiai) before moving on to kata practice, Judo (as used in the Jikishin Ryu) did not have a sporting aspect to it either.

You seem a little out of your depth here, Glenn.



puunui said:


> I prefer not to mix languages, like your preference. But assuming we take your suggestion, does that mean that we should be calling it sport judo, sport kendo, sport jukendo, sport karatedo as well? Why do that when people already know these arts are sport oriented and sport focused already, with the addition of the sport prefix?



 Actually, we do. It's distinguished within the terminology used to distinguish different sections of the training, such as Shiai, Randori Geiko, and so on. I just don't know the Korean for "sport", that's all.



puunui said:


> No, just giving examples from around the corner, in response to Kong Soo Do.



Except that left your argument rather lacking, really.



puunui said:


> Just because someone uses a shorthand doesn't necessarily show a lack of importance to the suffix itself.



Really.... So the suffix is important to show the distinction of the syllabus taught within the system, so much so that giving the incorrect one shows a different idea of what the arts aims and methods are, but that very important piece of the information can be left off without any indication that it's not important?



puunui said:


> I was responding to Kong Soo Do's post, which mentioned "superior people". That's not from me.



That quote was found in a post in an unrelated discussion from a number of years ago, yet you chose to take it as if it was the current comment and continue it with your comments... which seems to indicate that it was part of your thinking as well.



puunui said:


> I agree. I don't think it is a good idea for taekwondoin to use japanese terms or karateka to use chinese terms. I think it leads to confusion and gives people the wrong idea, that these things don't matter. Sort of like saying there is no difference between the terms do and jutsu. There is a difference, although I will agree that people disregard that difference and say that it doesn't matter.



There is a difference between the words ("jutsu" and "do"), the same way there is a difference in English between saying "techniques" and "methods". Both have a slightly different emphasis but can mean, and be applied, to much the same thing with no confusion. And can be used interchangably pretty commonly.



puunui said:


> So if I walk into a kendo dojo and start calling the art kenjutsu, and the teacher tries to correct me, then my response to him is that there is no distinction between do and jutsu? Let me try that and see how it goes.



Oh, for crying out loud. Kendo isn't Kendo because of any distinction, real or imagined, between jutsu and do, it is because Kendo is a specific martial art which has the name "Kendo". 



puunui said:


> Either that or the over specificity of German terminology and culture is what made Draeger Sensei define those terms precisely, said precision being largely ignored by today's practitioners. But thank you for your response. It relieves me of my obligation to go confirm what Draeger Sensei wrote and having to write all of that out in a post.



Please, Glenn, you do realize that my information comes directly from people who trained under and with Draeger Sensei himself? Safe to say, they don't believe that that's the case at all. Nor do pretty much anyone who has any experience with Japanese Koryu systems. There is a little debate, but it's quite a bit above this level, and has a lot more subtlety to the nuances of the Japanese language and it's usage itself.



puunui said:


> We agree on that point. And you must regard him highly, because you referred to him as Draeger Sensei, and not simply Draeger. I don't think you do that too often, not even with the head of your style, you I remember you often refer to as simply Hatsumi.



Hatsumi isn't the head of my organisation, Glenn, your homework isn't helping you again (I see Paul corrected you on your comments on his art... I did laugh when I saw that....). And there are reasons I afford Draeger Sensei the affectation, but I'm really not getting into things here. But, for the record, I do refer to him as Draeger, or Don Draeger, often enough as well.



puunui said:


> But if they do have interest, the knowledge comes much easier and quicker, due to their understanding of Japanese culture, and language. When I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of my own situation I suppose. I am not korean by birth or blood, but I have focused on the korean martial arts of late. I did study japanese martial arts primarily growing up, which among other things impressed upon me the importance of learning and understanding the root culture and language of the arts, because it is so intertwined with the martial arts. So I try as much as possible to study korean culture and language. I ask millions of questions, read all the books, try to practice as much as possible to where I get to a point that I think that I am finally getting it. Then I will see a 16 year old korean born boy with no training, naturally and easily demonstrate his understanding of korean language and culture that blows past my poor and meager attempts to learn. It is humbling to come to the realization that he does so easily what I cannot do, at least to his level, even though I have been studying and trying for more than twice as long as he has been alive. It's to the point where I don't think I will ever get it, at least not to the level of that 16 year old boy.
> 
> But if you or Paul or others think that you can suppass a Japanese person in this way, then more power to you. I am unwilling to do that, at least at this point.



Actually, those that come from other cultures are, in a number of cases, considered more driven to understand, and can come to an understanding faster than those who are naturally in the culture themselves. This is due to a range of factors, such as certain elements not being focused on (due to their common presence in the culture itself), but the foreigner looking at it, notices the nuance, and realizes what should be going on in a deeper way than the native student. This has happened over and over again, to the point that arts such as Toda-ha Buko Ryu have only Western Shihan at present.



puunui said:


> Not considered the most accurate, by some. But it's ok.



To be frank, no, it's not. It's considered inaccurate and outdated, missing the actual usage and nuances of the terminology. Koryu (and terminology) knowledge in the West is a fair bit more advanced three decades later.



puunui said:


> If you say so.



You have evidence to the contrary?



puunui said:


> I've known about koryu.com as was Skoss Sensei and his wife, but for some reason I choose not to purchase their books or other materials. I don't know why it is. But I do wish to be polite to you so I took your suggestion and visited koryu.com . I did find a listing of koryu arts, but for some reason they all have the suffix jutsu listed. None have Do. I am sure you have a good lengthy explanation for that about how that doesn't matter and doesn't prove anything.
> 
> http://www.koryu.com/guide/ryuguide.html





puunui said:


> On that note, have you seen this list on koryu.com? Not a single do art listed. I wonder why.
> 
> http://www.koryu.com/guide/ryuguide.html
> 
> ...



Lengthy explanation? No, not too lengthy. Primarily, it comes down to the common vernacular and preferred terminology of the time. They didn't not use "do" because they were waiting for the Meiji Restoration in the 16th Century, you know... 



Sukerkin said:


> I wonder why that site lists things only in that way too, *pu*.
> 
> The art that I practise is Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido .  As I near my fourth dan I ponder, "Could it be that it is the "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu" part that is what defines the art rather than if you put "Iaido" or "Iaijutsu" at the end?".
> 
> ...



Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu has a range of lines (as Sukerkin is more than aware!), some use the terminology "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaijutsu", others simply "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iai", and, most commonly, the term used is "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido". Same with Muso Shinden Ryu. The usage of one of the lines terminology on koryu.com doesn't invalidate the others in use. With Muso Shinden Ryu, there are actually about three different kanji forms used to write the name, depending on the line. It's a lot more complicated there than just "jutsu or do".

Then you have systems such as Araki Mujinsai Ryu Iaido, Muso Junshin Ryu Iai, and others that use the "do" suffix. Or, if you really want to get complicated, we could look at the ones that use the suffix "ho" (&#27861, such as any "Kenpo" system, or "heiho/hyoho", "batto-ho" (as well as "batto-do" being used by some systems), "ju-ho", and more. Did we want to start a discussion of the use of "jutsu (&#34899, do (&#36947, ho (&#27861"..... 



Sanke said:


> I just wanted to pick up on this section, the arts Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of 'battlefield action'. The idea that they turned to spiritual development afterwards due to a lack of large scale combat is inaccurate, as both systems have history of being used in such times (that being said, HNIR's history is more about Musashi being a part of 2-3 battles, rather than the school itself being battlefield oriented, but that's neither here nor there.).



And I'll just point out that HNIR is more about Musashi's dueling experience, rather than his battles. There's questions as to a number of the ones he was said to have been at, and what role he actually might have played. But his dueling experience is definite, and that gives the main "thrust" of the methods found in his Ryu. But one of the battles he was supposed to have been present at was the battle of Sekigahara, which was rather an important one in the scheme of things... 



puunui said:


> Actually if you read the quote carefully within the context of my other responses to you, then it is the exact opposite. As for the mob mentality, everyone at one time thought that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise, I suspect that you would get the same reaction that I am getting. But no matter.



 Frankly, Glenn, that just has me thinking "get over yourself". You are not trying to improve the knowledge of anyone actually involved in the arts, you're pushing your belief which is not what is understood by those who are in the know. Relating it to stating the earth isn't flat is frankly ridiculous.



puunui said:


> I am looking for information, not just unsubstantiated opinions piled on top of each other. But please do not feel that you are intruding. In fact, if you are ever in Hawaii please look me up. I can invite you to the house, we can hang out in the double tatami room upstairs, drink some tea, or if your prefer, some sake and you can tell me all the things that I don't know about the japanese language, culture and martial arts. I also have a lot of japanese art hanging on the walls which you hopefully can explain to me.  And I just remembered, this year's USAT nationals/JOs is in Dallas I believe. Maybe we can stop by your dojo and watch a class. Wednesday and Friday nights, right?
> 
> PS: Congratulations on winning bronze in the nidan division at the batto do tournament. Your teacher, Sensei Ray Hall, as well as the founder of your Ryu, Sensei Michael Park, must be proud of you.



You're looking for information? Really? So why are you continuing to argue with practitioners of the actual arts who tell you what it is actually like? Oh, and for the record, I have been known to go through our art gallery here a number of years ago when we had an ukiyo-e display correcting the guide and giving stories on a number of the characters portrayed. Having the art doesn't mean you understand what it is, nor the culture it comes from.



puunui said:


> I don't know the answer to your pondering question. What I do know is that your style is listed on koryu.com as  Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaijutsu by Sensei Meik and Sensei Diane Skoss.  If you are disturbed by the inaccuracy, then perhaps you should contact  them. Please do not get angry at me for checking out a webpage suggested  by Parker Sensei.
> 
> http://www.koryu.com/guide/eishin.html



Neither Meik nor Dianne train in MJER, though, or the vast majority of the arts listed there. Their arts are Toda-ha Buko Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and Shinto Muso Ryu. 

Say, here's a funny thing, let's look at what Shinto Muso Ryu is listed as on their site.... ah, jojutsu. So you know, Shinto Muso Ryu also has a range of different lines these days, with probably half of them referring to the art as "Jodo", rather than "Jojutsu", as that was a preference of Shimizu Takaji. Hmm, I suppose, according to you, the Skoss's would consider them wrong? So you know, they wouldn't. At all. It's just a preference of the system... I believe such things have been mentioned before, yeah?



puunui said:


> Again, I don't wish to call  what you do iaijutsu; all I did was go to the webpage koryu.com that was  suggested by Parker Sensei. The owners of that page calls your art  iaijutsu, not me. If you wish to get upset, please get upset at them, not me. It's not my webpage.



   Okay, this is bugging me. Glenn, call me Chris. The false deference and loaded humility is a little annoying. Additionally, I'm not Japanese, so using Japanese honorific structure is just odd. And I suggested that site not for the list, but for the articles found there. But, if we're going to get down to it, they're not actually calling Sukerkin's art "Iaijutsu", they have a Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu listed as Iaijutsu. I know that sounds a little confusing, but that's the reality of it. Different lines use different terminology, Sukerkin's use a different one to the one listed on koryu.com. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes, really.



puunui said:


> Well, that is different than  saying there is no difference between the terms Do and Jutsu. There are  differences. You just said so.



There are differences in the words, but the usage can be interchangable.



puunui said:


> And I am sure that if a group preserved the battlefield tactics, weaponry and uniforms from the revolutionary war, they also would say that their methods saw a lot of battlefield action, two hundred something years ago. But say no one used those in a war for the next 200 years, but rather they were simply passed down from generation to generation, without being used in a war. Do you think those revolutionary war tactics (marching on the field in bright red uniforms, all in a line, firing flintlocks and then doing a bayonet charge) still hold validity today, because it was field tested over 235 years ago?



Frankly, Glenn, that's so far from the reality that I'm having trouble seeing where to start... I guess the main thing is that you don't really have any understanding of what "validity" is in Koryu circles. It's nothing like what you're used to.



Sanke said:


> Glenn, you may have missed the point of what I was talking about there.
> I was referring to the fact that many koryu schools have a strong emphasis on spiritual development, as well as being ones that saw heavy battlefield use, so the idea that the more 'spiritual' systems were developed post-meji is rather off.
> 
> Their effectiveness is a modern context has literally nothing to do with this topic, so I'm not sure why you've answered with this honestly.



Just to add to this, let's take Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu as an example. This is a system from the mid-15th Century, a time of intense war which would continue for the next 150 years or so, during which time the art maintained it's methods and approach, as well as through the period of peace that followed. It's teachings stem specifically from what might be considered more "spiritual" ideals, and include stories of the founder of the Ryu (Iizasa Choisai Ienao) doing things like greeting challengers in a particular room, where he would be sitting on a mat supported by only a small number of thin bamboo reeds. He would invite the challenger to sit on a mat next to him, and they would then realize that they were in the presence of an extraordinary person, and the challenge would be dropped. In this way, the system taught that violence is to be avoided (the initial teaching in the school is "Heiho wa Heiho Nari", or "the ways of war give the ways of peace"). At the same time, a Katori swordsman was expected to be able to cut down any other man in a single movement.

So it that art a "do" art, due to the spiritual aspect (including aspects of Mikkyo Buddhism, Shinto), or "jutsu" due to it's highly effective combative methods? It really isn't that cut and dried, you know. 



Sanke said:


> As for jutsu vs do, for me, there is only as much separation as the systems say there is.
> On that list from koryu.com is Muso Shinden Ryu Iaijustu. I practice in that system, but our particular line (and many others) refer to it as iaido. So which one is it? Personally (if we are sticking to the ridged definitions) I would say both.
> In fact, I'd go so far as to say the same about every koryu system I've been exposed to. So yeah, I don't see the difference in that way.



Yep, that's about it. The thing to remember, really, is that, generally speaking, "do" in relation to martial arts is a new trend, more than anything else. It's just the modern preference. Some old systems used it every now and then, but that's it.



puunui said:


> You sound upset *Suk*, but if you say you aren't then I believe you.



Eh, that's not upset from Sukerkin.... trust me, when a guy with a sword is upset, you know about it.... eh, Suk?



puunui said:


> I'm taking everything everyone is saying on board. I wonder though, can you say the same thing about what I am saying?



Are you kidding? You're arguing with those that have the knowledge and experience, telling us that we should take on board what you're saying when you disagree with our, in cases, decades in these arts? Glenn, frankly, if what you were saying was worth us taking on board, you wouldn't be disagreeing with us. At the moment it's like a teacher explaining that 5 times 5 is 25, and you keep saying that in yesterdays lesson you were told that 5 plus 5 was 10. How about you listen to the new lesson you're getting so you can add to yesterdays, huh?



puunui said:


> As for learning from Japanese movie characters, I think there can be times when lessons can be gleaned from them. I would also say that sometimes the wrong things can get learned. I don't know if you watch the show on FoodTV called Iron Chef America. It pits the Iron Chefs against high level competitors from around the country, using a certain ingredient that the Chairman (Mark Dacascos) has selected for them. Anyway, before they announce the winner, the Chairman bows to each competitor. Some bow with their hands on their hips, legs spread apart, others look at the chairman's eyes when bowing. Whenever I see that, I wonder if they got that from the Karate Kid movie, where Miyagi Sensei sternly instructs Daniel San to "Look eye! Always look eye!" when bowing.



Depends on the Ryu and it's Reiho.... there really isn't a single standard, you know... 



puunui said:


> I don't know how I or anyone else was supposed to get your point, given your original post. Here it is for comparison to what you write above:



Honestly, Glenn, I fail to see how you missed it....

(and to steal your next line...)

But no matter. On to your new points:



puunui said:


> Sure, they had to, to survive. No argument about that. And I have no doubt that is what is going on today. You have to do what you have to do to get people interested.



I'm sorry, what? Glenn, the comment was saying that arts didn't develop as battle-hardened, kill 'em all systems, and then later turn spiritual, it was there, hand in hand with the blood, from the get-go. It's not a matter of getting people interested, it's a matter of the construction of the Ryu in the first place. Seriously, I fail to see how you missed that....



puunui said:


> Because in your prior post, you talked about how "the arts  Chris was referring to were actually both founded long before the  Tokugawa/Edo period, in times where there was an awful lot of  'battlefield action'". I just made a comment that the "battlefield action" that you are talking about happened in the 1600s. So again, really all these koryu are doing essentially is what they were trying to do during the tokugawa era, which is preserve something that may have been used in battle, hundreds of years ago. And like those who are preserving revolutionary war tactics, strategy, and weapons, there has to be a reason for doing that other than battlefield effectiveness. I was watching the Japan channel and they had a show about how every year in Japan they reinact famous battles in Japan's history, on the actual battlefield locations. They get dressed up in full samurai armor and then charge each other in sort of a mock battle. To me, koryu is similar to that, except they pay more attention to the details of the moves, and not so much on the battle itself.



The aim of the Koryu is preserving the Ryu, which includes preserving the methods, although that is only as a means of transmitting the mindset (what has been referred to as the "heart and mind" of the Ryu), rather than practical usage. That said, many Ryu do have the idea of whatever you, it has to be realistic to the context. But the idea of the re-enactment is so far outside of Koryu practice that it has no connection. At all. And if that's your understanding, or take on Koryu, you really have absolutely no idea whatsoever, and really shouldn't be arguing with those here.



puunui said:


> Thank you. It is true that I am still learning.



Hmm. That perhaps remains to be seen.



puunui said:


> Once a week. Gee you must have to cover a lot of ground for your students to advance. We'll try to make it if we can. Thanks for giving us the information on the correct day and times. That helps.



Actually, once a week isn't uncommon. The lessons are ways to get correction, the training you do in your own time outside of that. How quickly or slowly a student progresses depends on them. But I gotta say, I'd be with Paul... who says he wants you and your group turning up? With the Koryu groups that I train with, this attitude would have you weeded out before you were ever even told where or when the training was being held.



puunui said:


> Congratulations. Sounds like you got promoted to sandan since your bronze medal batto do tournament win. And all of the above sounds quite impressive, I think, but keep in mind that some may consider boasting about those sorts of things may be a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification.



You didn't really understand what Paul said, did you? He said that you have his association wrong, his rank wrong, his art wrong, and so on. It wasn't boasting any more than you correcting someone who says you do Wing Chun would be. You might want to try reading a little closer....



puunui said:


> Don't really have a stalker file, but it was relatively easy to find your webpage, which looks designed to tell the world about who you are and what you are about. I don't really have my own webpage. Not into it. I don't want people to think that me having something like that might be a mark of the underlying insecurity that will prevent you from ever feeling good about yourself without outside justification.("you" used in the general sense, not the specific).



So what was with the little comment showing some (incorrect) knowledge of who Paul is, then? Honestly, it just made you look a little silly, so I got a laugh, but I also saw the thought process behind it... that was less amusing.



puunui said:


> I tried to follow all of that, but it requires going back and forth between posts, ADHD set in and I got distracted. Let's just assume that you are correct. Easier that way. Not bad for one of Parker Sensei's 7th kyu ninjutsu students. During my distraction, I did do as your Sensei suggested and poked around koryu.com . They have some very interesting, and harsh, opinions on things. Let's see how it fits into the present conversation.



Just a quick heads up, Glenn, Sanke is higher than 7th Kyu, and also trains with me in two separate Koryu systems outside of the arts listed on his profile (psst, Sanke, feel free to update your rank there... it's where Glenn's getting his info about you, so we should keep him up to date).

With regards to the opinions on koryu.com, yeah, I know which you're referring to. Although I don't think you quite get what's being said by them.... they are absolutely right that the modern Ninjutsu organisations aren't Koryu, for quite a number of reasons. I really don't know why you would think that would fit into anything here, though.... 



puunui said:


> I don't know if I said that. This is the quoted part to which you responded:
> 
> "_I am sure there are, given the fact that there were no battlefield action in Japan for over 350 years during the Tokugawa period. I'm sure that the majority realized at some point that their skills would never be used for the battlefield and instead turned to other philosophical reasons to continue training._"
> 
> I had to dig around and found this quote: "But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art." I think I was talking about the Do suffix, but even still, no mention about when they added their "spiritual development" post meiji, which seems to be your main complaint.


 

What would you say you meant when you spoke about arts "turning to other philosophical reasons", and so forth, then? There was no "turning", you realize. 



puunui said:


> Either that or you misread what I actually wrote, and came to a conclusion without foundation. But practicing a koryu, that is an interesting concept. I read this from Sensei Diane Skoss. Do you agree with it?



Ah, this'll be fun. Tell you what, I'll step in instead of Sanke for this one, yeah?



puunui said:


> Another point that is often forgotten is that the very definition of a  classical art is that it is handed down via traditional Japanese  methods of transmission. A koryu MUST be transmitted directly from  master teacher to student, _jikiden_. There is no other way. You  can't learn it through books; you can't learn it through videotapes. In  the modern arts it is sometimes possible (though I'd still argue that it  is inadvisable) when no fully qualified teacher is available, for a  senior student to take charge of instruction. But this will not work  with classical arts. Certainly, there are qualified and authorized  instructors of classical schools who are selling books and videos, but  no one who uses such books can ever be said to have "entered" or worse,  be teaching, that school.
> 
> 
> A lot of so-called classical Japanese schools are springing up all  over the place these days. Each time an unqualified person claims to  teach a Japanese classical tradition it diminishes all authentic  traditions. People are, in some cases, forming their impressions of  koryu based on what is essentially a lie. It's as if someone passed off a  forgery of a great artist as the real thing--it cheats both the artist  and the viewer, and it may well harm the forger too. Just as museum  curators diligently guard against thieves and the taint of counterfeits,  at the same time caring for and preserving the often fragile items in  their charge, so too the _montei_ (student/disciple) of a  Japanese classical bujutsu must protect and conserve the koryu. Too much  information made too readily available makes frauds and  misunderstandings easier to perpetrate. Hence, Meik's seemingly  obstructive comment, "You want koryu. You come to Japan."
> ...



Not a lot to disagree with there (there is a small point of contention in some of the more prevalent systems, particularly Iai, as to what that connection for jikiden to exist actually is, but that's a different argument).



puunui said:


> My question is, are you learning from someone who is: a  person is probably over thirty years old (getting competent in koryu  takes time); they have spent at least five consecutive years in  Japan--this is an absolute minimum, ten or fifteen years is better; they  are able to function in the Japanese language; they hold a license,  presented to them by the headmaster or a master teacher (_menkyo kaiden_),  in one of the classical traditions that are members of either the Nihon  Kobudo Shinkokai, or the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (admittedly, there are a  very small number of schools that for political reasons fall through the  cracks here, but essentially a tradition must be documentable in  Japan); finally they must be able to describe the history and lineage of  the school (this doesn't mean that they can recite these facts off the  tops of their heads, but that when queried they can produce and explain  the information). A person who fulfills all these requirements can claim  to be a qualified practitioner of a koryu. Those who have been awarded  teaching licenses are also authorized to teach.



He is learning from people who maintain connections to authorized instructors, making his study not so much a dojo learning experience, but a study group. Provided the connection is maintained, it's considered legitimate, although he cannot (and does not) claim to be a member of the Ryu at this point. The framework is set in place, though.



puunui said:


> Here is more from Diane Sensei:
> 
> First of all, in the modern world, the koryu are cultural artifacts,  perhaps no longer useful for their original purposes, but worth  preserving as part of the heritage of Japan. We do not train in these  arts in order to be able to use these techniques on the battlefield, but  to further our self-development and to keep four- or  six-hundred-year-old traditions alive. In order to do this we must  always keep our training grounded in an enormously complex cultural and  historical context--one that simply does not exist outside of Japan.  While it may be possible for good aikido to flourish under the guidance  of someone who has not had extensive experience in Japan, this is not  the case for the koryu.



Ah, the particular views of the Skoss' is not necessarily the views held by the Koryu community at large. Their more academic approach is one view, others, such as Kim Taylor, and even members of their own Ryu, would disagree to a fair degree. Just a heads up on that one.



puunui said:


> But more to the point of the discussion: "Modern arts developed primarily for spiritual and social  self-improvement; the classical arts were for fighting. "Do" is  spiritual; "jutsu" is technical. The bujutsu were the arts practiced by a  specific class for use on the battlefields of Japan, the budo have been  opened up to folk of all classes and nationalities.  These distinctions seem pretty clear-cut, but, in general, contrast  the characteristics of bujutsu of the past with the goals of budo in the  present. This seems to cause confusion."



This is rather a general statement, I'd say. There are large numbers of exceptions on both sides... and I'd personally argue with it in it's basic premise. Many "jutsu" arts were completely removed from the battlefields, "do" arts can be very technical, and so on. Making a distinction between classical (Koryu) arts, who tend to use the suffix "jutsu", as that was the dominant vernacular, and more modern systems (gendai), who tend to use the suffix "do", as that is the most dominant vernacular today is more the point, rather than the terminology having that inherent meaning itself. 



puunui said:


> But even if they cause confusion, they are not "the same" as so many here have attempted to point out.



It's not the words that cause the confusion, it's the usage of them, particularly when a distinction is tried too hard to be made. Really, when it all comes down to it, the older arts tend to use the term "jutsu" because that was the popular term used in martial arts then, and the newer arts tend to use the term "do" because that's the popular term today. Getting into why it became popular is where the issue really should be, and yes, the main reason can be to do with a "softening" of the image of martial arts, particularly post WWII (but beginning after the Meiji Restoration... not immediately, but within about 30-50 years). That doesn't necessarily mean a big difference, just a nuance in terms of the "feel" of the descriptions. Again, they're about as different as "method" and "technique" in English.

Okay, now, that's a long post.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 3, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Eh, that's not upset from Sukerkin.... trust me, when a guy with a sword is upset, you know about it.... eh, Suk?




:chuckles:  That one raised a rueful grin, Chris .


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 3, 2012)

Thought you'd like that one... I was just a little worried that it'd get lost in the rest of that slight diatribe I was proffering....


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Feb 3, 2012)

I prefer the balance of both the Do (the way) and the Jutsu (science/art) of the Martial Arts because the way is to control your emotions, learn discipline, and gain self-confidence in yourself. The jutsu is the capability to learn and develop realistic combat. Learning how to defend yourself and your loved ones if necessary.

Here is an article by Iain Abernethy I have read a few years back called Jutsu vs. Do
http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/jutsu-vs-do


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 3, 2012)

Chris, Mark, my friends why are you arguing about JSA with someone who doesn&#8217;t practice JSA? 
As for the rest of you, after you put in at least a decade of practice in a legitimate school with a legitimate teacher, and have expanded your horizons and practiced with other teachers in other lines and schools, then come back and voice an opinion. Then and only then, will there be a shred of credibility.
Everyone, go practice.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 3, 2012)

:grins:  You may have noticed that I soon stopped, Ken .  After all, one of the traits that we learn to cultivate in the sword arts is when to put the sword away and resume our journey :lol:.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Okay so run this by me again.........only joking! I understood so little of this thread my brain hurts.


One small phrase I did get though was Puunui saying Aikido wasn't called Aiki, I've heard many people here call it just that, my instructor among them. At a seminar we went to the Aiki/Aikido people did as well.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Okay so run this by me again.........only joking! I understood so little of this thread my brain hurts.
> 
> 
> One small phrase I did get though was Puunui saying Aikido wasn't called Aiki, I've heard many people here call it just that, my instructor among them. At a seminar we went to the Aiki/Aikido people did as well.



You're not the only one to get a headache reading this one...

I've hear it called Aiki, Aikido and Aikijutsu sometimes, as with most things in this vein in comes down to your teacher, lineage, etc. And to be frank, I don't really hold Glenn's opinion on JMA in high regard, from his posts.


Sanke on the move.


----------



## puunui (Feb 3, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Next, while all martial arts were originally banned, the ones that were allowed (such as Kendo) weren't allowed because they "focused on spiritual development", it was more to do with not forcing the Japanese so far down that the only option would be to revolt or be thoroughly "culturally" destroyed.
> 
> Here is what the Bilingual Guide to the History of Kendo written by Toshinobu Sakai and Alexander Bennett says about it:
> 
> ...


----------



## puunui (Feb 3, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Why would they? Seriously, why would they?



You're the one who said this, seriously you're the one who said this: 




Chris Parker said:


> Because the only distinction is what term a particular system decides to use... which can change over time.



I'm just wondering if you think those arts I mentioned can or would change over time.




Chris Parker said:


> Yet your short comment showed a lack of understanding of what the different ranking systems actually relate to. I may think twice before trying to add to your education in future. After this post, mainly cause I'm just a little ticked off at the way you're questioning those who have been there, done that, and, in many cases, continue to do.



How so? All I said was this: "_Never said that Daito Ryu or koryu cannot use dan ranks. They can do whatever they want. I would say that if they do adopt such things, that it is a new innovation and not something passed down for hundreds of years, like the techniques are or were._" 




Chris Parker said:


> In terms of Japanese Karate, no there wasn't. There was an introduced system of Okinawan Te by Gichin Funakoshi (first in 1918, from memory), but until Shotokan was developed (in the Showa period) there was no "Japanese Karate".



But that isn't what you said originally: 



Chris Parker said:


> there was no Karate in Japan prior to the Showa period (early 20th Century), let alone "Karatedo"...



You weren't talking about "Japanese Karate"; you said "Karate in Japan" which there obviously was prior to the showa period through Funakoshi Sensei and even Motobu Sensei.




Chris Parker said:


> Additionally, the term "Karate" wasn't used (with those kanji) until the 30's (1936, to be precise). And I'm not ignoring the annex, but the Ryukyu Islands were still considered their own kingdom, not really part of Japan, more like the way Australia is a colony of England, not English.



Incorrect. Again, karate was in use at least as far back as the 19th century, because there are references to it in books. I don't think an internet search will reveal that information though. 




Chris Parker said:


> You mean that books written for a Japanese audience to take advantage of the Japanese interest in this new martial art used common terminology (added "jutsu") in order to give some sense of what the art contained are what you're looking at in terms of the actual usage for the origins of the Okinawan art? You do realize that each of those people referred to their art simply as "Te" ("Tii" in the Okinawan dialect), or "Tode/Todii", with no reference to "jutsu" whatsoever. It was added for the books to give a reference to Jujutsu, which was a commonly known term referring to an unarmed martial art.



Even if what you say is true (which it isn't), the above is different from what you originally stated, which is that there was no such term as karatejutsu.



Chris Parker said:


> _There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either_






Chris Parker said:


> And, again, the idea of the rest of the populace being "disarmed" is wildly inaccurate. Anyone who could afford them could get weapons, many rich merchants, social leaders, and others had quite a bit. The only restrictions on owning weapons was that only the samurai could wear the Daisho (long and short swords as a pair). Anyone could wear just a long sword, or just a short sword, or a long sword and a jutte, or have a range of other weapons.



Here is the edit by TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi: "The people in the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in  their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms or  other arms. _The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprisings_...  Therefore the heads of provinces, official agents and deputies are  ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to  the Government."

There was also I believe a general ban on firearms as well. 



Chris Parker said:


> And finally, where is it written that "battlefield" experience is what makes the martial art? Look to dueling systems, they aren't related to battlefield combat, as they deal far more with personal one-on-one combat, and they are absolutely martial arts. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a great example, I'd also look to the primary kenjutsu system, such as the various Itto Ryu, the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, arts such as Masaki Ryu (chain weapons), Shinto Muso Ryu (jo), Nito Shinkage Ryu (kusarigama and sword), Negishi Ryu (shuriken), and many many many others.



Dueling is "competition" isn't it? Over and above that, Diane Skoss Sensei says this: The  bujutsu were the arts practiced by a specific class for use on the  battlefields of Japan, the budo have been opened up to folk of all  classes and nationalities.




Chris Parker said:


> I don't think Miura Sensei would be to blame about the errors, but whoever put the site together. And yes, there are errors there. There's no question on that.



Go tell Miura Sensei then. 




Chris Parker said:


> Please tell me you're not trying to educate me on Jukendo there Glenn.



In addition, here is a jukenjutsu manual published in January 1942 by the Toyama Military School. I wanted to buy it, $180 is cheap, but someone beat me to it.
http://www.budovideos.com/shop/customer/product.php?productid=19743&cat=&page=1




Chris Parker said:


> I took the first sentence (the reason for the usage of "do") as being the formative premise of the entire paragraph, so by disagreeing with that construct, I was dismissing the reason given for the rest. Kong Soo Do might give that as part of it's reasoning, but it just comes down to the founders/leaders of the art deciding to use the term for whatever reasons they decided to, nothing inherent about "do" necessarily meaning "self discovery".



Ok, so you have no information or comment on the reasons for the use of the name Kong Soo Do in Korea then. No problem.




Chris Parker said:


> Karate-do doesn't necessarily mean sport, as there are quite a few forms that don't deal with sport at all.



Maybe today, but when the name first was developed, (using your start date of 1936, which I do not know is accurate but let's assume that is true), was the time when the Shotokan group was developing kumite and sparring. By the way, Funakoshi Sensei is generally credited with the change from the Kara meaning tang or china to the kara character meaning empty, but what is not so known is that he also changed the suffix from jutsu to do at the same time. So the name went from karatejutsu (toudejutsu) to karatedo (empty hand way). 




Chris Parker said:


> Same with the usage of Kendo in some old traditions. Jukendo is not the sporting form of Jukenjutsu, mainly as pretty much all usage of the term "Jukenjutsu" is used in modern groups, who also deal with sporting competition.



See my link to the jukenjutsu manual from 1942 above. 



Chris Parker said:


> There were a range of Jujutsu systems that dealt in forms of competition, as well as Kenjutsu groups that did, a famous Koryu Sojutsu (spear) system, Owari-Kan Ryu, begin their training with free-form competition (shiai) before moving on to kata practice
> 
> Right, after sitting around for 350 years with no war, they had to do something. competition was a natural outflow of that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 4, 2012)

Another long one.... enjoy!



Ken Morgan said:


> Chris, Mark, my friends why are you arguing about JSA with someone who doesn&#8217;t practice JSA?
> As for the rest of you, after you put in at least a decade of practice in a legitimate school with a legitimate teacher, and have expanded your horizons and practiced with other teachers in other lines and schools, then come back and voice an opinion. Then and only then, will there be a shred of credibility.
> Everyone, go practice.



Yep, very good advice.... however....



Sukerkin said:


> :grins:  You may have noticed that I soon stopped, Ken .  After all, one of the traits that we learn to cultivate in the sword arts is when to put the sword away and resume our journey :lol:.



Sure, but I'm not a quitter....  ha!



Tez3 said:


> Okay so run this by me again.........only joking! I understood so little of this thread my brain hurts.
> 
> 
> One small phrase I did get though was Puunui saying Aikido wasn't called Aiki, I've heard many people here call it just that, my instructor among them. At a seminar we went to the Aiki/Aikido people did as well.





Sanke said:


> You're not the only one to get a headache reading this one...
> 
> I've hear it called Aiki, Aikido and Aikijutsu sometimes, as with most things in this vein in comes down to your teacher, lineage, etc. And to be frank, I don't really hold Glenn's opinion on JMA in high regard, from his posts.
> 
> ...



Right. Some clearing up of nomenclature here as well, then. When you have Aikido practitioners referring to "aiki" the reference is to the aiki concept, not the art of aikido, nor aikijutsu. Aikijutsu practitioners do sometimes just refer to their art as "Aiki", particularly in Daito Ryu, as there are a range of different levels of practice in the art, including Aikijutsu and Aikijujutsu, so to talk about the overall art, the term Aiki might be used.

So basically, it's saying that the art (Aikido/Aikijutsu/Aikijujutsu) is the study of Aiki (as a concept... which is a much bigger discussion than we need to get into here!).

Right, Glenn.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Next, while all martial arts were originally banned, the ones that were allowed (such as Kendo) weren't allowed because they "focused on spiritual development", it was more to do with not forcing the Japanese so far down that the only option would be to revolt or be thoroughly "culturally" destroyed.
> ...



Er, right? And which part of all that says that the reason Kendo was re-introduced was because it was dealing with spiritual development?

Oh, and I'm most likely far more familiar with Muto Ryu than you, Glenn, as well as myriad other systems, taking a single art as indicative of anything other than that single art just doesn't work.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they? Seriously, why would they?
> ...



To begin with, your entire premise is desperately flawed. The idea that Karate-do as a whole, or each Kendo dojo, or even all Judo dojo change the terminology of the art shows a lack of understanding again of what you're talking about. Individual systems decide what they wish to be known as, it's not like each and every Jujutsu system got together and decided to use the same name, and will then take a vote to change it at some point. I mean, just on Jujutsu, terms used include Taijutsu, Yawara, Yawaragei, Wa, Wajutsu, Te, Hade, Goho, Kumiuchi, Koshi no Mawari (also used in some systems for their Iai syllabus), Yoroi Kumiuchi, Ju, Judo, Torite, Hakuda, Kenpo, and more. Including Karate, but not Karatejutsu or Karatedo.

If a system decides to change the terminology they use, that's up to them, and the reasons are internal. For instance, as mentioned Shinto Muso Ryu Jo is referred to as Jojutsu or Jodo, depending on the preference within the particular organisation... and it has nothing to do with personal development being in some, but not others. So your idea of asking if I see them (karate, judo, kendo) changing any time soon is just a bizarre, pointless question. 



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Yet your short comment showed a lack of understanding of what the different ranking systems actually relate to. I may think twice before trying to add to your education in future. After this post, mainly cause I'm just a little ticked off at the way you're questioning those who have been there, done that, and, in many cases, continue to do.
> ...



Yep, that's the comment. As Ken said, honestly, if you come back after 10 or so years exposure to Koryu teachings and methods, you might see what is missing there, but it's not so easy to explain to someone who can't already see it. But to give you a clue, it's found in the phrases "a new innovation" and "passed down for hundreds of years"....



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of Japanese Karate, no there wasn't. There was an introduced system of Okinawan Te by Gichin Funakoshi (first in 1918, from memory), but until Shotokan was developed (in the Showa period) there was no "Japanese Karate".
> ...



Sorry, Glenn, I figured I'd use simplified terms to help you out... if that confused you, the rest isn't going to make much sense either, I'm afraid.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Additionally, the term "Karate" wasn't used (with those kanji) until the 30's (1936, to be precise). And I'm not ignoring the annex, but the Ryukyu Islands were still considered their own kingdom, not really part of Japan, more like the way Australia is a colony of England, not English.
> ...



The particular syllables, with different Kanji, and relating to a very different art, were in use. But what is currently known as "Karate" was not. For the record, I know of references to the term back as far as the 16th Century.... but again, I thought that'd probably confuse you, as it refers to a completely different form of martial art. The art we know as Karate was not officially recognised in Japan by the martial associations there until 1933.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > You mean that books written for a Japanese audience to take advantage of the Japanese interest in this new martial art used common terminology (added "jutsu") in order to give some sense of what the art contained are what you're looking at in terms of the actual usage for the origins of the Okinawan art? You do realize that each of those people referred to their art simply as "Te" ("Tii" in the Okinawan dialect), or "Tode/Todii", with no reference to "jutsu" whatsoever. It was added for the books to give a reference to Jujutsu, which was a commonly known term referring to an unarmed martial art.
> ...



You're kidding, right? You're basing the statement that my comment isn't correct on what, exactly? I mean, I state that the term "Karatejutsu" wasn't used, you bring up a couple of books with the title "Todejutsu", and somehow that's you saying that Karatejutsu was used?!? You did read what you wrote yourself, yeah?



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > A
> ...



Okay, history lesson time? The ban on firearms was enforced under the Tokugawa regime, not Toyotomi's. Toyotomi made a number of proclamations, with ones such as the one you reference not really continuing past his reign, and had a range of reasons that you are likely unaware of (as well as his rule that you had to be born into a samurai family in order to be a samurai... that wasn't the case before him, you know). And I was referring to the Tokugawa period, which is where the edict (correct word there, Glenn...) on the wearing of Daisho came into being, as well as many others. You know, the exact period you were referencing in your comments? Good try, though.... it's not easy looking at samurai history, as most want it to be the same across the entire span, when it actually went for over 1,000 years....  



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > And finally, where is it written that "battlefield" experience is what makes the martial art? Look to dueling systems, they aren't related to battlefield combat, as they deal far more with personal one-on-one combat, and they are absolutely martial arts. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a great example, I'd also look to the primary kenjutsu system, such as the various Itto Ryu, the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, arts such as Masaki Ryu (chain weapons), Shinto Muso Ryu (jo), Nito Shinkage Ryu (kusarigama and sword), Negishi Ryu (shuriken), and many many many others.
> ...



Dianne is wrong.

Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, for example, has always been open to the populace, it's something they pride themselves on, and they are absolutely a "bujutsu/battlefield" system. And there are a range of non-battlefield systems that were incredibly closed off... such as Shinto Muso Ryu Jojutsu. It's a dueling-based system using a short staff, but for most of it's existance was only taught in one small location, never outside of a particular domain, and, in demonstrations, would only ever show the one kata. Later, a branch started displaying a section that wasn't even part of the Ryu itself, hiding even that one kata previously shown. Oh, and that art, as said, also uses the "do" affectation in a number of cases.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Miura Sensei would be to blame about the errors, but whoever put the site together. And yes, there are errors there. There's no question on that.
> ...



Er, did you actually read what I said? Mrs Miura wouldn't be the one to be told, if anyone is to be informed. But tell you what, if they're around the corner from you, how about you ask them why they use the incorrect "jitsu" on their site? Get them to show you the kanji they're using and rendering into romanji... if it's &#34899;, then it's "jutsu", with no variations.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me you're not trying to educate me on Jukendo there Glenn.
> ...



Well done... you did notice my qualifier of "pretty much all usage of the term", yeah? I am aware of some usage of "Jukenjutsu" previously, but it wasn't the most common. In fact, Juken was, no suffix at all.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > I took the first sentence (the reason for the usage of "do") as being the formative premise of the entire paragraph, so by disagreeing with that construct, I was dismissing the reason given for the rest. Kong Soo Do might give that as part of it's reasoning, but it just comes down to the founders/leaders of the art deciding to use the term for whatever reasons they decided to, nothing inherent about "do" necessarily meaning "self discovery".
> ...



They use the term because they decided to use the term for whatever reasons they decided to use the term, Glenn. It doesn't mean that every art that uses it uses it for the same reason. That's why the entire paragraph was disagreed with.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Karate-do doesn't necessarily mean sport, as there are quite a few forms that don't deal with sport at all.
> ...



You're going to accept my date, are you? How generous, Glenn. For your information, though, Funakoshi is not generally credited with changing the written character except by people who have no idea. He wasn't present when the change was made, but persons such as Motobu and Miyagi were. And, one more time, there was no suffix of either "jutsu" or "do". The usage of "jutsu" was artificially added to give reference to the Japanese audience, it was not used in the art itself.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Same with the usage of Kendo in some old traditions. Jukendo is not the sporting form of Jukenjutsu, mainly as pretty much all usage of the term "Jukenjutsu" is used in modern groups, who also deal with sporting competition.
> ...



Honestly, it doesn't support anything counter to my comment, Glenn. 



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > There were a range of Jujutsu systems that dealt in forms of competition, as well as Kenjutsu groups that did, a famous Koryu Sojutsu (spear) system, Owari-Kan Ryu, begin their training with free-form competition (shiai) before moving on to kata practice
> ...



Wow, are you wrong there.... Owari-Kan Ryu has always been structured that way, it wasn't a later addition to the training. Seriously, you are completely out of your depth here. 



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > It's distinguished within the terminology used to distinguish different sections of the training, such as Shiai, Randori Geiko, and so on. I just don't know the Korean for "sport", that's all.
> ...


 
Is he? He's asking for a distinction for sport training as opposed to self defence training, whether that is all in the one school, or a particular schools focus. I'm pointing out that, in each of these arts, there is a distinction in terminology. For instance, in Judo, you have Nage-waza (further subdivided into te waza, ashi waza), you have Ne-waza, you have Shime-waza, you have Shiai randori (that's the sporting bit), you have Goshinjutsu (that's the self defence bit), you have Kime no Kata, you have Koshiki no Kata (that's an old training form from Kito Ryu Jujutsu). Each part of the training has it's own terminology, so you don't confuse doing the self defence with doing the old style kata, with the shiai practice. I just don't think you get what's actually being said.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Except that left your argument rather lacking, really.
> ...



It's not a matter of my trawling the internet, Glenn, it's a matter of my being involved in Japanese arts for two decades. And that adds up to a lot more than just 'book knowledge'. You replied to a comment about the usage of suffixes in Iai with a naginata school page. And missed entirely what was being said on both sides. That left your argument rather lacking, and no amount of seeing "issues" in my posts to you, especially considering the attitude displayed in yours, changes that.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Really.... So the suffix is important to show the distinction of the syllabus taught within the system, so much so that giving the incorrect one shows a different idea of what the arts aims and methods are, but that very important piece of the information can be left off without any indication that it's not important?
> ...



Then re-read it. If it's important, it won't be left off. If it's left off, it's an indication that it's not the important factor.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > That quote was found in a post in an unrelated discussion from a number of years ago, yet you chose to take it as if it was the current comment and continue it with your comments... which seems to indicate that it was part of your thinking as well.
> ...




The idea of "superior people" had no bearing on the topic here, you chose to pick up on it, which showed it had relevance in your thinking. Surely that's obvious, yeah?



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between the words ("jutsu" and "do"), the same way there is a difference in English between saying "techniques" and "methods". Both have a slightly different emphasis but can mean, and be applied, to much the same thing with no confusion. And can be used interchangably pretty commonly.
> ...




Dianne is wrong.

I will say there is a small percentage of people in the Koryu community who want to designate Koryu that were founded prior to the Tokugawa period as "Koryu Bujutsu", and those afterwards as "Koryu Budo", but their argument is rather flawed and requires generalisation to the point that you need to go through and find if each art you're looking at is an exception or not. Try telling karate practitioners that their art isn't designed to fight with (technical). Try telling Kendo people that what they're doing is about spiritual development... for many, it's just fun. Try telling a practitioner of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu that, because their art doesn't deal with the battlefield, it's not concerned with actual fighting. Her argument as you present it there just doesn't work.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, for crying out loud. Kendo isn't Kendo because of any distinction, real or imagined, between jutsu and do, it is because Kendo is a specific martial art which has the name "Kendo".
> ...



That argument is ridiculous, Glenn. You're grasping at straws. You wouldn't call it Kenjutsu as it's Kendo. That is the name of the specific training and art. But, for the record, you could refer to any number of Kenjutsu Ryu-ha as being a form of Kendo.... except if you were naming the specific sections of their syllabus. But even then, Kenjutsu might not be correct, it might be Tachijutsu, Kenpo, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Tojutsu, iai, Iaisuemonogiri, Iaido, Iaijutsu, Batto, Battojutsu, Battodo, Batto-ho, Biken, Bikenjutsu, Kenjutsu no Ho, and any of a number of other terms.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Please, Glenn, you do realize that my information comes directly from people who trained under and with Draeger Sensei himself? Safe to say, they don't believe that that's the case at all. Nor do pretty much anyone who has any experience with Japanese Koryu systems. There is a little debate, but it's quite a bit above this level, and has a lot more subtlety to the nuances of the Japanese language and it's usage itself.
> ...



A difference in the particular words, not the usage in this context. Seriously, I've said that a few times now... 



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Hatsumi isn't the head of my organisation,
> ...



You need to improve your information gathering, Glenn. We left the Bujinkan over a decade ago. 



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > I see Paul corrected you on your comments on his art... I did laugh when I saw that....).
> ...


 
Are you sure you were on the right site, and not just an old, un-updated one that is no longer in use or current? You do need to improve your information gathering if you're going to keep this up.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, those that come from other cultures are, in a number of cases, considered more driven to understand, and can come to an understanding faster than those who are naturally in the culture themselves. This is due to a range of factors, such as certain elements not being focused on (due to their common presence in the culture itself), but the foreigner looking at it, notices the nuance, and realizes what should be going on in a deeper way than the native student.
> ...


 
It's not a matter of "feeling that way", Glenn, it's an accurate observation made by many others apart from myself. You might want to look beyond what you think you know once in a while.



puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > To be frank, no, it's not. It's considered inaccurate and outdated, missing the actual usage and nuances of the terminology. Koryu (and terminology) knowledge in the West is a fair bit more advanced three decades later.
> ...



Hang on, didn't we just cover this? Did you only find one quote to support yourself? Tell you what, here's another one from her for you, it's nice and short:http://www.koryu.com/library/koryubudo.html

The relevant part is the last line:So to answer the question: "What's the difference between koryu budo, kobudo, kobujutsu, and koryu bujutsu?" For all practical purposes, there is none.

[/FONT]





puunui said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't not use "do" because they were waiting for the Meiji Restoration in the 16th Century, you know...
> ...



Are you serious with that? What possible basis do you have for such a comment? The reason you don't see "do" much in the old arts is the same reason you rarely see "you" in Shakespearean works... it just wasn't what was said at the time. They said "thou", and in the arts, they said "jutsu". When all is said and done, that's the reality of it. It has nothing at all to do with who understood philosophies, it was to do with what was in vogue at the time. 



puunui said:


> And with that, I will leave you for today. I promised to go to a carnival being hosted by President Obama's old high school, and I need to get to that. Later.



Please, if you come back, come back with an open mind and ear, or try to have actual arguements. Oh, and quoting properly would be nice too. Ah, that looks taken care of now. All good.


----------



## puunui (Feb 7, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> After this post, mainly cause I'm just a little ticked off at the way  you're questioning those who have been there, done that, and, in many  cases, continue to do.



Yes, I notice that you seem "ticked off" about a lot of things, perhaps everything. There is an undercurrent of anger in all your posts, not just the ones directed at me. Anyway, hope it works out for you Parker Sensei.




Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and for the record, I have been known to go through our art gallery here a number of years ago when we had an ukiyo-e display correcting the guide and giving stories on a number of the characters portrayed.



I can totally see you doing that. 



Chris Parker said:


> Having the art doesn't mean you understand what it is, nor the culture it comes from.



Maybe not. But personally, I rather have the art and not know what it is, than the other way around. Don't you? As for not understanding Japanese culture, well, I guess you can feel you understand it better than I do. You can believe whatever you want. 



Chris Parker said:


> The false deference and loaded humility is a little annoying. Additionally, I'm not Japanese, so using Japanese honorific structure is just odd.



Tell that to your koryu friends. I think they rather enjoy their japanese titles. 



Chris Parker said:


> And I suggested that site not for the list, but for the articles found there. But, if we're going to get down to it, they're not actually calling Sukerkin's art "Iaijutsu", they have a Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu listed as Iaijutsu. I know that sounds a little confusing, but that's the reality of it. Different lines use different terminology, Sukerkin's use a different one to the one listed on koryu.com. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes, really.



I never said Suk's art was listed on koryu.com. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes, really. 




Chris Parker said:


> Just to add to this, let's take Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu as an example. This is a system from the mid-15th Century, a time of intense war which would continue for the next 150 years or so, during which time the art maintained it's methods and approach, as well as through the period of peace that followed. It's teachings stem specifically from what might be considered more "spiritual" ideals, and include stories of the founder of the Ryu (Iizasa Choisai Ienao) doing things like greeting challengers in a particular room, where he would be sitting on a mat supported by only a small number of thin bamboo reeds. He would invite the challenger to sit on a mat next to him, and they would then realize that they were in the presence of an extraordinary person, and the challenge would be dropped. In this way, the system taught that violence is to be avoided (the initial teaching in the school is "Heiho wa Heiho Nari", or "the ways of war give the ways of peace"). At the same time, a Katori swordsman was expected to be able to cut down any other man in a single movement.



That is sort of like a circus performer inviting someone to fight up on the tightrope. Why would anyone do that? And who knows if those stories are true. I don't know if it is as old as the one you told, but they said that George Washington cut down a cherry tree, and when his father asked if he did it, George Washington answered "I cannot tell a lie. I did it." 




Chris Parker said:


> Eh, that's not upset from Sukerkin.... trust me, when a guy with a sword is upset, you know about it.... eh, Suk?



Have you ever heard of the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight? Don't know why I thought of that just now, but even that doesn't apply because Suk wouldn't even be carrying his swords to the fight. Instead the swords would be nicely wrapped and cared for, at home. Speaking of swords at home, maybe if you visit, we can visit my uncle's house and view a sword in mint pristine condition that has been in the family for.... a very long time. Razor sharp too, the kind of thing a gaijin koryu practitioner could only dream of possessing. I don't think anyone in the family will ever sell it, but if they did, I would think someone could retire off of the sales amount. Personally, I think it belongs in a museum, and if it ever filters down to me, that's where it is going. 



Chris Parker said:


> The aim of the Koryu is preserving the Ryu, which includes preserving the methods, although that is only as a means of transmitting the mindset (what has been referred to as the "heart and mind" of the Ryu), rather than practical usage. That said, many Ryu do have the idea of whatever you, it has to be realistic to the context. But the idea of the re-enactment is so far outside of Koryu practice that it has no connection. At all. And if that's your understanding, or take on Koryu, you really have absolutely no idea whatsoever, and really shouldn't be arguing with those here.



Personally, I think you take yourselves much too seriously. I find the whole thing quite humorous. Here you and the others are, trying to preserve the methods and the mindset and the traditions, when the reality of it is that if the traditions were really preserved and followed, you and your koryu friends wouldn't even be allowed to study those koryu. I, or someone like me, on the other hand, would not only be allowed to study, we would be required to do so. I guess that is the real difference, from my point of view. You have been quite entertaining. 



Chris Parker said:


> Actually, once a week isn't uncommon. The lessons are ways to get correction, the training you do in your own time outside of that. How quickly or slowly a student progresses depends on them. But I gotta say, I'd be with Paul... who says he wants you and your group turning up? With the Koryu groups that I train with, this attitude would have you weeded out before you were ever even told where or when the training was being held.



Would I be "weeded" out? Funny, but I personally believe that the heads of the styles that you have spoken about would welcome me to study with them. Those types generally like me the most. It is usually those much farther down the totem pole that tend to resent or take positions against me, not the head of style types. That has generally been my experience. I remember I went to pound mochi for the first time. I don't know if you ever done it before, but there is a grinding stage, a multi man pounding stage, and a single man pounding stage. During the single man stage, one person turns the mochi while the other pounds. There is a rhythm to it and you have to be in sync with your partner. Generally the turning person is the most senior, most experienced pounder. So on my first try, I did the single man pounding. Prior to pounding all the other people were giving me advice on how to hold the mallet, how to pound, etc. Afterwards, everyone was asking me how I held my mallet, if I had pounded before, etc. The head person who was turning, looked at me with approval with his sparkling eyes, his only comment to me being "good." I later found out he studied and taught some sort of japanese sword art, but I wasn't really interested in learning, so I let it go. 




Chris Parker said:


> You didn't really understand what Paul said, did you? He said that you have his association wrong, his rank wrong, his art wrong, and so on. It wasn't boasting any more than you correcting someone who says you do Wing Chun would be. You might want to try reading a little closer....



I understood what he was saying. But he really needs to update his webpage. 




Chris Parker said:


> Just a quick heads up, Glenn, Sanke is higher than 7th Kyu, and also trains with me in two separate Koryu systems outside of the arts listed on his profile.



Sorry, 5th kyu then. my mistake. 



Chris Parker said:


> they are absolutely right that the modern Ninjutsu organisations aren't Koryu, for quite a number of reasons.



I really enjoyed the story that your ninjutsu teacher told about his teacher's encounter with Michael Enchanis, how he felt he was a ninja, even though he had never studied ninjutsu before. 



Chris Parker said:


> He is learning from people who maintain connections to authorized instructors, making his study not so much a dojo learning experience, but a study group. Provided the connection is maintained, it's considered legitimate, although he cannot (and does not) claim to be a member of the Ryu at this point. The framework is set in place, though.



That was a little vague, but that's ok. 



Chris Parker said:


> Ah, the particular views of the Skoss' is not necessarily the views held by the Koryu community at large. Their more academic approach is one view, others, such as Kim Taylor, and even members of their own Ryu, would disagree to a fair degree. Just a heads up on that one.



But the "academic" approach, by Draeger Sensei is what opened up at least some of the arts to westerners in the first place. It was that educated, polite, respectful approach that is what impressed those teachers, not the exclusionary vibe that is presented by koryu practitioners, at least in this thread. 



Chris Parker said:


> This is rather a general statement, I'd say. There are large numbers of exceptions on both sides... and I'd personally argue with it in it's basic premise. Many "jutsu" arts were completely removed from the battlefields, "do" arts can be very technical, and so on. Making a distinction between classical (Koryu) arts, who tend to use the suffix "jutsu", as that was the dominant vernacular, and more modern systems (gendai), who tend to use the suffix "do", as that is the most dominant vernacular today is more the point, rather than the terminology having that inherent meaning itself.



I think that Diane Skoss Sensei's comment is worth exploring on this particular point:

"Modern arts developed primarily for spiritual and social self-improvement; the classical arts were for fighting. "Do" is spiritual; "jutsu" is technical. The bujutsu were the arts *practiced by a specific class* for use on the battlefields of Japan, the budo have been *opened up to folk of all classes and nationalities*. These distinctions seem pretty clear-cut, but, in general, contrast the characteristics of bujutsu of the past with the goals of budo in the present. This seems to cause confusion."

The specific class mentioned was, of course, the samurai or bushi class in Japan, who underwent a much different type of education and training than those of other classes such has farmers, artisans and merchants. That education and training that samurai underwent as part of their upbringing, learning the "ways" of bushi, was not emphasized during martial arts training. It didn't need to be; it was already there. Instead, the samurai, when learning specific weapons, needed those specific techniques to learn how to use the weapon itself, in much the same way that a soldier learns to fire his rifle. The focus during rifle training, or jump training, land navigation, whatever is on the specific skill set, not on the honor of being a soldier. 

However, when the arts were opened up to non bushi during the meiji period and afterwards, those who were now learning did not have that samurai or bushi background. Therefore, those samurai ideals and values needed to be taught in addition to the weapon or technical skills being imparted. In passing those skills on, the philosophy was passed on through the training, hence a change to "do", rather than simply "jutsu". 

Today, koryu arts or non koryu arts are all learned by non samurai, and therefore, you can see how some would say "jutsu" or "do" is the same. Because they are today, in all arts, you get the philosophical, spiritual, and technical training all wrapped up in one, so much so that I think that those who practice koryu art actually imagine themselves to be samurai, with their kimono, and all the trappings, accepted like how Tom Cruise was in the movie Last Samurai, looking down at me like I was from the peasant or undesireable class, unworthy of learning the ways of a true samurai, like they think they are. 

And I have to tell you, I think it's funny, at least from my perspective. So in that sense, perhaps it would do your koryu friends some good to see my face, so that they can perhaps understand what the mochi pounding leader saw when he saw me pounding mochi.


----------



## puunui (Feb 7, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> As Ken said, honestly, if you come back after 10 or so years exposure to Koryu teachings and methods, you might see what is missing there, but it's not so easy to explain to someone who can't already see it.



I guess so.



Chris Parker said:


> The particular syllables, with different Kanji, and relating to a very different art, were in use. But what is currently known as "Karate" was not. For the record, I know of references to the term back as far as the 16th Century.... but again, I thought that'd probably confuse you, as it refers to a completely different form of martial art.



Why would that confuse me? I said this remember?




puunui said:


> Even if none of that were true, "karate" (written with the characters for "empty hand"), *unrelated to the okinawa's toude*, is mentioned in 19th century japanese books. Some speculate that this native japanese "karate" inspired Funakoshi Sensei to change the first character from tou or tang, to kara or empty, as a bridge to making toude truly japanese. The term was already known and used in Japan, and if you remember, the objections to the character change from tang to empty came from Okinawa and Okinawans, not Japan or mainland Japanese.


 




Chris Parker said:


> You're kidding, right? You're basing the statement that my comment isn't correct on what, exactly? I mean, I state that the term "Karatejutsu" wasn't used, you bring up a couple of books with the title "Todejutsu", and somehow that's you saying that Karatejutsu was used?!?



Actually you said this: 



Chris Parker said:


> _there was no Karate in Japan prior to the Showa period (early 20th Century), let alone "Karatedo"... but, for the record, "Karatedo", and, really "Karate" itself, were terms that were adopted after the introduction to Japan in the first place._





To which I responded with this:



puunui said:


> Actually there was karate in Japan prior to the showa period (which started in 1926). Funakoshi Sensei came to Japan in 1922 and by 1924, he was giving dan rank to students and also establishing karate clubs in Keio dai and other Japan universities. This is of course assuming that you ignore the fact that Okinawa was annexed by Japan in 1872, was made a Japanese prefecture in 1879, Okinawa citizens were given the right to vote in 1890 and Okinawa remains a part of Japan, as it has been for about 140 years, over 50 years prior to the showa period.


 

You also said this:




Chris Parker said:


> There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either, so looking for  that isn't going to help you in finding a distinction between "jutsu"  and "do". Early terms used in Okinawa were primarily Te, Tode, Shuri-te,  Naha-te etc.



To which I responded with this: 




puunui said:


> That would be a valid argument if we ignored the following book titles:
> 
> Rentan Goshin Toude-jutsu (1925) by FUNAKOSHI Gichin
> Ryukyu Kenpo Toude-jutsu. Kumite-hen' (1926) by MOTOBU Choki
> ...



It is obvious that you have spent a lot of time searching the internet for information, so at least you come with facts, which is refreshing. But the above leaves me with the impression that you are not so much interested in having an honest discussion. I do not know if this is a ninjutsu thing or not, but personally, I think it is a waste of time to go over old ground like this. 



Chris Parker said:


> Dianne is wrong.



If Diane Skoss Sensei is "wrong", then why direct me to her webpage? 





Chris Parker said:


> Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, for example, has always been open to the populace, it's something they pride themselves on, and they are absolutely a "bujutsu/battlefield" system.



Yes, you are very good at pointing out the exception to the general rule, but pointing to an exception does not negate the general rule, it just shows that there are exceptions. 




Chris Parker said:


> Er, did you actually read what I said? Mrs Miura wouldn't be the one to be told, if anyone is to be informed. But tell you what, if they're around the corner from you, how about you ask them why they use the incorrect "jitsu" on their site? Get them to show you the kanji they're using and rendering into romanji... if it's &#34899;, then it's "jutsu", with no variations.



Well, it is her school that is being put up on that webpage, so the buck stops with her, not the webmaster. And you ask them why they say jitsu instead of jutsu. I personally don't care. 




Chris Parker said:


> I am aware of some usage of "Jukenjutsu" previously, but it wasn't the most common. In fact, Juken was, no suffix at all.



Not according to that 1942 jukenjutsu manual published by the Toyama Military School. 



Chris Parker said:


> For your information, though, Funakoshi is not generally credited with changing the written character except by people who have no idea. He wasn't present when the change was made, but persons such as Motobu and Miyagi were.



Are you talking about that 1936 meeting of okinawan masters?



Chris Parker said:


> And, one more time, there was no suffix of either "jutsu" or "do". The usage of "jutsu" was artificially added to give reference to the Japanese audience, it was not used in the art itself.



But contradict yourself, because you admit that there was jutsu added. There are books to prove it, irrespective of your explanation as to why. 




Chris Parker said:


> He's asking for a distinction for sport training as opposed to self defence training, whether that is all in the one school, or a particular schools focus. I'm pointing out that, in each of these arts, there is a distinction in terminology. For instance, in Judo, you have Nage-waza (further subdivided into te waza, ashi waza), you have Ne-waza, you have Shime-waza, you have Shiai randori (that's the sporting bit), you have Goshinjutsu (that's the self defence bit), you have Kime no Kata, you have Koshiki no Kata (that's an old training form from Kito Ryu Jujutsu). Each part of the training has it's own terminology, so you don't confuse doing the self defence with doing the old style kata, with the shiai practice. I just don't think you get what's actually being said.



Taekwondo has similar terminology for different aspects of training. Self defense for example is hoshinsul in korean (goshinjutsu in japanese). And there is also shihap kyorugi (which I believe is translated into japanese as shiai randori, but not completely sure on that). 



Chris Parker said:


> It's not a matter of my trawling the internet, Glenn, it's a matter of my being involved in Japanese arts for two decades. And that adds up to a lot more than just 'book knowledge'.



That might be true of you actually studied all of the arts that you so liberally sprinkle in your posts. Here is a list of arts that you have mentioned, just in this thread alone. Tell me, how many of these arts have you actually studied, as opposed to those that you have only read about, on the internet or other places? 

Aiki
Aikido
Aikijutsu
Araki Mujinsai Ryu Iaido
Atarashii Naginata
Batto 
Battodo 
Batto-ho
Battojutsu
Biken
Bikenjutsu
Daito Ryu
Goho
Hade
Hakuda
Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu
Iaido 
Iaijutsu
Iaisuemonogiri
Itto Ryu
Jikishinkage Ryu
Jikishin Ryu
Jodo
Jojutsu
Ju
Judo
Jujutsu
Jukendo
Jukenjutsu
Karate
Karatedo
Karatejutsu
Kendo
Kenjutsu
Kenjutsu no Ho
Kenpo
Kogusoku
Koshi no Mawari
Kumiuchi
Masaki Ryu
Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu
Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iai
Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido
Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaijutsu
Muso Junshin Ryu Iai
Muto Ryu
Naginata
Naginata-do
Negishi Ryu
Nito Shinkage Ryu
Okinawan Te
Owari-Kan Ryu
Seitei Iai 
Shinto Muso Ryu
Shotokan
sojutsu
Tachijutsu
Taijutsu
Tae Kwon Do
Te
Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu
Toda-ha Buko Ryu
Tode/Todii
Tojutsu
Torite 
Wa 
Wajutsu 
Yagyu Shinkage Ryu
Yawara 
YawarageiZennichi Naginata
Yoroi Kumiuchi




Chris Parker said:


> The idea of "superior people" had no bearing on the topic here, you chose to pick up on it, which showed it had relevance in your thinking. Surely that's obvious, yeah?



Not really. 





Chris Parker said:


> Dianne is wrong.



Gee, according to you, she is wrong a lot.




Chris Parker said:


> We left the Bujinkan over a decade ago.



That's right, if you and your instructor had stayed, you both would be 10th Dans by now. Maybe you should have stayed until you got that and then left. I did like the part where your instructor said that he practiced the same stuff from the first day twice a week for a year and got his 1st Dan. 



Chris Parker said:


> Are you sure you were on the right site, and not just an old, un-updated one that is no longer in use or current? You do need to improve your information gathering if you're going to keep this up.



He should take it down then. Why leave misleading information on the web? Or better yet, why put up a webpage in the first place? 



Chris Parker said:


> Are you serious with that? What possible basis do you have for such a comment? The reason you don't see "do" much in the old arts is the same reason you rarely see "you" in Shakespearean works... it just wasn't what was said at the time. They said "thou", and in the arts, they said "jutsu". When all is said and done, that's the reality of it. It has nothing at all to do with who understood philosophies, it was to do with what was in vogue at the time.



What was in vogue, and more importantly, why. 



Chris Parker said:


> Please, if you come back, come back with an open mind and ear, or try to have actual arguements. Oh, and quoting properly would be nice too. Ah, that looks taken care of now. All good.



I don't know if I want to come back. If you are not going to be truthful, then I don't see the point.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 8, 2012)

puunui said:


> Yes, I notice that you seem "ticked off" about a lot of things, perhaps everything. There is an undercurrent of anger in all your posts, not just the ones directed at me. Anyway, hope it works out for you Parker Sensei.



Call it frustration, Glenn. And really, stop with the false honorifics, you've been asked once already.



puunui said:


> I can totally see you doing that.



And I can see you arguing without actual understanding. You're point?



puunui said:


> Maybe not. But personally, I rather have the art and not know what it is, than the other way around. Don't you? As for not understanding Japanese culture, well, I guess you can feel you understand it better than I do. You can believe whatever you want.



Well, let's see, your complete lack of understanding as demonstrated in this thread, and your complete lack of ability to take on board what people actually involved in the subject are telling you would indicate that that's the case.



puunui said:


> Tell that to your koryu friends. I think they rather enjoy their japanese titles.



You know what I call my Koryu friends? John, Bob, Scott, Greg, Tony, Pete, Rich, Steve.... seriously, you don't have much of a clue about this area, Glenn.



puunui said:


> I never said Suk's art was listed on koryu.com. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes, really.



Really? Let's see...



puunui said:


> I don't know the answer to your pondering question. *What I do know is that your style is listed on koryu.com as Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaijutsu by Sensei Meik and Sensei Diane Skoss.* If you are disturbed by the inaccuracy, then perhaps you should contact them. Please do not get angry at me for checking out a webpage suggested  by Parker Sensei.
> 
> http://www.koryu.com/guide/eishin.html
> 
> Again, I don't wish to call what you do iaijutsu; all I did was go to the webpage koryu.com that was suggested by Parker Sensei. *The owners of that page calls your art iaijutsu, *not me. If you wish to get upset, please get upset at them, not me. It's not my webpage.



Hmm, want to try again?



puunui said:


> That is sort of like a circus performer inviting someone to fight up on the tightrope. Why would anyone do that? And who knows if those stories are true. I don't know if it is as old as the one you told, but they said that George Washington cut down a cherry tree, and when his father asked if he did it, George Washington answered "I cannot tell a lie. I did it."



And the point is missed again. What I was saying was that one of the oldest Ryu-ha around, with a specific focus towards combat, primarily battlefield combat, and who use the "jutsu" affectation almost entirely (the only time they don't they don't use "do") have quite a focus on spiritual development as well. Seriously, try to read what's being written this time.



puunui said:


> Have you ever heard of the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight? Don't know why I thought of that just now, but even that doesn't apply because Suk wouldn't even be carrying his swords to the fight. Instead the swords would be nicely wrapped and cared for, at home. Speaking of swords at home, maybe if you visit, we can visit my uncle's house and view a sword in mint pristine condition that has been in the family for.... a very long time. Razor sharp too, the kind of thing a gaijin koryu practitioner could only dream of possessing. I don't think anyone in the family will ever sell it, but if they did, I would think someone could retire off of the sales amount. Personally, I think it belongs in a museum, and if it ever filters down to me, that's where it is going.



 I really doubt you'd know as much about the blade as I would, Glenn. And I doubt it's quite what you think it is, as well. But to the rest, in this case you're turning up at a gunfight with a water balloon here. 



puunui said:


> Personally, I think you take yourselves much too seriously. I find the whole thing quite humorous. Here you and the others are, trying to preserve the methods and the mindset and the traditions, when the reality of it is that if the traditions were really preserved and followed, you and your koryu friends wouldn't even be allowed to study those koryu. I, or someone like me, on the other hand, would not only be allowed to study, we would be required to do so. I guess that is the real difference, from my point of view. You have been quite entertaining.



 You really don't have a clue, do you? You would be required to study, but I and my friends wouldn't be allowed to? Really? What on earth gives you that impression?

And you really, really, have no idea about what the intentions of training in Ryu-ha are. At all.



puunui said:


> Would I be "weeded" out? Funny, but I personally believe that the heads of the styles that you have spoken about would welcome me to study with them. Those types generally like me the most. It is usually those much farther down the totem pole that tend to resent or take positions against me, not the head of style types. That has generally been my experience. I remember I went to pound mochi for the first time. I don't know if you ever done it before, but there is a grinding stage, a multi man pounding stage, and a single man pounding stage. During the single man stage, one person turns the mochi while the other pounds. There is a rhythm to it and you have to be in sync with your partner. Generally the turning person is the most senior, most experienced pounder. So on my first try, I did the single man pounding. Prior to pounding all the other people were giving me advice on how to hold the mallet, how to pound, etc. Afterwards, everyone was asking me how I held my mallet, if I had pounded before, etc. The head person who was turning, looked at me with approval with his sparkling eyes, his only comment to me being "good." I later found out he studied and taught some sort of japanese sword art, but I wasn't really interested in learning, so I let it go.



Glenn, one of those groups would need you to go through me, and yeah, you'd be weeded out pretty damn quick. As far as the heads of the systems, in a number of cases again, I'd doubt it. And your mochi story is frankly another indication of why you'd be weeded out. You really don't have a clue about these things.



puunui said:


> I understood what he was saying. But he really needs to update his webpage.



Then why did you completely misinterpret his correction? 



puunui said:


> Sorry, 5th kyu then. my mistake.



Not really the point, Glenn. It was more that Sanke is more informed and experienced in this field than you are, or than you realise.



puunui said:


> I really enjoyed the story that your ninjutsu teacher told about his teacher's encounter with Michael Enchanis, how he felt he was a ninja, even though he had never studied ninjutsu before.



And this has a point how?



puunui said:


> That was a little vague, but that's ok.



For reasons.... but again, not something that needs to be entered into here.



puunui said:


> But the "academic" approach, by Draeger Sensei is what opened up at least some of the arts to westerners in the first place. It was that educated, polite, respectful approach that is what impressed those teachers, not the exclusionary vibe that is presented by koryu practitioners, at least in this thread.



And again, you show a lack of understanding of the situation, or the history of such things. The "academic" approach isn't really referring to Draeger's work, although those that followed him are meant, and the idea of an "exclusionary vibe", ha, you really don't get what this is about. At all.



puunui said:


> I think that Diane Skoss Sensei's comment is worth exploring on this particular point:
> 
> "Modern arts developed primarily for spiritual and social self-improvement; the classical arts were for fighting. "Do" is spiritual; "jutsu" is technical. The bujutsu were the arts *practiced by a specific class* for use on the battlefields of Japan, the budo have been *opened up to folk of all classes and nationalities*. These distinctions seem pretty clear-cut, but, in general, contrast the characteristics of bujutsu of the past with the goals of budo in the present. This seems to cause confusion."




Okay, this has annoyed me. You've used this quote a few times, and missed entirely what it actually says. For the record, here's the article you've taken it from: http://www.koryu.com/library/dskoss1.html

The quote itself is from the second and third paragraphs, and deals with the concept put forth by Draeger... and that's where you stop, attributing this ideal to Dianne herself. However, the paragraph continues (staying in the same paragraph of course indicating a continuing of a thematic concept, so can be taken as part of the same context, or to give context to the first section) by stating that this concept of a distinction being so cut and dried is false. Jutsu arts exist as modern systems, old arts have focus' of spiritual or personal development, and the fact that, regardless of the nomenclature used, all these systems are trained as "way's" in the modern world.

Really, read the thing. 



puunui said:


> The specific class mentioned was, of course, the samurai or bushi class in Japan, who underwent a much different type of education and training than those of other classes such has farmers, artisans and merchants. That education and training that samurai underwent as part of their upbringing, learning the "ways" of bushi, was not emphasized during martial arts training. It didn't need to be; it was already there. Instead, the samurai, when learning specific weapons, needed those specific techniques to learn how to use the weapon itself, in much the same way that a soldier learns to fire his rifle. The focus during rifle training, or jump training, land navigation, whatever is on the specific skill set, not on the honor of being a soldier.



Lecturing my take on history while at the same time getting your history wrong isn't really a way to make a point, Glenn. What you're talking about is only accurate in certain points in history, not overall. The four-class system wasn't always around.



puunui said:


> However, when the arts were opened up to non bushi during the meiji period and afterwards, those who were now learning did not have that samurai or bushi background. Therefore, those samurai ideals and values needed to be taught in addition to the weapon or technical skills being imparted. In passing those skills on, the philosophy was passed on through the training, hence a change to "do", rather than simply "jutsu".



The arts were opened to the public well before the Meiji period, with a number being very open before the Edo period. The idea of "samurai ideals" not being needed anymore is ludicrous when it comes to your argument, as it misses entirely the reality of what samurai were, how you became one, and more. You really are in over your head.



puunui said:


> Today, koryu arts or non koryu arts are all learned by non samurai, and therefore, you can see how some would say "jutsu" or "do" is the same. Because they are today, in all arts, you get the philosophical, spiritual, and technical training all wrapped up in one, so much so that I think that those who practice koryu art actually imagine themselves to be samurai, with their kimono, and all the trappings, accepted like how Tom Cruise was in the movie Last Samurai, looking down at me like I was from the peasant or undesireable class, unworthy of learning the ways of a true samurai, like they think they are.



Wow, I'm really trying not to just call you an idiot here. There are no such thing as samurai anymore, so your first point is irrelevant. Saying "jutsu and do are the same", well, that just shows that you haven't followed this discussion or what you've been told for the last 5 pages. And the idea that koryu practitioners think of themselves as some kind of Tom Cruise samurai? Seriously, get over yourself. That's so far from the reality it just shows that you have no concept of what koryu training, or the membership, is like. At all. 



puunui said:


> And I have to tell you, I think it's funny, at least from my perspective. So in that sense, perhaps it would do your koryu friends some good to see my face, so that they can perhaps understand what the mochi pounding leader saw when he saw me pounding mochi.



You may think it's funny, but it's really not. You show no understanding, and no willingness to take on anything you're told. If you came in with this attitude, you wouldn't get past the first interview. 



puunui said:


> I guess so.



 As you keep proving.



puunui said:


> Why would that confuse me? I said this remember?



 Because you seem to miss the point of discussing one art by bringing up an unrelated system with a similar name, and added confusion to your own argument by bringing  it up in the first place. I didn't want to add to that already mixed up idea you had by giving your argument credence when it has no relevance. 



puunui said:


> Actually you said this:
> 
> To which I responded with this:
> 
> ...



And once more, you miss the point with one swing! I stated that there was no Karate (referring to the art popularly known, based in the Okinawan arts) in Japan earlier, nor was there any use of a term "Karatejutsu". You refer to unrelated arts with a similar name (but still not "Karatejutsu"), and early books popularising the new Okinawan art in the 1920's referring to their system as "Todejutsu", which was an artificial addition of the term "Jutsu" to aid in popularity and acceptability with the Japanese. Nothing you have come up with has contradicted the essential comments I made.



puunui said:


> It is obvious that you have spent a lot of time searching the internet for information, so at least you come with facts, which is refreshing. But the above leaves me with the impression that you are not so much interested in having an honest discussion. I do not know if this is a ninjutsu thing or not, but personally, I think it is a waste of time to go over old ground like this.



Then try listening, Glenn.



puunui said:


> If Diane Skoss Sensei is "wrong", then why direct me to her webpage?



Okay, then, to clarify. Dianne Skoss' quote, as you used it, was incorrect. Largely that was due to your lack of understanding or deliberate out of context usage of her words. The page is a very good resource, but it seems that you only see words that agree with your established point of view, so even if I was to direct you to people who all tell you that you're wrong, with only a short description of your position to clarify it, you'd use that short description combined with their name as validation of your correct point of view. I sincerely suggest you accept that, in this field, you're dealing with people who dwarf your understanding and experience, and you take that on board when we tell you things.



puunui said:


> Yes, you are very good at pointing out the exception to the general rule, but pointing to an exception does not negate the general rule, it just shows that there are exceptions.



Most systems were open to the public, Glenn, it's just that the Katori Shinto Ryu maintained that as an integral part of their approach in a larger way than any other. But it was common practice for the school to be "open" to anyone who would commit to the training... in fact, the idea of a "closed" school was the exception, most commonly being what were referred to as Otomo Ryu. They were the official Ryu of particular Daimyo, or domains, and restrictions were placed on them. The rest didn't have anything like that type of restriction. Seriously, try again.



puunui said:


> Well, it is her school that is being put up on that webpage, so the buck stops with her, not the webmaster. And you ask them why they say jitsu instead of jutsu. I personally don't care.



The fact that you don't care (or don't even realise how incorrect it is) shows just how far out of your depth you are here.



puunui said:


> Not according to that 1942 jukenjutsu manual published by the Toyama Military School.



Wow, you found a single booklet that you haven't read, and that automatically makes your argument? Really? Sorry, nope.



puunui said:


> Are you talking about that 1936 meeting of okinawan masters?



Well, that is where the decision was made... three years after the art was recognized in Japan.



puunui said:


> But contradict yourself, because you admit that there was jutsu added. There are books to prove it, irrespective of your explanation as to why.



Jutsu was added to a couple of books, Glenn, not the art! You really don't read anything that doesn't automatically agree with you, do you?



puunui said:


> Taekwondo has similar terminology for different aspects of training. Self defense for example is hoshinsul in korean (goshinjutsu in japanese). And there is also shihap kyorugi (which I believe is translated into japanese as shiai randori, but not completely sure on that).


 
So that's your argument to Kong Soo Do. See? It wasn't that hard, was it?



puunui said:


> That might be true of you actually studied all of the arts that you so liberally sprinkle in your posts. Here is a list of arts that you have mentioned, just in this thread alone. Tell me, how many of these arts have you actually studied, as opposed to those that you have only read about, on the internet or other places?
> 
> Aiki
> Aikido
> ...



And again, you show a complete lack of knowledge or grounding in this. To begin with, the following are not distinct arts, they are classifications, or terminology used, in a range of systems:
*Aiki, Aikijutsu, Batto, Battodo, Batto-ho, Battojutsu, Biken, Bikenjutsu,* Goho, Hade, Hakuda,* Iaido, Iaijutsu, Iaisuemonogiri, Jodo, Jojutsu, Ju, Jujutsu, Karate, Karatedo,* Karatejutsu (of which the only mention has been to point out that it's not even a term used by any group), *Kendo (referring to historical usage, rather than modern Kendo), Kenjutsu, Kenjutsu no Ho, Kenpo, Kogusoku, Koshi no Mawari, Kumiuchi, Sojutsu, Tachijutsu, Taijutsu, Tae Kwon Do,* Te, Tode/Todii (different dialects for the same term), *Tojutsu, Torite, *Wa, Wajutsu, *Yawara, Yawaragei, Yoroi Kumiuchi. 
*
But, for the record, I have trained in, or are familiar with (by personal experience, rather than just "internet searching") the bolded above, with most of the rest simply being other forms of the types of things I have experienced.

As for the rest, without saying exactly which, my training and experience in particular Ryu-ha and systems includes fourteen of the above, as well as others. You?



puunui said:


> Not really.



Again, I'd suggest reading a little closer then.



puunui said:


> Gee, according to you, she is wrong a lot.



No, I think it's more that you put her into contexts where her words were wrong. I don't agree with everything she and Meik say, but that's another story.



puunui said:


> That's right, if you and your instructor had stayed, you both would be 10th Dans by now. Maybe you should have stayed until you got that and then left. I did like the part where your instructor said that he practiced the same stuff from the first day twice a week for a year and got his 1st Dan.


 
Son, you really don't have a clue about such things. But, for the record, one of our former members, less experienced, less knowledgable, and less insightful, as well as less talented or skilled than myself, is currently a 14th Dan. I really couldn't give a damn about such things myself. For reference.



puunui said:


> He should take it down then. Why leave misleading information on the web? Or better yet, why put up a webpage in the first place?



Why have misleading information on the web? Is that you suggesting that you're going to stop trying to state what is accurate in these concepts then?



puunui said:


> What was in vogue, and more importantly, why.



You're coming at it from the wrong angle, you realize. The reasons for something being in vogue hundreds of years ago don't really have anything to do with current trends. That argument is frankly flawed from the get-go.



puunui said:


> I don't know if I want to come back. If you are not going to be truthful, then I don't see the point.



Honestly Glenn, in this topic, I don't think you'd be missed. And, if you go back and re-read, you'll probably find that I've been consistent and accurate throughout the entire thing. But I don't think you'll see it, based on the way you've missed what has been said here and elsewhere throughout the whole thing.


----------



## puunui (Feb 11, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Call it frustration, Glenn.



Personally, I think it's anger, at someone or something more than just posts on a bulletin board. 




Chris Parker said:


> You're point?



I can just see you doing that, that's all. I can actually visualize it. 




Chris Parker said:


> You know what I call my Koryu friends? John, Bob, Scott, Greg, Tony, Pete, Rich, Steve.... seriously, you don't have much of a clue about this area, Glenn.



I really wasn't talking about what you call your friends. I really don't care about that. What I said was your koryu friends "I think they rather enjoy their japanese titles", dojo cho, and whatever other titles they use for themselves.  You like to say things like this: "Seriously, try to read what's being written this time." Perhaps you need to take your own advice. 



Chris Parker said:


> What I was saying was that one of the oldest Ryu-ha around, with a specific focus towards combat, primarily battlefield combat, and who use the "jutsu" affectation almost entirely (the only time they don't they don't use "do") have quite a focus on spiritual development as well.



Like I said before, you are really good at pointing to an exception, but the exception doesn't invalidate the general rule, it just points to an exception. "Seriously, try to read what's being written this time."




Chris Parker said:


> I really doubt you'd know as much about the blade as I would, Glenn.



I'm sure you do think you know more about the family sword (even though you haven't even seen it, much less touched it or examined it) than I do. 




Chris Parker said:


> And I doubt it's quite what you think it is, as well.



You can only hope, since you haven't even seen it, much less touched it or examined it. Imagine if it is real, what that would mean. 



Chris Parker said:


> But to the rest, in this case you're turning up at a gunfight with a water balloon here.



Even if that were true, it would be more than you would show up with, unless you carry your swords with you. Is that something that you and your koryu friends do on a regular basis? 



Chris Parker said:


> You would be required to study, but I and my friends wouldn't be allowed to? Really? What on earth gives you that impression?



You have all the answers, you figure it out. 



Chris Parker said:


> And you really, really, have no idea about what the intentions of training in Ryu-ha are. At all.



Maybe. Maybe not. Frankly it is not something that is of any real interest to me. My grandfather tried to get me into that, but frankly I wasn't really interested. And judging my the mentality of exclusiveness shown by ryuha posters in this thread, including you, I'm still not interested. It's a tiny tiny world, a clique really. I have better things to do with my time than to learn how to shoot a flintlock.




Chris Parker said:


> Glenn, one of those groups would need you to go through me, and yeah, you'd be weeded out pretty damn quick.



So you're the gatekeeper, huh? Now THAT'S funny. 



Chris Parker said:


> As far as the heads of the systems, in a number of cases again, I'd doubt it. And your mochi story is frankly another indication of why you'd be weeded out. You really don't have a clue about these things.



If you say so. 



Chris Parker said:


> Then why did you completely misinterpret his correction?



I didn't. You just seem to think I did for some reason. I do wonder what the founder of his Ryu, Park Sensei thinks about him leaving though. 



Chris Parker said:


> It was more that Sanke is more informed and experienced in this field than you are, or than you realise.



When is he up for promotion to 4th Kyu? 



Chris Parker said:


> And this has a point how?



Do you think Michael Enchanis is a ninja? 



Chris Parker said:


> For reasons.... but again, not something that needs to be entered into here.



I'm sure you have your reasons why you need to be vague about your connections to Japan. Have you ever been there? If so, for how long? Can you speak Japanese? 



Chris Parker said:


> And again, you show a lack of understanding of the situation, or the history of such things. The "academic" approach isn't really referring to Draeger's work, although those that followed him are meant, and the idea of an "exclusionary vibe", ha, you really don't get what this is about. At all.



Actually I do understand the exclusionary vibe. I wonder if you and the others do though, from my perspective. 




Chris Parker said:


> Jutsu arts exist as modern systems, old arts have focus' of spiritual or personal development, and the fact that, regardless of the nomenclature used, all these systems are trained as "way's" in the modern world.



Sure, because there is no more samurai class anymore and anyone can learn. But the values and philosophies of the bushi which were part of the samurai culture premeiji was not specically taught during weapons training or other martial arts training, because you got that as part of the education of bushi, on the way of bushi or bushido. Hence when learning martial arts, it was technique focused, hence the term jutsu, in much the same way that when a soldier goes to weapon training, the focus is on weapon techniques, not what it means to be a soldier or whatever. But today, you get all of that in one, instruction on bushido and actual physical techniques.  Gaijin have the added disadvantage of not being born in Japanese culture. So gaijin have to learn japanese culture, bushi culture as well as the actual technical aspects of whatever ryuha they are studying. 




Chris Parker said:


> Lecturing my take on history while at the same time getting your history wrong isn't really a way to make a point, Glenn. What you're talking about is only accurate in certain points in history, not overall. The four-class system wasn't always around.



I'm not lecturing you on anything. And so what if the four class system wasn't always around. I notice you like to throw in all these irrelevant points, in the hopes that people get tired and figure you know what you are talking about, because of all these irrelevant points. Fact of the matter is it was jutsu because bushido was part of being a samurai you got that no matter what weapon or system you studied. But post meiji, when it was opened up to those outside the samurai class, teachers had to impart both the jutsu and do to their students, whereas previously, they did not. 



Chris Parker said:


> The arts were opened to the public well before the Meiji period, with a number being very open before the Edo period. The idea of "samurai ideals" not being needed anymore is ludicrous when it comes to your argument, as it misses entirely the reality of what samurai were, how you became one, and more. You really are in over your head.



I'm not in over my head. You are doing your misdirection thing once again, pointing to exceptions to the rule to disprove the rule. And I never said "samurai ideals" not being needed anymore - I said this: However, when the arts were opened up to non bushi during the meiji  period and afterwards, those who were now learning did not have that  samurai or bushi background. Therefore, those samurai ideals and values  needed to be taught in addition to the weapon or technical skills being  imparted. In passing those skills on, the philosophy was passed on  through the training, hence a change to "do", rather than simply  "jutsu".




Chris Parker said:


> And the idea that koryu practitioners think of themselves as some kind of Tom Cruise samurai? Seriously, get over yourself. That's so far from the reality it just shows that you have no concept of what koryu training, or the membership, is like. At all.



Sorry, your koryu friends don't think of themselves as Tom Cruise, they think of themselves as Katsumoto. They need to get over themselves. And frankly you do too. You take yourself much too seriously. It is only a bulletin board. There are much more important things in life, including being gainfully employed and providing for one's family. 




Chris Parker said:


> You may think it's funny, but it's really not. You show no understanding, and no willingness to take on anything you're told. If you came in with this attitude, you wouldn't get past the first interview.



First interview? 




Chris Parker said:


> I stated that there was no Karate (referring to the art popularly known, based in the Okinawan arts) in Japan earlier, nor was there any use of a term "Karatejutsu". You refer to unrelated arts with a similar name (but still not "Karatejutsu"), and early books popularising the new Okinawan art in the 1920's referring to their system as "Todejutsu", which was an artificial addition of the term "Jutsu" to aid in popularity and acceptability with the Japanese. Nothing you have come up with has contradicted the essential comments I made.



I can requote our prior discussion again which disproves what you say above, again, if you want. I would just concede the point and move on if I were you. 



Chris Parker said:


> I sincerely suggest you accept that, in this field, you're dealing with people who dwarf your understanding and experience, and you take that on board when we tell you things.



Things like what, how there was no karate in Japan until 1933 and all of that? Try telling the karate people that. 



Chris Parker said:


> Wow, you found a single booklet that you haven't read, and that automatically makes your argument?



Not only that, there was also that youtube video demonstrating jukendo at a tournament. And have you read that single booklet? I don't see you citing to anything really. But that's ok. It would take us on yet another one of your irrelevant tangents. 



Chris Parker said:


> Well, that is where the decision was made... three years after the art was recognized in Japan.



That decision was made in Okinawa regarding what they were going to do in Okinawa, which was follow Funakoshi Sensei's lead and adopt the term Karatedo. Here is what Sensei Patrick McCarthy says about it: "Translated into English for the first time, the 1936 meeting reveals a wealth of original information through letting the reader evaluate the words and wisdom of those men responsible for shaping pre-war modern karate-do. Furthermore, by studying this testimony we are able, for the first time, to understand *why the name Toudi-jutsu was changed to Karate-do*, and why Okinawans feared losing a piece of their cultural heritage." 




Chris Parker said:


> Jutsu was added to a couple of books, Glenn, not the art!



Tell that to McCarthy Sensei, who is probably "wrong" in your opinion, right? He refers to the art as Toudi-jutsu throughout his books. 




Chris Parker said:


> So that's your argument to Kong Soo Do. See? It wasn't that hard, was it?



I think you missed the point, again. But that's ok. Too lazy to go look up the original statement by Kong Soo Do. 



Chris Parker said:


> And again, you show a complete lack of knowledge or grounding in this. To begin with, the following are not distinct arts, they are classifications, or terminology used, in a range of systems:
> *Aiki, Aikijutsu, Batto, Battodo, Batto-ho, Battojutsu, Biken, Bikenjutsu,* Goho, Hade, Hakuda,* Iaido, Iaijutsu, Iaisuemonogiri, Jodo, Jojutsu, Ju, Jujutsu, Karate, Karatedo,* Karatejutsu (of which the only mention has been to point out that it's not even a term used by any group), *Kendo (referring to historical usage, rather than modern Kendo), Kenjutsu, Kenjutsu no Ho, Kenpo, Kogusoku, Koshi no Mawari, Kumiuchi, Sojutsu, Tachijutsu, Taijutsu, Tae Kwon Do,* Te, Tode/Todii (different dialects for the same term), *Tojutsu, Torite, *Wa, Wajutsu, *Yawara, Yawaragei, Yoroi Kumiuchi.
> *But, for the record, I have trained in, or are familiar with (by personal experience, rather than just "internet searching") the bolded above, with most of the rest simply being other forms of the types of things I have experienced.



How that's 33 in 20 years? You certainly are a jack of all trades. Just for my own curiosity, what is your background in Tae Kwon Do? Who was your teacher, and how far did you get in that art? 1st Dan? Higher? 



Chris Parker said:


> As for the rest, without saying exactly which, my training and experience in particular Ryu-ha and systems includes fourteen of the above, as well as others.



That's a lot in twenty years, in addition to the long list above. That's 47 total. Do you do a lot of seminars? Travel to Japan? Lived in Japan? I'm thinking you can't get all of that living and training solely in Australia. Or can you? 





Chris Parker said:


> But, for the record, one of our former members, less experienced, less knowledgable, and less insightful, as well as less talented or skilled than myself, is currently a 14th Dan. I really couldn't give a damn about such things myself. For reference.



Wow. And you say I have to get over myself....  And I know you couldn't give a damn about such things, but what dan did you make it to? 3rd? 




Chris Parker said:


> if you go back and re-read, you'll probably find that I've been consistent and accurate throughout the entire thing. But I don't think you'll see it, based on the way you've missed what has been said here and elsewhere throughout the whole thing.



I think you are into misdirection, information overload, especially irrelevant information overload, and not really interested in the truth. I am trying to figure out if this is from ninja training or whether you are attracted to ninja training because that is your predisposition. But in any event, I find it tiring having to go back and requote you when you change your story, which you have done numerous times. You have an interesting style, one which I suppose can impress those who are not as well read as you. But 47 styles in 20 years? That has to be a record. Even 14 styles in 20 years is a bit much. But to each his own. I can barely keep up with the two styles that I am currently involved in, so in that sense, you are a better person than I am. 

If you wish the last shot, go for it. This is kind of boring for me at this point. But I did learn one thing, I made the right decision when I opted not to go the koryu route, which is what my grandfather wanted for me. I learned enough kata to last me a lifetime. I don't wish to be a part of that world, and I apologize if anyone was offended by this discussion.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 11, 2012)

I love how these simple Conversations can turn into heated page long Discussions


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 12, 2012)

puunui said:


> Personally, I think it's anger, at someone or something more than just posts on a bulletin board.



No, it's frustration. Your not that good as an armchair psychologist, Glenn, so strike that off your list with private eye.



puunui said:


> I can just see you doing that, that's all. I can actually visualize it.



 So no point. Well, at least you're consistent there.



puunui said:


> I really wasn't talking about what you call your friends. I really don't care about that. What I said was your koryu friends "I think they rather enjoy their japanese titles", dojo cho, and whatever other titles they use for themselves.  You like to say things like this: "Seriously, try to read what's being written this time." Perhaps you need to take your own advice.



 Glenn, amongst my Koryu friends are Dojo-cho, Sensei, Shihan, Menkyosha, and more. And you know what they want to be called most commonly? Their name. Even heads of Ryu are known for being very down to earth, preferring no title above "Sensei", not "Soke", or anything of the kind. In fact, it's typically the fake groups, those that want to be more traditional than the traditional schools that insist on such things. You're really out of your depth here. Still.



puunui said:


> Like I said before, you are really good at pointing to an exception, but the exception doesn't invalidate the general rule, it just points to an exception. "Seriously, try to read what's being written this time."



 An example isn't an exception, Glenn, it's an example. And frankly, I'd have to search long and hard to find any system that agrees with the construct put forth. I just gave an example of the most well known system, whose origins are in the time of intense war, to demonstrate how incorrect your idea was.



puunui said:


> I'm sure you do think you know more about the family sword (even though you haven't even seen it, much less touched it or examined it) than I do.



 Oh dear.



puunui said:


> You can only hope, since you haven't even seen it, much less touched it or examined it. Imagine if it is real, what that would mean.



I've got more than a passing familiarity with sword appraisal, Glenn, but for the record, if you're "touching" the blade, uh... wow. Bad move. As far as what it would mean if it was "real", nothing. Really, it would mean nothing. You've demonstrated no understanding of what it would be, if it is, and besides, I haven't said it isn't "real", just that it isn't necessarily the "museum quality" you think it is. I've seen enough musuem quality blades to know what I'd be looking for.



puunui said:


> Even if that were true, it would be more than you would show up with, unless you carry your swords with you. Is that something that you and your koryu friends do on a regular basis?



 What?!? Are you kidding, Glenn? I say that you're bringing a water balloon to a hypothetical gunfight (which would place me holding the gun), and you somehow take that as a realistic statement of your armament?!? Do you get what an analogy is?



puunui said:


> You have all the answers, you figure it out.



Oh, I get what you think you're talking about, but it's not reality. By a long stretch.



puunui said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. Frankly it is not something that is of any real interest to me. My grandfather tried to get me into that, but frankly I wasn't really interested. And judging my the mentality of exclusiveness shown by ryuha posters in this thread, including you, I'm still not interested. It's a tiny tiny world, a clique really. I have better things to do with my time than to learn how to shoot a flintlock.



 Here's the thing, Glenn. You have been corrected on your misunderstanding time and again, which has lead to this way of dealing with you. And what on earth are you talking about with a flintlock there? You think I go on tangents.... 



puunui said:


> So you're the gatekeeper, huh? Now THAT'S funny.



Of the group I currently head, yes. Not quite sure why you think it's funny that the way you're representing yourself would have issues, though... some people would take the opportunity to look at how they're coming across, but I guess you don't feel that's necessary... 



puunui said:


> If you say so.



 Well, as I'm seeming far more informed as to the mindset and mentalities of the various Koryu heads, uh, yeah. If I say so would be considered the more informed viewpoint.



puunui said:


> I didn't. You just seem to think I did for some reason. I do wonder what the founder of his Ryu, Park Sensei thinks about him leaving though.



 You told him congratulations for something that was years ago, taken from a site about a system he hasn't been a part of for years either, and when corrected, you kept it up, and now still insist on maintaining this incorrect information (by referring to "his Ryu"). Glenn, bluntly, you got it wrong, and don't understand why maintaining it just shows your complete ignorance of this situation.



puunui said:


> When is he up for promotion to 4th Kyu?



 You do realise that that wasn't the important part, yeah? It's more the Koryu training that he is involved in.



puunui said:


> Do you think Michael Enchanis is a ninja?



 Michael Echanis was a mercenary, a sniper, and is now dead. And that this has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread, or the conversation whatsoever. What's the point you're driving at?



puunui said:


> Actually I do understand the exclusionary vibe. I wonder if you and the others do though, from my perspective.



No, you have your perspective, which is not based in understanding the reality behind such behaviours.



puunui said:


> Sure, because there is no more samurai class anymore and anyone can learn. But the values and philosophies of the bushi which were part of the samurai culture premeiji was not specically taught during weapons training or other martial arts training, because you got that as part of the education of bushi, on the way of bushi or bushido. Hence when learning martial arts, it was technique focused, hence the term jutsu, in much the same way that when a soldier goes to weapon training, the focus is on weapon techniques, not what it means to be a soldier or whatever. But today, you get all of that in one, instruction on bushido and actual physical techniques.  Gaijin have the added disadvantage of not being born in Japanese culture. So gaijin have to learn japanese culture, bushi culture as well as the actual technical aspects of whatever ryuha they are studying.



No, Glenn, just no. To all of the above. You have completely misunderstood everything. I see no way to actually get you to understand, as you can't, or won't see past what you think things are like. But everything you say here is incorrect. So no.



puunui said:


> I'm not lecturing you on anything. And so what if the four class system wasn't always around. I notice you like to throw in all these irrelevant points, in the hopes that people get tired and figure you know what you are talking about, because of all these irrelevant points. Fact of the matter is it was jutsu because bushido was part of being a samurai you got that no matter what weapon or system you studied. But post meiji, when it was opened up to those outside the samurai class, teachers had to impart both the jutsu and do to their students, whereas previously, they did not.



 And again, you get everything wrong. The opening up of the majority of arts was a couple hundred years before the Meiji Restoration, Bushido was a romantised ideal appied well after the time, and the rest of what you say is so far off that it's hardly worth correcting, as you don't listen.



puunui said:


> I'm not in over my head. You are doing your misdirection thing once again, pointing to exceptions to the rule to disprove the rule. And I never said "samurai ideals" not being needed anymore - I said this: However, when the arts were opened up to non bushi during the meiji  period and afterwards, those who were now learning did not have that  samurai or bushi background. Therefore, those samurai ideals and values  needed to be taught in addition to the weapon or technical skills being  imparted. In passing those skills on, the philosophy was passed on  through the training, hence a change to "do", rather than simply  "jutsu".



You are completely over your head, Glenn. The last three paragraphs are nothing but a mess of incorrect ideas, incorrect history, and bad connections, including this one here. One more time, you are way off in everything you're saying here. But, as it's all been covered throughout the thread already, and you haven't listened, there's little point going through it again.



puunui said:


> Sorry, your koryu friends don't think of themselves as Tom Cruise, they think of themselves as Katsumoto. They need to get over themselves. And frankly you do too. You take yourself much too seriously. It is only a bulletin board. There are much more important things in life, including being gainfully employed and providing for one's family.



Good lord above, no, they don't Glenn. You really don't have any basis for these comments, you know.



puunui said:


> First interview?



Yes, first interview. What we do ain't TKD, mate, you need to be the right kind of person for you to be invited in, and you don't pass muster.



puunui said:


> I can requote our prior discussion again which disproves what you say above, again, if you want. I would just concede the point and move on if I were you.



Hmm. I don't think you're really in the power position here, Glenn... 



puunui said:


> Things like what, how there was no karate in Japan until 1933 and all of that? Try telling the karate people that.



 I said it was officially recognized in 1933 because, well, it was. It was already starting to make it's way around Japan at that point, but didn't officially "exist" until then. And the popularization was Showa onwards. 



puunui said:


> Not only that, there was also that youtube video demonstrating jukendo at a tournament. And have you read that single booklet? I don't see you citing to anything really. But that's ok. It would take us on yet another one of your irrelevant tangents.



What? You're trying to argue that the term "Jukenjutsu" was popular by now citing a video using the term "Jukendo"? For crying out loud, Glenn, try to remember what you're arguing... 



puunui said:


> That decision was made in Okinawa regarding what they were going to do in Okinawa, which was follow Funakoshi Sensei's lead and adopt the term Karatedo. Here is what Sensei Patrick McCarthy says about it: "Translated into English for the first time, the 1936 meeting reveals a wealth of original information through letting the reader evaluate the words and wisdom of those men responsible for shaping pre-war modern karate-do. Furthermore, by studying this testimony we are able, for the first time, to understand *why the name Toudi-jutsu was changed to Karate-do*, and why Okinawans feared losing a piece of their cultural heritage."



 I'll do you one better, here's a link to some notes on the meeting itself: http://www.isshinryu.nl/history/1936meeting.html

Things to note include the comments which do not, at any point feature anyone using the term "Todejutsu" or similar...



puunui said:


> Tell that to McCarthy Sensei, who is probably "wrong" in your opinion, right? He refers to the art as Toudi-jutsu throughout his books.


 
 Well, I'd want to see references to "Todejutsu", as it doesn't seem to be present in the actual notes or usages by the people themselves...



puunui said:


> I think you missed the point, again. But that's ok. Too lazy to go look up the original statement by Kong Soo Do.



Right...



puunui said:


> How that's 33 in 20 years? You certainly are a jack of all trades. Just for my own curiosity, what is your background in Tae Kwon Do? Who was your teacher, and how far did you get in that art? 1st Dan? Higher?



I got to 2nd Gup in Rhee TaeKwonDo under Trevor Aldred in Mildura, training from 1989-91.



puunui said:


> That's a lot in twenty years, in addition to the long list above. That's 47 total. Do you do a lot of seminars? Travel to Japan? Lived in Japan? I'm thinking you can't get all of that living and training solely in Australia. Or can you?



 I think it indicates that you think they are all different systems... quite a few systems have many different facets to them, you realise.... 



puunui said:


> Wow. And you say I have to get over myself....  And I know you couldn't give a damn about such things, but what dan did you make it to? 3rd?



 "Make it to", Glenn? I am currently a 3rd, yes. In an organisation that goes to 5th as the highest. 



puunui said:


> I think you are into misdirection, information overload, especially irrelevant information overload, and not really interested in the truth. I am trying to figure out if this is from ninja training or whether you are attracted to ninja training because that is your predisposition. But in any event, I find it tiring having to go back and requote you when you change your story, which you have done numerous times. You have an interesting style, one which I suppose can impress those who are not as well read as you. But 47 styles in 20 years? That has to be a record. Even 14 styles in 20 years is a bit much. But to each his own. I can barely keep up with the two styles that I am currently involved in, so in that sense, you are a better person than I am.



You really don't get what you're reading, do you, Glenn? And as for tangents, with you asking about Michael Echanis, I wouldn't be casting that stone around personally...  



puunui said:


> If you wish the last shot, go for it. This is kind of boring for me at this point. But I did learn one thing, I made the right decision when I opted not to go the koryu route, which is what my grandfather wanted for me. I learned enough kata to last me a lifetime. I don't wish to be a part of that world, and I apologize if anyone was offended by this discussion.



I really don't think you get the first thing about Koryu, kata training (as exists in Koryu methods), or anything that has been mentioned in the thread at all... again, I don't think it'd be a huge loss if you didn't continue to argue your frankly ill-informed standpoint. But I'm also sure you will return.... I just don't know why.


----------

