Do vs. Jutsu

[Chris Parker]

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

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.

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

Why would they? Seriously, why would they?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

Except that left your argument rather lacking, really.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you say so.

You have evidence to the contrary?

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

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

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...

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}.

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".....

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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...

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:

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....

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.

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

Hmm. That perhaps remains to be seen.

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.

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....

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.

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....

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.

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?

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."

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).

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Chris, Mark, my friends why are you arguing about JSA with someone who doesn’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]

: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]

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]

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]

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:

*

Japan was occupied by the allied forces headed by America until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. During this period, GHQ -- the combined Tokyo headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers -- instigated a number of polices to purge militaristic tendencies from Japanese society. This included a ban on budo in schools by the Civil Information and Education Section of SCAP (CIE). Use of the term 'budo' was forbidden, and the Dai Nippon Butokukai was dissolved.

Ordinances related to kendo were particularly strict. For example, "It is a fact that special training was afforded to the use of swords during the war to improve effectiveness in combat. Now there is great urgency to rid society of all militaristic affiliations, and public and private organizations must cease the proactive instruction of kendo in its past form and content. Much effort and esearch should be made for kendo to be reinstated in the future in the same manner as other pure sports." Consequently, it was almost impossible to actively and openly engage in kendo training in the immediate post-war period.

One means by which kendo's return was plotted was through the creation of a hybrid sport version known as 'shinai-kyogi'. The sporting aspects of fencing were highlighted, and the equipment used was completely altered....

It is not widely recognized today, but shinai-kyogi enabled kendo to pass through a crisis for survival, similar in many ways to that experienced during the Meiji period.

*

On the Meiji period crisis, this is what the book says:

The Meiji government implemented a number of significant changes. One of the most important was the abolition of the rigid four class distinctions of shi no ko sho (warrior, farmer, artisan, merchant). Warriors ceased to exist as a separate class - a development that greatly affected the destiny of the martial arts. Moreover, with the edict banning the wearing of swords in public (haito rei) issued in 1876, it even became illegal to carry what was most symbolic of warrior culture - the katana.

Amid this rapid modernization, attention was turned to importing and employing many features of Western civilization. Appreciation for traditional budo waned causing a massive decline in participation. It is hardly surprising that ancient Japanese martial arts appeared ineffectual in the face of modern Western firepower. This period of time represents what was probably the greatest ever crisis faced by budo as it struggled to find any relevance in modern society.

There are two people in particular who can be credited with aiding the revival of kenjutsu in this period of decline. The first is Sakakibara Kenkichi (1830-1894)....

Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, kenjutsu instructors at the Kobusho, and in the various domains around the country, became unemployed and lost their source of income. Sakakibara Kenkichi devised the idea of public kenjutsu shows called ' gekken-kogyo' as a way of providing income for destitute swordsmen. Similar to public sumo tournaments of the day, he created a company of fighters divided into East and West sides, and members of the public paid an entrance fee to see the matches.... With these conventions, it can be said that the gekken-kogyo paved the way for the future of kendo competitions....

There are conflicting appraisals of what Kenkichi achieved through gekken-kogyo. Those who criticized him claimed that it was, in a sense, the prostitution of what was most admirable in bushi culture, and was therefore scandalously degrading. On the other hand, it greatly helped unemployed kenjutsu experts who had no other means of income, and also contributed to the popularization of kenjutsu among the general public. Both opinions have merit, but the exposure undoubtedly served to rescue traditional swordsmanship from extinction, and as such, Sakakibara Kenkichi's role in the history of kendo cannot be overstated.

Another individual who greatly facilitated the continuation of kendo culture into the modern era was Yamaoka Tesshu (1836-1888)....

Tesshu created the Muto ryu - the school of the 'sword of no sword'. This alludes to the idea that there is no sword other than that of the heart (shingai-muto). He later built a dojo called the Shunpukan where he taught his disciples with almost unimaginable harshness. One of his famous training methods was tachikiri-shiai, in which one person fought challenger after challenger with no rest. This meant engaging in two hundred matches in a single day. As a part of his training syllabus, advanced disciples participated in six hundred matches over three days, or 1,400 in seven days. This incredibly grueling training regime forced the student to come face to face with his absolute physical and mental limits, and then breaking through his perceived boundaries with an 'indomitable heart'. The point was not how many matches the student was able to win. Instead, it was a means for self cultivation in which the student developed his mental strength and virtuous traits through the techniques of kenjutsu. Tesshu's austere ideals distinguished him from his contemporaries in the world of swordsmanship.

Of course, today's kendo retains competitive aspects, but the ideals and objectives of character development (ningen keisei) also remain as an integral component. It is the educational potential that makes kendo valuable in modern day society. Yamaoka Tesshu was instrumental in steering kendo in this direction at a time when budo was clawing for social relevance.

 

[puunui]

Why would they? Seriously, why would they?

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

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.

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."

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:

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.

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.

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.

There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Different sections of the training, but what Kong Soo Do is talking about is something different.

Except that left your argument rather lacking, really.

I think to myself that you have spent a lot of time surfing the internet, so you do have a lot of book knowledge. And I keep thinking that you would be that much more effective in your arguments if you left out these sorts of comments above, but then I also realize that we are who we are and that it is difficult to be something that you are not. I do understand that you may be having a difficult or challenging time at the moment, you may even be between jobs at the moment, and perhaps other issues, so some of that bleeds over into posts. So it's ok.

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?

Correct. I think.

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.

Incorrect, I think. I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Here is what was originally said:

Kong Soo Do's quote from someone else: 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).

Me: 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.

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.

Not according to Diane Skoss Sensei: "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."

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".

But according to you, or at least others, there is no difference between jutsu and do, such that someone can call it kenjutsu or kendo and it would be the same thing.

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.

Well, that's a different thing than saying there is no difference between jutsu and do, which is what some on here would lead us to believe. You say it yourself, there is a difference.

Hatsumi isn't the head of my organisation,

That isn't clear from your webpage that is in your signature line. I did try to read some other stuff in there. I found the fact that the head of your organization went to Japan for a year, practiced the same stuff twice a week, and got a 1st Dan as a goodbye present. Was that from Hatsumi Sensei, or someone else? Your instructor claims he learned much more from Sensei Robert Bussey, who I don't think even calls what he does now ninjutsu.

I see Paul corrected you on your comments on his art... I did laugh when I saw that....).

I thought it was pretty funny too, especially when you compare that to what is on his webpage.

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.

If you feel that way, great. I don't.

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.

I don't know, Diane Skoss Sensei seemed to have utilized it and explained it well: "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."

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

Yeah, they didn't need to use the do honorific, because those who were studying martial arts pre meiji already understood the philosophy, unlike the ones who followed post meiji, who did not already understand the philosophy, which really is the issue we haven't gotten to.

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.

 

[Chris Parker]

Another long one.... enjoy!

Chris, Mark, my friends why are you arguing about JSA with someone who doesn’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....

: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!

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.

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.

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:

*

Japan was occupied by the allied forces headed by America until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. During this period, GHQ -- the combined Tokyo headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers -- instigated a number of polices to purge militaristic tendencies from Japanese society. This included a ban on budo in schools by the Civil Information and Education Section of SCAP (CIE). Use of the term 'budo' was forbidden, and the Dai Nippon Butokukai was dissolved.

Ordinances related to kendo were particularly strict. For example, "It is a fact that special training was afforded to the use of swords during the war to improve effectiveness in combat. Now there is great urgency to rid society of all militaristic affiliations, and public and private organizations must cease the proactive instruction of kendo in its past form and content. Much effort and esearch should be made for kendo to be reinstated in the future in the same manner as other pure sports." Consequently, it was almost impossible to actively and openly engage in kendo training in the immediate post-war period.

One means by which kendo's return was plotted was through the creation of a hybrid sport version known as 'shinai-kyogi'. The sporting aspects of fencing were highlighted, and the equipment used was completely altered....

It is not widely recognized today, but shinai-kyogi enabled kendo to pass through a crisis for survival, similar in many ways to that experienced during the Meiji period.

*

On the Meiji period crisis, this is what the book says:

The Meiji government implemented a number of significant changes. One of the most important was the abolition of the rigid four class distinctions of shi no ko sho (warrior, farmer, artisan, merchant). Warriors ceased to exist as a separate class - a development that greatly affected the destiny of the martial arts. Moreover, with the edict banning the wearing of swords in public (haito rei) issued in 1876, it even became illegal to carry what was most symbolic of warrior culture - the katana.

Amid this rapid modernization, attention was turned to importing and employing many features of Western civilization. Appreciation for traditional budo waned causing a massive decline in participation. It is hardly surprising that ancient Japanese martial arts appeared ineffectual in the face of modern Western firepower. This period of time represents what was probably the greatest ever crisis faced by budo as it struggled to find any relevance in modern society.

There are two people in particular who can be credited with aiding the revival of kenjutsu in this period of decline. The first is Sakakibara Kenkichi (1830-1894)....

Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, kenjutsu instructors at the Kobusho, and in the various domains around the country, became unemployed and lost their source of income. Sakakibara Kenkichi devised the idea of public kenjutsu shows called ' gekken-kogyo' as a way of providing income for destitute swordsmen. Similar to public sumo tournaments of the day, he created a company of fighters divided into East and West sides, and members of the public paid an entrance fee to see the matches.... With these conventions, it can be said that the gekken-kogyo paved the way for the future of kendo competitions....

There are conflicting appraisals of what Kenkichi achieved through gekken-kogyo. Those who criticized him claimed that it was, in a sense, the prostitution of what was most admirable in bushi culture, and was therefore scandalously degrading. On the other hand, it greatly helped unemployed kenjutsu experts who had no other means of income, and also contributed to the popularization of kenjutsu among the general public. Both opinions have merit, but the exposure undoubtedly served to rescue traditional swordsmanship from extinction, and as such, Sakakibara Kenkichi's role in the history of kendo cannot be overstated.

Another individual who greatly facilitated the continuation of kendo culture into the modern era was Yamaoka Tesshu (1836-1888)....

Tesshu created the Muto ryu - the school of the 'sword of no sword'. This alludes to the idea that there is no sword other than that of the heart (shingai-muto). He later built a dojo called the Shunpukan where he taught his disciples with almost unimaginable harshness. One of his famous training methods was tachikiri-shiai, in which one person fought challenger after challenger with no rest. This meant engaging in two hundred matches in a single day. As a part of his training syllabus, advanced disciples participated in six hundred matches over three days, or 1,400 in seven days. This incredibly grueling training regime forced the student to come face to face with his absolute physical and mental limits, and then breaking through his perceived boundaries with an 'indomitable heart'. The point was not how many matches the student was able to win. Instead, it was a means for self cultivation in which the student developed his mental strength and virtuous traits through the techniques of kenjutsu. Tesshu's austere ideals distinguished him from his contemporaries in the world of swordsmanship.

Of course, today's kendo retains competitive aspects, but the ideals and objectives of character development (ningen keisei) also remain as an integral component. It is the educational potential that makes kendo valuable in modern day society. Yamaoka Tesshu was instrumental in steering kendo in this direction at a time when budo was clawing for social relevance.

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.

Why would they? Seriously, why would they?

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

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.

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.

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."

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"....

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either

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?

A

nd, 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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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 術, then it's "jutsu", with no variations.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Different sections of the training, but what Kong Soo Do is talking about is something different.

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.

Except that left your argument rather lacking, really.

I think to myself that you have spent a lot of time surfing the internet, so you do have a lot of book knowledge. And I keep thinking that you would be that much more effective in your arguments if you left out these sorts of comments above, but then I also realize that we are who we are and that it is difficult to be something that you are not. I do understand that you may be having a difficult or challenging time at the moment, you may even be between jobs at the moment, and perhaps other issues, so some of that bleeds over into posts. So it's ok.

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.

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?

Correct. I think.

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.

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.

Incorrect, I think. I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Here is what was originally said:

Kong Soo Do's quote from someone else: 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).

Me: 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.

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?

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.

Not according to Diane Skoss Sensei: "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."

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.

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".

But according to you, or at least others, there is no difference between jutsu and do, such that someone can call it kenjutsu or kendo and it would be the same thing.

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.

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.

Well, that's a different thing than saying there is no difference between jutsu and do, which is what some on here would lead us to believe. You say it yourself, there is a difference.

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

Hatsumi isn't the head of my organisation,

That isn't clear from your webpage that is in your signature line. I did try to read some other stuff in there. I found the fact that the head of your organization went to Japan for a year, practiced the same stuff twice a week, and got a 1st Dan as a goodbye present. Was that from Hatsumi Sensei, or someone else? Your instructor claims he learned much more from Sensei Robert Bussey, who I don't think even calls what he does now ninjutsu.

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

I see Paul corrected you on your comments on his art... I did laugh when I saw that....).

I thought it was pretty funny too, especially when you compare that to what is on his webpage.

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.

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.

If you feel that way, great. I don't.

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.

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.

I don't know, Diane Skoss Sensei seemed to have utilized it and explained it well: "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."

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]

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

Yeah, they didn't need to use the do honorific, because those who were studying martial arts pre meiji already understood the philosophy, unlike the ones who followed post meiji, who did not already understand the philosophy, which really is the issue we haven't gotten to.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

Dianne is wrong.

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

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.

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 術, 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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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

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.

Dianne is wrong.

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

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

I can totally see you doing that.

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

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Then why did you completely misinterpret his correction?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I guess so.

As you keep proving.

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.

Actually you said this:

To which I responded with this:

You also 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

Not really.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

Call it frustration, Glenn.

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

You're point?

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

And this has a point how?

Do you think Michael Enchanis is a ninja?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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]

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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....

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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....

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.

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...

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.