evolution

[Enson]

can ninjutsu/itsu evolve? can any ma evolve? there has been alot of talk of people going off and doing their own thing for whatever reasons. i'm a musician and i believe that what i teach someone on the piano/organ... if they are capable enough, they should take that and make it better i hope. they don't have to go through all the hard knocks i had to go through becuase i teach them the solution to their problems. isn't that what jkd did? shouldn't we all make our own budo eventually? if we are learning what our sensei/soke/sifu/teacher/coach taught us, and if they are teaching us what they know; then we are learning what they have already learned and we could... go on and enhance that which they have taught us.
i'm not saying that i will go off and start a new art because i am no where near my sensei's knowledge. but i do see others here that have done that and they get crucified for it. even people like hayes, bussey, mr. severe, etc. i do believe that people should give honor where honor is due, but i don't see anything wrong with taking what you were taught and branching off of what your teacher taught you. of course that means that one should probably have a pretty good handle on what has been taught already. just my thoughts. what do you all think?

 

[Dale Seago]

Evolution of an art, and someone going off to do their own thing with it and taking it in different directions, are not necessarily the same thing.

Hatsumi sensei has said that a true martial art does not need to fundamentally change just because technology changes, for example: It simply incorporates new things into the overall knowledge base in a consistent way so that the practitioner can make the most effective use of it.

In his years in China circa 1910, for example, Takamatsu sensei killed a fair number of people. . .and frequently used guns to do it.

In the twenty years or so that Hatsumi sensei traveled all over the world to teach, he was exposed to tactics and technologies never dreamed of by the people who developed the arts he inherited. All of this is taken into account in the way he teaches today; and he also has constant continuing input from foreigners who come to train, many of whom are in law enforcement, the military/special operations communities, etc.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say that if an art stops "evolving" (in the sense of taking new information into account), it dies as a genuinely martial system. That's why I sometimes refer to those trying to practice classical Japanese koryu arts solely in the way things were done before the Meiji restoration as taking a "cultural-history museum curator" approach. That's not a bad thing, mind you -- but such an emphasis is cultural and historical, rather than practically martial.

 

[Flatlander]

From the reading that I've done in this forum, it sounds as though the structure of the Bujinkan implicitly restricts this possibility, in terms of the way the Soke seems to have complete control over the entire organization. Ergo, the Bujinkan may only evolve as far as the Soke will allow it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, mind you. It seems as though the intent is preservation of the principles of the art, which demonstrates artistic integrity, and eliminates the possibility of dilution. I base this only on my readings here, and may be terribly off base; perhaps clarification of this will come in subsequent posts.

 

[Jay Bell]

For the most part, sure. But you have to understand, Bujinkan and the arts there entailed are owned solely by Hatsumi sensei. The Bujinkan is a monoarchy, not a democracy. What he says goes...as it should be.

It's not so much that it will evolve without Hatsumi sensei's wishes. It will evolve...and he will push for this to happen. The idea though is that it evolves in the ways that he deems is best for students and the arts themselves, not by a third party.