is it possible that theres still old school ninja clans

[GHETTO NINJA]

in japan or anywhere else ?

 

[Chris Parker]

(I honestly can't believe I'm answering this one.....)

To begin with, Ninjutsu and Ninja are purely, strictly, and exclusively a Japanese phenomenon, so "anywhere else" is out of the question.

Now, as to the possibility of a "ninja clan" still existing, that is so remote as to be non-existant. One of the main reasons is that the old clan structure no longer exists, with corporations taking their role in todays society. If you are asking if particular old Ryu still exist, well, a few have survived and are encompassed within the Bujinkan, Genbukan and Jinenkan organisations, although not as individual ryu-ha themselves in the same way that Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu and others have (note: even this claim is not without controversy. However, it is the only source for Ninjutsu Ryu-ha that have any form of verifiable histories).

A few years ago a few gentlemen appeared claiming to teach a form of Koga Ryu, known as Banda-ha Koga Ryu Ninjutsu, under the title Banke Shinobinoden (Ban Family Transmissions of Shinobi [Ninja] Arts), headed by Jinichi Kawakami. They did a demonstration and lecture/question and answer seminar a little while back, and although they caused a few to question whether or not they were genuine, most supporters used the comments by Meik Skoss to back them up. Unfortunately, most of what Meik said was little more than "well, I can't really say that it isn't an authentically transmitted body of knowledge", but he was very short of saying that it was in any way a verifiable Ninjutsu lineage. In fact, most of what he agreed with seemed to be that they said they would have no way of demonstrating a history, or would consider themselves a koryu (Meik's area of expertise, specialising in his own traditions, most notably Toda-ha Buko Ryu. He is not an expert on all old systems, nor Ninjutsu, and would be one of the first to tell you that himself).

So the short answer is no. There is a tiny possibility that a tradition may have escaped to survive, however with the large numbers of people that have sought systems out over the last 50 years or so, coming up with nothing at all, indicates that they have not survived. And I hold little hope for any (authentic systems) suddenly coming out of the woodwork.

 

[Bruno@MT]

To expand on Chris' reply: this also means that any western 'ninjutsu' system which does not trace back to Takamatsu sensei is not ninjutsu at all. It may be a good system and maybe the people in it could kick my ***, but it's not ninjutsu at all, any more than Cyrillic is Japanese because its graphs are made of squiggly lines.

Various western systems call themselves ninjutsu and mention a secret Japanese ninja master that noone ever heard of, nevermind that their systems do not look like ninjutsu at all. Again. That does not mean they are worthless as fighting systems. It just means that it's not ninjutsu. The 'ninja' aspect was probably tacked on for marketing reasons.

Originally, ninjutsu systems were kept secret, for insiders only. It's only been since the last decades that the remaining systems have been exposed to the outside world. So for any of these western systems to be legit, their founders would have had to come into contact with a ninjutsu master and recognized him as such (extremely unlikely) been accepted as a student (even more unlikely) and made it through the harsh training (probably not). He should have been fluent in Japanese as well, and lived in Japan for the many years required to complete training. In other words: probably not.

If you want to get some more understanding on why this is so unlikely, you should read 'Fujita Seiko, the last koga ninja'.
It is a very cheap book, but really good reading material for people wanting to learn more about ninjutsu.

 

[Cirdan]

About as likely as the story of Bloodsport being real and no touch KOs actually working.

 

[Draven]

in japan or anywhere else ?

Well I think others have done the lineage push issue, to answer your question however I'll ask one of my own. What is a "clan" & what were the "ninja..?"

Clan
1. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) a group of people interrelated by ancestry or marriage
2. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) a group of families with a common surname and a common ancestor, acknowledging the same leader, esp among the Scots and the Irish
3. a group of people united by common characteristics, aims, or interests [from Scottish Gaelic clann family, descendants, from Latin planta sprout, plant1]

Now the term "ninja" is a bit different because historically the term is used pretty loosly but we'll use this...

Ninja
ninja or nin·jas A member of a class of 14th-century Japanese mercenary agents who were trained in the martial arts and hired for covert operations such as assassination and sabotage.

So is it possible for a group of related families to have maintained family association from the 14th century until now? Sure families in the America have done so since before their was an America and some in Europe can go back longer. Well if these people are still acting as spies, assassins, mercenaries and sabotage agents it only seems plausable that they would.

However, the skills would basicly be useless unless said "clan" were in a position to use them enough to be important and more then as a historic tradition. If they did exist they would most likely have a face like that of the organized crime "families" like the Yakuza in Japan; who have made claims to being "ninjas." Course I can claim to be a leprechaun; but that doesn't mean I have a pot of gold anywhere. Like the Irish, Russians, Chinese, Sicilian & Mexican organized crime "families" it makes perfects since for them to do some "cross border trade" or board a plane somewhere.

How much you choose to believe that is up to you, I mean we are talking about professional liars, murderers and thieves so why would you believe to begin with..? If memory serves me Chris is 100% even Takamatsu was accused of being a fake and his lineage never totally varified. However, I'm from the as long as it works camp; where nothing else matter to me "as long as it works." The thing you have to be careful about is defining the application of the art from the "dogma" around the art & remember; possible is not always probible...

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the definition of "ninja" you have found there. Although there has been a popular image in the media of ninja being assassins and so forth, being the antithesis of samurai, hired to the highest bidder to do that which the samurai code of honour forbade them from doing, etc, most historical research actually goes against this. Similar to saying that Native Americans were scalping savages, really, as that practice was actually begun by French bounty hunters to stop them lying about the number of "savages" they had killed, the image has stuck where it was not really deserved.

In fact, it is thought that many who were later identified as ninja were actually samurai, either acting in a way that was not "normal" for a samurai, or a samurai who was deposed in some way (on the losing side of a battle, for instance), and followed a particular life philosophy. We once had a student who asked me after class if it was true that all ninja were rapists, I told him that that was a negative story, basically propaganda designed to turn people against practitioners of ninjutsu, and if it was true, why on earth would he want to be a member of a group like that? Interestingly, he never came back to class. Now, I don't think he wanted to be a rapist, but he also couldn't handle having his false beliefs challenged.

By the same token, I would be very hesitant to refer to ninja in the same way as criminal organisations such as the Yakuza, Mafia etc, in the same way that I would not refer to the historical ninja as "the special forces of their day, like the SAS", which I hear way too often.

I would also challenge the date, only the 14th century is listed, although the traditions in some cases go from the 12 century, others in the 17th, and completely in between. So the referenced link is somewhat lacking, at the list.

As for families continuing through the generations, well, that is what I was refering to when I mentioned ryu-ha such as Katori Shinto Ryu, which is in it's 20th generation now, still held by the same family (the Iizasa family). But when it comes to the ninja traditions, well, they were always far more practical by nature, and when that practicality was lost, it seems that most heads of the various systems simply stopped passing them down, destroying their scrolls and so forth in the process. It should be noted that other traditions suffered the same fate, many skills of hojojutsu were lost when the skills lost their usage, sometimes turning into skills for creating crafts and so on, or just lost completely. Same for armour manufacture. The Edo Jidai, a period of extended peace, was great, but it did lead to the loss of quite a lot of martial skills. With the samurai, this was minimised by the ideal that all samurai should keep their martial skills sharp, but when the samurai were abolished in about 1877, that ended other arts. Finally, when the Occupying US Forces after WWII banned all martial arts, a number of masters destroyed their scrolls, losing more knowledge again, particularly here in the skill of sword smithing (but that is another topic entirely). But the point is that it has not been an easy path for any art to survive, so what is left is what we know about (for the most part).

Yes, Takamatsu's traditions had/have question marks over them, as did Fujita Seiko's claim of the last head of the Wada-ha Koga Ryu tradition. But they are the best candidates for being historical traditions, and have not been disproven, although to follow their histories, more than a little faith is required.

When it comes to "as long as it works, nothing else matters" ideal, well, I actually have problems with that. I would actually suggest that if that is all you are interested in, ninjutsu is not for you. Yes, it can be eminently practical, however it needs adaptation for that to happen. And there is a lot of material that are in no way practical on any level (in regards to a street fight). I mean, really, how often do you meet someone with a spear when you are armed with a sword, hmm? A part of wanting to train ninjutsu has to have some sense of the history, and a desire to preserve the traditions, same as with any koryu-style tradition. But that's my view.

 

[Draven]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the definition of "ninja" you have found there.

It was either that the definition as someone who practices ninjutsu, which opens the clan issue up to family owned dojos and a few more.

In fact, it is thought that many who were later identified as ninja were actually samurai, either acting in a way that was not "normal" for a samurai, or a samurai who was deposed in some way (on the losing side of a battle, for instance), and followed a particular life philosophy.

It was no different then the Knights of Feudal Europe claiming live by the Code of Chivalry yet practiced similar guerrilla & commando skill sets. I prefer to ninjutsu as a aspect of bujutsu in general; the shadow side pun intended. A defeated samurai could easily turn "ronin" & train several peasants in "ninjutsu" which is more common to guerrilla warfare or commando styled unconventional warfare then anime black clad assassins.

When it comes to "as long as it works, nothing else matters" ideal, well, I actually have problems with that. I would actually suggest that if that is all you are interested in, ninjutsu is not for you. Yes, it can be eminently practical, however it needs adaptation for that to happen. And there is a lot of material that are in no way practical on any level (in regards to a street fight). I mean, really, how often do you meet someone with a spear when you are armed with a sword, hmm? A part of wanting to train ninjutsu has to have some sense of the history, and a desire to preserve the traditions, same as with any koryu-style tradition. But that's my view.

Well thats the beauty of it, since ninjutsu in its many forms cannot be 100% varified as tradition then maintaining a tradition of fixed techniques isn't 100% required; your sense of history is more philosophical then literal. I learned a style of Ninjutsu which is "one of the fake ninja systems" but it has a tracable lineage in the modern context to Japan and didn't spread to Canada until the later 1940s-50s. One of my instructors in the system owns and operates several ninjutsu schools commercially; (course he doesn't have ninjutsu on the door) its actually labelled a as jujutsu school.

You don't know you're learning ninjutsu until you reach shodan. We take a completely different approach in that there are two types of traditions; literal historic traditions and philosophical based traditions. Since the philosophy is a reflection of the spirit of the art, why not adapt and change & grow. The study of the history is in more a general context, like looking at the history of the civil war, you don't only examine what the Union or the Confederates did but what all soldiers did. Even if use some the lessons learned, you're not going to come to the battlefield with muskets are you?

Oh and if you scroll to about the bottom you can see a field improvised sword & nunchuku from the SEREs school at Fort Bragg, here is a good example of modern adaptation of concept. And no, I'm not saying ninjas are trained at Fort Bragg. lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I learned a style of Ninjutsu which is "one of the fake ninja systems" but it has a tracable lineage in the modern context to Japan and didn't spread to Canada until the later 1940s-50s. One of my instructors in the system owns and operates several ninjutsu schools commercially; (course he doesn't have ninjutsu on the door) its actually labelled a as jujutsu school.

http://www.freewebs.com/blackdragonninjitsu/members.htm

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shihan Ron Collins[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][email protected][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5th Dan Omoto Ryu Koga Ha Ninjitsu
5th Dan Koga Hai Lung Ryu Ninjitsu (honorary)
1st Dan Shotokan
2nd Dan Goju Ryu
1st Dan American Jujitsu
1st Dan Judo
Military Training
Services Ron Offer:
Personal Security (Body Guard) Consaltant
Private Instruction in Martial Arts &
Military/Commando Tactics[/FONT]​

Other services Ron offers: hitting people on the head with a hammer, fighting law enforcement officers, wearing an ankle bracelet on home arrest.

 

[Chris Parker]

It was either that the definition as someone who practices ninjutsu, which opens the clan issue up to family owned dojos and a few more.

Well, the other thing to remember is that the term "ninja" or "ninjutsu" are also relatively recent, so historically the various persons we would refer to as ninja (person who practices ninjutsu) would not refer to themselves in such a way. Hattori Hanzo was refered to simply as a Bushi from the Iga region.

It was no different then the Knights of Feudal Europe claiming live by the Code of Chivalry yet practiced similar guerrilla & commando skill sets. I prefer to ninjutsu as a aspect of bujutsu in general; the shadow side pun intended. A defeated samurai could easily turn "ronin" & train several peasants in "ninjutsu" which is more common to guerrilla warfare or commando styled unconventional warfare then anime black clad assassins.

Ninjutsu can be simply an aspect of an overall teaching (such as within Katori Shinto Ryu), but a few other things are a little out for me here. To begin with, you are missing what the Chivalric tradition actually is, as it is rather different to the Bushido aspect of the Japanese samurai. But then I don't think that is very well understood either. Each were applied well and truly after the fact to romanticise the groups in question, but were not really applied at the times people think they were.

And no, a defeated samurai could not just "turn ronin", then "teach peasants ninjutsu", your history is a bit out there as well. Typically, a ronin was a samurai who was "between jobs", as it were, and some Daimyo actually required that their samurai spend time (I have heard of lengths of 7 years) as ronin, travelling and improving so that they could bring back better skills to pass on within the group. Of course, others insisted that all samurai had to stay within the fiefdom at all times, and strictly forbade the ronin practice. As for "teach(ing) the peasants ninjutsu", well, that is just inaccurate. The idea of ninjutsu being a peasants version of martial arts is a misuse of the origins of karate (and that is nowhere near the full story there, either!), and the displaced samurai (note: not ronin) would not teach ninjutsu. He may teach his understanding of combative methods, and as circumstance dictates, that may evolve into something that we would refer to as ninjutsu, but the displaced samurai certainly wouldn't have been the one teaching it.

Well thats the beauty of it, since ninjutsu in its many forms cannot be 100% varified as tradition then maintaining a tradition of fixed techniques isn't 100% required; your sense of history is more philosophical then literal. I learned a style of Ninjutsu which is "one of the fake ninja systems" but it has a tracable lineage in the modern context to Japan and didn't spread to Canada until the later 1940s-50s. One of my instructors in the system owns and operates several ninjutsu schools commercially; (course he doesn't have ninjutsu on the door) its actually labelled a as jujutsu school.

No, maintaining the tradition is not actually necessarily dependant on the techniques remaining unchanged. I have spoken before here about various heads of ryu-ha altering the technical curriculum of the systems they are responsible for, most often the Kashima Shinryu, but here are a few more examples: Arts that predate the Edo period using seiza, as that method of sitting did not have much usage until the mid-17th century, arts that originally taught armoured methods but now teach only unarmoured methods, changes in weaponry from tachi to katana, and so on (and so you know, I'm refering here to arts such as Katori Shint Ryu, Tatsumi Ryu, and others). What is necessary is that the teaching of the principles of the art remains consistant, from one head to the next. And that head decides how it is done. It is not a sense of history that I spoke about, but more a sense of responsibility to see that these teachings are preserved (this is really a koryu approach, to be honest).

Now, I have avoided this subject with you until now, and now only because you brought it up. What about your Otomo Ryu is verified in Japan? There was a very old ryu by that name, but it died out centuries ago, along with other arts such as the Fuma Ryu, which some claim to teach today as well. Still, at least it's better that the other one, Koga Hai Lung Ninjitsu? Really? What part of that is authentic? Hmm, I'm going to leave that for now with this sites rules, but I'll come back to it a little later (slightly different approach).

You don't know you're learning ninjutsu until you reach shodan. We take a completely different approach in that there are two types of traditions; literal historic traditions and philosophical based traditions. Since the philosophy is a reflection of the spirit of the art, why not adapt and change & grow. The study of the history is in more a general context, like looking at the history of the civil war, you don't only examine what the Union or the Confederates did but what all soldiers did. Even if use some the lessons learned, you're not going to come to the battlefield with muskets are you?

Adaptation and growth are all well and good, we do that ourselves. I'm not sure what you mean about there being two types of traditions here, a historic tradition is one that has been handed down, changed or unchanged depending on circumstances, philosophies are basis' for approaches, not traditions. The art that is traditionally handed down is philosophically based, but that's about as close as I can see here. For example, let's take the American holiday of Thanksgiving. This is a celebration of part of the colonial beginnings of the Nation, and traditionally involve certain foods. Does that mean that you are not following the tradition if you have other foods as well? Not at all. Does it mean that you are only following it from a philosophical understanding? Nope. It is still simply a continuation of a tradition.

When it comes to the civil war history buffs, I'm really not following what you mean there. Are you suggesting that only military historians are making up the armies, and they are going to only want to use the weaponry they have read about? There are military tradtions, part of which include the training and ranks, and by joining one or another branch of the Armed Services, you are becoming a part of that tradition. But that should not get confused with trying to live the history. Bt if we are dealing with military historians, then they may be wnaing to re-enact certain key battles or engagements, in which case, yes, they will certainly be using the old weaponry. But, and this is important, they will not necessarily be following a tradition, simply re-enacting an event. Big difference there.

Oh and if you scroll to about the bottom you can see a field improvised sword & nunchuku from the SEREs school at Fort Bragg, here is a good example of modern adaptation of concept. And no, I'm not saying ninjas are trained at Fort Bragg. lol

Now this you lose me with completely. Is it supposed to have anything to do with the rest of your post, other than a brief reference to military history a second ago? I'm not really sure what the improvised weaponry has to do with the discussion, especially if we are talking ninjutsu, which makes the nunchaku completely irrelevant. Ninjutsu has never had such a weapon, and if anyone thinks they are studying ninjutsu and are learning this weapon as a part of that study, they have, I'm afraid, been had.

On to the last thing.

Bill, I have a fair amount of respect for you and the way you conduct yourself here for about 98% of the time... but you seem to have been following Draven around posting bits of his history with his real name wherever he posts. A friendly warning here that that is probably not going to be the best thing for you to do. Speaking personally, I disagree with most of his ideas, thoughts, approaches, posts, I think he is overtly violent, and comes from a more-than-suspect training background, but the best thing to do if you disagree is to be better at arguing your side. Even if you don't convince them, you will at least get your side out for others to make up their minds. I just don't want to see you gone for something like this.

 

[Draven]

Well, the other thing to remember is that the term "ninja" or "ninjutsu" are also relatively recent, so historically the various persons we would refer to as ninja (person who practices ninjutsu) would not refer to themselves in such a way. Hattori Hanzo was refered to simply as a Bushi from the Iga region.

Thats true but, even the modern useage was intended to identify a particular type of Bushi, though some bandits were also called ninjas because they were highly skilled.

Ninjutsu can be simply an aspect of an overall teaching (such as within Katori Shinto Ryu), but a few other things are a little out for me here. To begin with, you are missing what the Chivalric tradition actually is, as it is rather different to the Bushido aspect of the Japanese samurai. But then I don't think that is very well understood either. Each were applied well and truly after the fact to romanticise the groups in question, but were not really applied at the times people think they were.

And no, a defeated samurai could not just "turn ronin", then "teach peasants ninjutsu", your history is a bit out there as well. Typically, a ronin was a samurai who was "between jobs", as it were, and some Daimyo actually required that their samurai spend time (I have heard of lengths of 7 years) as ronin, travelling and improving so that they could bring back better skills to pass on within the group. Of course, others insisted that all samurai had to stay within the fiefdom at all times, and strictly forbade the ronin practice. As for "teach(ing) the peasants ninjutsu", well, that is just inaccurate. The idea of ninjutsu being a peasants version of martial arts is a misuse of the origins of karate (and that is nowhere near the full story there, either!), and the displaced samurai (note: not ronin) would not teach ninjutsu. He may teach his understanding of combative methods, and as circumstance dictates, that may evolve into something that we would refer to as ninjutsu, but the displaced samurai certainly wouldn't have been the one teaching it.

You get the point of my comparing Bushido to Chilvary they both were romantic notions used to define the samurai & knight respectively, often of which only applied in interaction with other members of their caste.

As for ninjutsu not being a "peasant martial art" I never said it was, I said it could be taught to peasants to form guerrilla-soldiers. Its a simple fact that Samurai & fuedal lords would conscript untrained peasants to bulk their normal firghting forces. Those peasants had no formal training in any martial art and served as cannon fodder, while samurai acted as shock troops, NCOs & Officers.

By your own words
"...the term "ninja" or "ninjutsu" are also relatively recent, so historically the various persons we would refer to as ninja (person who practices ninjutsu) would not refer to themselves in such a way."

"...the displaced samurai (note: not ronin) would not teach ninjutsu. He may teach his understanding of combative methods, and as circumstance dictates, that may evolve into something that we would refer to as ninjutsu, but the displaced samurai certainly wouldn't have been the one teaching it."

With your own statement you condemn your own arguement, you'll note I refered to the whole "ronin" statement with the quotation marks, meaning it wasn't a literal statement & since ninjutsu is a recent development & a samurai could teach bujutsu (which may or may not be refered to as ninjutsu in the modern context) its all just arguing semantics.

No, maintaining the tradition is not actually necessarily dependant on the techniques remaining unchanged. What is necessary is that the teaching of the principles of the art remains consistant, from one head to the next. And that head decides how it is done. It is not a sense of history that I spoke about, but more a sense of responsibility to see that these teachings are preserved (this is really a koryu approach, to be honest).

Now, I have avoided this subject with you until now, and now only because you brought it up. What about your Otomo Ryu is verified in Japan? There was a very old ryu by that name, but it died out centuries ago, along with other arts such as the Fuma Ryu, which some claim to teach today as well. Still, at least it's better that the other one, Koga Hai Lung Ninjitsu? Really? What part of that is authentic? Hmm, I'm going to leave that for now with this sites rules, but I'll come back to it a little later (slightly different approach).

What you seem to be talking about to me is organization; that a only the heads of the organization can change or adapt the system. Why? Out of some notion of lineage or out of some corporate model of being a CEO? The problem with that is that the geographical, economical, cultural & ethical limitations of the world were the "koryu approach" was needed are no longer limited. We cannot say that growth must come from the head of the organization alone, thats a why I say historical traditions are dead.

"What is necessary is that the teaching of the principles of the art remains consistant, from one head to the next. And that head decides how it is done. It is not a sense of history that I spoke about, but more a sense of responsibility to see that these teachings are preserved (this is really a koryu approach, to be honest)."

Thats also a corperate approach, so that a CEO can maintain the franchise & that is exactly what its used for today. History & lineage are excuses for maitaining corperate control and a marketting tool. As far as Omoto Ryu, it is not verified in Japan except that there are practicers of the art in Japan.

Now this you lose me with completely. Is it supposed to have anything to do with the rest of your post, other than a brief reference to military history a second ago? I'm not really sure what the improvised weaponry has to do with the discussion, especially if we are talking ninjutsu, which makes the nunchaku completely irrelevant. Ninjutsu has never had such a weapon, and if anyone thinks they are studying ninjutsu and are learning this weapon as a part of that study, they have, I'm afraid, been had.

Only your reference to fighting someone with a spear with a sword, as far as the nunchuku is concerned I train with them as part of ninjutsu training; they were added in back with the popularity of Shotokan early last century before I even studied the art & myself well I've added modern firearms and improvised explosives devises. Instructors in Canada don't have access to those kinds of firearms & nor do those in Japan without going through criminal channels.

The point is that arguing a tradition but claiming adaptation people always return to historical arguements & while I agree that what others have done before us matters & we can learn from them, we should be so limited by the idea of tradition that we blindly follow history. Using the nunchuku as an example; they are easily improvised from material as readily available as shoe laces or a strip of cloth and two sticks, they are very effective at striking and grappling range. However they are left out of one system by the "historical tradition" but are adopted by another of the "philosophical tradition."

 

[Chris Parker]

This is because I love a good argument, although we have hijacked the thread a bit. Mind you, the OP is now banned, so I don't think it matters too much....

Thats true but, even the modern useage was intended to identify a particular type of Bushi, though some bandits were also called ninjas because they were highly skilled.

To a degree, yes. Although I would say that the bandits being refered to as ninja was more just a colloquialism, as they were in no way associated with the actual ninja themselves.

You get the point of my comparing Bushido to Chilvary they both were romantic notions used to define the samurai & knight respectively, often of which only applied in interaction with other members of their caste.

But you missed the point where I said that these terms were applied retro-actively, and they have been overly romanticised. They were not only applied within members of their own caste, though. The Chivalric ideal, for instance, was popularised not by the knights, but by the troubadours who travelled around singing songs of the deeds of the knights. And when it comes to Bushido, that has meant a number of different things to different groups at different times. For example, Musashi spoke about the way of the warrior (bushido) being more about being familiar with the usage of weaponry than any personal ideals, Yamamoto, the writer of Hagakure, had a very different ideal when it came to bushido to many of his contemporaries, as well as those who came before him, although many people look to his book as a definitive description of what bushido is/was, it is far from the popularly known version.

As for ninjutsu not being a "peasant martial art" I never said it was, I said it could be taught to peasants to form guerrilla-soldiers. Its a simple fact that Samurai & fuedal lords would conscript untrained peasants to bulk their normal firghting forces. Those peasants had no formal training in any martial art and served as cannon fodder, while samurai acted as shock troops, NCOs & Officers.

I took that from your phrasing of the "ronin" teaching the peasants "ninjutsu". If that was a misunderstanding, I apologise. Now, yes, various Daimyo would bolster their ranks with peasants, give them a little training, and put them in the front lines. They would often become Ashigaru, foot soldiers, and when the fighting was over, they would go back to the farms.

By your own words
"...the term "ninja" or "ninjutsu" are also relatively recent, so historically the various persons we would refer to as ninja (person who practices ninjutsu) would not refer to themselves in such a way."

"...the displaced samurai (note: not ronin) would not teach ninjutsu. He may teach his understanding of combative methods, and as circumstance dictates, that may evolve into something that we would refer to as ninjutsu, but the displaced samurai certainly wouldn't have been the one teaching it."

With your own statement you condemn your own arguement, you'll note I refered to the whole "ronin" statement with the quotation marks, meaning it wasn't a literal statement & since ninjutsu is a recent development & a samurai could teach bujutsu (which may or may not be refered to as ninjutsu in the modern context) its all just arguing semantics.

Okay, I was using the term "ninjutsu" for two reasons, one is ease of understanding, the other is that you had used it in this context first. That is what I meant when I said that "that may evolve into something that we would refer to as ninjutsu", not that they would have used the same terms. My point was more that the knowledge that the displaced samurai would have taught would not have been what we would currently refer to as ninjutsu. Ninjutsu grew out of particular social circumstances, which would have had the presence and effect felt on the skills taught over longer generations. So I feel my argument stands. Oh, and ninjutsu is not a recent development, it is just a more modern term (from memory dating from the late Edo Jidai and Meiji Restoration, so late 18th through to 19th Century, so modern when we are discussing 500 year old arts and so forth). It is not a 20th Century term.

What you seem to be talking about to me is organization; that a only the heads of the organization can change or adapt the system. Why? Out of some notion of lineage or out of some corporate model of being a CEO? The problem with that is that the geographical, economical, cultural & ethical limitations of the world were the "koryu approach" was needed are no longer limited. We cannot say that growth must come from the head of the organization alone, thats a why I say historical traditions are dead.

You are of course free to say and feel that. But if we are dealing with an established martial system here, only the head is permitted to change it. If you change it from a level below that, you are no longer training in that art, but a new one. And odds are that you are doing so without understanding why things were done the way they were in the first place. Free expression of the principles is one thing, but any real change must be from the head of the system (and in most koryu, free expression within the classic forms is a no-no as well), as they are the only person who is a true representation/manifestation of the art as a living person. And only by following what they are teaching are you actually training in their art. Again, this is a very koryu approach, and you are not studying a koryu in any way, so it will be different for you.

"What is necessary is that the teaching of the principles of the art remains consistant, from one head to the next. And that head decides how it is done. It is not a sense of history that I spoke about, but more a sense of responsibility to see that these teachings are preserved (this is really a koryu approach, to be honest)."

Thats also a corperate approach, so that a CEO can maintain the franchise & that is exactly what its used for today. History & lineage are excuses for maitaining corperate control and a marketting tool. As far as Omoto Ryu, it is not verified in Japan except that there are practicers of the art in Japan.

Yes it is. Imagine what would happen if some MacDonalds stores decided that they wanted to serve only sushi and tacos, and no hamburgers. They are still a restaurant, but are they still MacDonalds? I do, however, feel that you are taking a rather jaded view of the reasons, though. It is not a marketing tool (many koryu are taught in only one location in Japan, have only a handful of practitioners, and require very stringent applications including serious interviews, introductions, and more before you are even allowed to watch a class), and it is not for maintaining control in any way other than to ensure the history of the art is not brought into disrepute by people who are not doing the system justice. So it is more a quality control thing.

And, although you are most likely aware of this already, there is little that would be considered authentic about your Otomo Ryu. There are plenty of bogus groups in Japan, possibly more than in the West, so having students or schools there is, I'm afraid, not any indication of authenticity. As Bruno said earlier "To expand on Chris' reply: this also means that any western 'ninjutsu' system which does not trace back to Takamatsu sensei is not ninjutsu at all. It may be a good system and maybe the people in it could kick my ***, but it's not ninjutsu at all, any more than Cyrillic is Japanese because its graphs are made of squiggly lines."

Only your reference to fighting someone with a spear with a sword, as far as the nunchuku is concerned I train with them as part of ninjutsu training; they were added in back with the popularity of Shotokan early last century before I even studied the art & myself well I've added modern firearms and improvised explosives devises. Instructors in Canada don't have access to those kinds of firearms & nor do those in Japan without going through criminal channels.

Ha, that was just to point out that if you are after immediately applicable skills, traditional arts are not always the best option. But really, if you are training with nunchaku and calling it ninjutsu, then you're mistaken. Completely different, developed for completely different reasons, with very different histories and philosophies. When looked at in this light, nunchaku actually have no place within ninjutsu.

The point is that arguing a tradition but claiming adaptation people always return to historical arguements & while I agree that what others have done before us matters & we can learn from them, we should be so limited by the idea of tradition that we blindly follow history. Using the nunchuku as an example; they are easily improvised from material as readily available as shoe laces or a strip of cloth and two sticks, they are very effective at striking and grappling range. However they are left out of one system by the "historical tradition" but are adopted by another of the "philosophical tradition."

Yes, easily improvised, still nothing to do with ninjutsu. As I said, the further you move (adapt) from the art, the less you are actually studying the art at all.

 

[Draven]

You seem to be missing the point I'm making; take Robert Bussey or even Stephen Hayes both can trace their "ninjutsu" to Takamatsu sensei; however Takamatsu was called a liar & a fraud in his own time. Now Bussey got "defamed" for breaking the "tradition" by starting his own expression of the art & adding from other sources. Years later Hayes did the same thing with Toshindo and the first response was the same treatment as Bussey.

My questions are;

How was that wrong..?

Is it because he improved on what he was taught without Hatsumi permitting it?

At what point does tradition require anyone submits before some "grandmaster" like in a 80s ninja movie?

Is it no longer Karate, if someone incorperates diffent aspects of other MAs to make it more applicatible?

In one aspect you're saying; "Adaptation and growth are all well and good, we do that ourselves." and then contradict yourself with "But really, if you are training with nunchaku and calling it ninjutsu, then you're mistaken. Completely different, developed for completely different reasons, with very different histories and philosophies. When looked at in this light, nunchaku actually have no place within ninjutsu."

What if I feel that my adaption & growth requires expanding the to the use of nunchuku or hell even the AR15 & AK47 I teach as part of my system. As for the "quality control" thats fine for the individual school, I can see wanting to keep out imposters to the specific school, such as having individual certficed instructors in that system however to call it "quality control" for some other school in similar system is just market control.

Ninjutsu is the only art where specific schools claim that no one else use their arts name. I can understand with Gracie Juijitsu since thats a specific school of juijitsu however they don't say no one can use the term juijitsu do they..? Thus we see many Brazilian Juijitsu schools, not all of the Gracie lineage. We have also seen many karate schools which won't be "karate" by your same standard.

To use your McDonalds arguement, the corperation can keep the other franchise resteraunts doing what it wants. They can even keep a anyone else from using the DcDonalds name & logos but they can't stop people from cooking hamburgers because they aren't McDonald's hamburgers. Thats what you're arguing, that "koryu-ninjutsu" is the only "ninjutsu" and no one can have ninjutsu because its not a name brand ninjutsu, course as we both agree the term ninjutsu is more recent distinction between certain aspects of bujutsu based on different philosophies of Bushido.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, I can understand confussion, it's not exactly an easy thing to get around, but we'll see how we go...

You seem to be missing the point I'm making; take Robert Bussey or even Stephen Hayes both can trace their "ninjutsu" to Takamatsu sensei; however Takamatsu was called a liar & a fraud in his own time. Now Bussey got "defamed" for breaking the "tradition" by starting his own expression of the art & adding from other sources. Years later Hayes did the same thing with Toshindo and the first response was the same treatment as Bussey.

Takamatsu's lineages were not all questioned, systems such as Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu and Kukishin Ryu are very well established. The main contention was the Togakure Ryu claim. However it was accepted enough to make it into the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten, put together by independant martial historians. As for Hayes, Bussey, and even my own organisation, from a koryu point of view by breaking with the mainline, we cannot by definition be teaching the ryu, even though we can be teaching the same techniques. That is because we are no longer a part of that ryu. However, Hatsumi does not teach in a koryu fashion, so that becomes kinda moot (for the record, when Tanemura left to form the Genbukan, he officially could not teach those ryu and licence in them, so he formed his own branches of them. That way he can continue to teach and rank in them).


My questions are;

How was that wrong..?

Is it because he improved on what he was taught without Hatsumi permitting it?

I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word here. It is simply that it on longer remains so-and-so ryu. Within koryu traditions, there is a very deep feeling of betrayal should someone leave a ryu and continue to teach it. A very good case in point is the Katori Shinto Ryu and the members of the Sugino Dojo branch. But the big issue is less that they are teaching differently, it is that they have broken with the mainline (Hatsumi).

At what point does tradition require anyone submits before some "grandmaster" like in a 80s ninja movie?

It's not really submitting. It is far more a case of a particular ryu being represented by the head of the system, and if you are not getting it from them (directly or by their appointed repreesntatives), you are not training in that art. The continuation of the tradition is held in the hands of only the head of the system, so to be a part of it, you need to be a connected to them. You seem to be missing how it actually works.

Is it no longer Karate, if someone incorperates diffent aspects of other MAs to make it more applicatible?

It is no longer Shotokan if you spend a lot of time on the ground doing BJJ, no. But you may incorporate aspects of BJJ technologies into the body of your karate system and start a new karate system. Or use your understanding of the ground as gleaned through BJJ training to enable you to use your Shotokan on the ground, remaining true to the principles of Shotokan. So it depends.

In one aspect you're saying; "Adaptation and growth are all well and good, we do that ourselves." and then contradict yourself with "But really, if you are training with nunchaku and calling it ninjutsu, then you're mistaken. Completely different, developed for completely different reasons, with very different histories and philosophies. When looked at in this light, nunchaku actually have no place within ninjutsu."

What if I feel that my adaption & growth requires expanding the to the use of nunchuku or hell even the AR15 & AK47 I teach as part of my system. As for the "quality control" thats fine for the individual school, I can see wanting to keep out imposters to the specific school, such as having individual certficed instructors in that system however to call it "quality control" for some other school in similar system is just market control.

Ninjutsu, by definition, is a historically based art. The reason I say that nunchaku have no place in ninjutsu is that the reason they exist as a weapon actually contravenes the way ninjutsu's philosophy works. In terms of your adaptation and growth, that can be incorporated into an overall art known as ninjutsu (although I still say yours isn't ninjutsu at all... but we'll get there), however it is not part of so-and-so ryu of ninjutsu.

Ninjutsu is the only art where specific schools claim that no one else use their arts name. I can understand with Gracie Juijitsu since thats a specific school of juijitsu however they don't say no one can use the term juijitsu do they..? Thus we see many Brazilian Juijitsu schools, not all of the Gracie lineage. We have also seen many karate schools which won't be "karate" by your same standard.

The reason that is the case is not some sense of superiority from the ninjutsu community, it is because ninjutsu is, by definition, a system categorised such due to it's history, more so even than it's technical curriculum. And the only arts left with any credible claim to that history are those traced back to Takamatsu. There are simply no others left. If there were, they would have just as valid a claim to the name as the Takamatsu-den do. Any modern art cannot, by definition, be classed as ninjutsu. It does not have the requisite history.

In terms of the jujutsu systems or karate systems, take it back to individual systems and you may get an idea. Let's say that someone has done a bit of wrestling (high school), and starts to teach under the Gracie name. He has no connection to the Gracies, he has never trained BJJ, what happens when he gets found out? Is that a valid use of the name? Again, if a guy has done a few years of Tae Kwon Do, and then claims to be teaching Shotokan, is he? He is certainly teaching something that most will recognise as karate, but is he teaching Shotokan?

To use your McDonalds arguement, the corperation can keep the other franchise resteraunts doing what it wants. They can even keep a anyone else from using the DcDonalds name & logos but they can't stop people from cooking hamburgers because they aren't McDonald's hamburgers. Thats what you're arguing, that "koryu-ninjutsu" is the only "ninjutsu" and no one can have ninjutsu because its not a name brand ninjutsu, course as we both agree the term ninjutsu is more recent distinction between certain aspects of bujutsu based on different philosophies of Bushido.

Ninjutsu is an art based in the history of Japan. Without that history (which needs to be, realistically, at least 300 years old now), it cannot by definition be ninjutsu. Ninjutsu practitioners get hot and bothered when people without this historical connection begin using the name. We don't argue the use of Taijutsu, as many arts use that. We don't argue Kenjutsu, as many use that. But we argue Ninjutsu, as they have no claim. And that is the case with your Otomo Ryu.

And no. Ninjutsu is not a more recent distinction. It is a more recent term for the distinction (earlier terms for ninja include rappa, suppa, shinobi no mono, and more). Ninjutsu is it's history as much as it's techniques. Without it, there is no ninjutsu.

 

[kaizasosei]

Anybody who said Takamatsusensei is a fraud was an ignorant fool. Takamatsusensei was a real human being. Don't get much more real. How can you be a fraud in humbly and respectfully sharing what you love.


j

 

[Draven]

Oh but Kukishin Ryu is a Jujutsu Ryu with no ninjutsu listed as part of the system (except for x-kan sites), more so; other besides Takamatsu have been licensed to teach this Ryu-ha and only those derived from Takamatsu came it is a ninjutsu school. More so, Takamatsu was never soke of Kukishin Ryu that was granted to Iwami Nangaku & Takamatsu was allowed to found the sub-school of Kukishinden Ryu. Kumogakure Ryu is another issue as its alledgely derived from the same family which has the debated ryu of Togakure Ryu... I should also point out that the existance of Toda, Shinryuken Masamitsu is a hotly contested issue as well.

You see we have two issue to be overcome;
1) How we define ninjutsu...
You choose to define it as a particluar lineage, but since even the individuals within the lineage used the term retroactively, a jujutsu school kenjutsu school could be considered "ninjutsu" if they used a certain set of tactics. So then "ninjutsu" is application of specific skills and tactics where as a specific school's name or style is the "college" those "lessons" are derived from.

2) The useage of the term...
Well what you're missing is that while some can combined shotokan karate & BJJ and call it "karate." While calling it shotokan would be incorrect useage of the term (on that we agree) however karate it is regardless because it uses a specific set of skills and tactics, however those tactics might well be expanded upon to begin with. So then someone applying a particular skill set can be considered "ninjutsu" without actually being say Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu.

3) The reality of tradition & name brands...
Thus we come to the issue here; now as I've been intentional in not mentioning, their are 2 types of martial arts as far as lineage goes. Gendai (modern) & Koryu (ancient or old school); of which with each new adaptation becomes more gendai then koryu. I can accept a "modern form" grown out of individual adaptation; I never made any claim to it being a koryu art form in the first place, only that it applied certain skillsets common to the specific tactics described as ninjutsu.

However since "ninjutsu" is a more gendai term then a "koryu" one it makes perfect since for it have gendai expressions. There are gendai forms of jujutsu dedicated to fighting methods more then philosophy, the common distinction between budo & bujutsu, in the world today. Thus gendai ninjutsu seems just as plausable; I'm neither claiming a koryu lineage nor am I aserting a specific "brand name" beyond the one it was taught to me under.

Sorry I don't buy the ninja history thing when those claiming it the most simply don't have it themselves. Instead I see it has more or less as marketing puffery; trying to debase the market competition.

Think of it as this, lineage is fine for proving a lot of things but it doesn't alter the product. I can teach combatives and I can call "guerrilla-combatives" but its still a the end product of "combatives." Now I can't say its "Applegate/Fairbairn Combatives" without having a lineage to show that, but I still have "combatives." Saying I can't call it combatives because I can't trace a lineage to Fairbairn, Applegate or Stykes is a bit childish.

While the Omoto-Ryu as I understand is derived from an older system of "ninjutsu" its still been modernized even before I learned it; to include some weapons from kobudo & techniques from other systems. It makes use the skillsets involving stealth, evasion, survival training, meditation, herbal medicines, various weapons far exceeding koryu school and even into modern firearms training. Yes, the school even deals with aspects of espionage work & even covert warfare and tactics. Is a Koryu system? Nope, but it is still ninjutsu making use of those skillsets.

 

[Chris Parker]

Bruno has been formulating a reply for a little while now, let's see who gets there first...

Oh but Kukishin Ryu is a Jujutsu Ryu with no ninjutsu listed as part of the system (except for x-kan sites), more so; other besides Takamatsu have been licensed to teach this Ryu-ha and only those derived from Takamatsu came it is a ninjutsu school. More so, Takamatsu was never soke of Kukishin Ryu that was granted to Iwami Nangaku & Takamatsu was allowed to found the sub-school of Kukishinden Ryu. Kumogakure Ryu is another issue as its alledgely derived from the same family which has the debated ryu of Togakure Ryu... I should also point out that the existance of Toda, Shinryuken Masamitsu is a hotly contested issue as well.

To begin with, Kukishin Ryu contains Jujutsu, primarily taken from the Takagi Ryu, but it is not a Jujutsu school. It is a sogo bujutsu ryu-ha, with it's initial focus on naginatajutsu and sojutsu, later being known as specialists with various bo. I'm not too fond of the link you provided, I would go more with this one myself http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/index_e.html as it is far more complete and informative. It is the website of the current mainline Tenshin Hyoho Kukishinden Ryu, and is a great read.

When it comes to Takamatsu's involvement with the Kuki family, he helped reunite them with their martial traditions after they had been banned from practicing during the Edo Jidai. They did, however, maintain their own form of Shinto practice, known as Nakatomi Shinto, and that was what they still retained when Takamatsu (known as Chosui) brought them their martial system back. He was legitimately the soke of a few branches of the Kukishin Ryu, the original mainline had died out in the 1600s with the ban from the Shogun. It has now been recreated.

The Kumogakure Ryu is another issue. Not much is known, or has been taught, and a popular belief is that it was developed by the Toda family when they were custodians of the Togakure Ryu. It certainly shares a number of similarites is philosophy and approach. Oh, and a supposedly independant historian and researcher claimed to have found Toda Shinryuken's grave a while back, and records of Daisuke Nishina as well as other heads of the Togakure Ryu have been found which seem to match up with the Togakure Ryu kuden. Its still not definitive, but it does seem to help.

You see we have two issue to be overcome;
1) How we define ninjutsu...
You choose to define it as a particluar lineage, but since even the individuals within the lineage used the term retroactively, a jujutsu school kenjutsu school could be considered "ninjutsu" if they used a certain set of tactics. So then "ninjutsu" is application of specific skills and tactics where as a specific school's name or style is the "college" those "lessons" are derived from.

No, I define ninjutsu as being peculiar to Japan, and being a range of strategies and tactics born out of a particular set of social. political, geographical, and cultural circumstances that existed in Japan a number of centuries ago. Without those criteria, whatever you are studying, no matter what it looks like, or how it resembles ninjutsu, just isn't ninjutsu. That is what I meant in my first post here when I said "To begin with, Ninjutsu and Ninja are purely, strictly, and exclusively a Japanese phenomenon, so "anywhere else" is out of the question." Without that historical connection to an art which developed out of those particular circumstances, it simply is not ninjutsu.

Ninjutsu is not a particular lineage, but particular lineages are ninjutsu. In terms of the name being used retroactively, that is just that the vernacular changed over time, not that the view of the peoples did. In the 19th Century in England, if you really wanted to offend someone, you called them a bugger, implying certain romantic proclivities. The same idea exists now, but the language we use has changed (and would get caught up by the filters...)

2) The useage of the term...
Well what you're missing is that while some can combined shotokan karate & BJJ and call it "karate." While calling it shotokan would be incorrect useage of the term (on that we agree) however karate it is regardless because it uses a specific set of skills and tactics, however those tactics might well be expanded upon to begin with. So then someone applying a particular skill set can be considered "ninjutsu" without actually being say Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu.

Not without the historical backup. The reason we claim that only these arts are ninjutsu is because no-one else has been able to provide even cursory evidence that another has survived. And as it is impossible to create a new school of ninjutsu (the particular circumstances simply do not exist, particularly not in the West), the only way to train in the arts is to find an old system. And those are only left in the arts tracing back to Takamatsu, aside from certain areas of specialist knowledge in Katori Shinto Ryu and one or two others. But that does not mean that every art taught by Takamatsu is ninjutsu, and not one of the organisations claim that they are.

3) The reality of tradition & name brands...
Thus we come to the issue here; now as I've been intentional in not mentioning, their are 2 types of martial arts as far as lineage goes. Gendai (modern) & Koryu (ancient or old school); of which with each new adaptation becomes more gendai then koryu. I can accept a "modern form" grown out of individual adaptation; I never made any claim to it being a koryu art form in the first place, only that it applied certain skillsets common to the specific tactics described as ninjutsu.

Well, that's not really two types of lineages, it's two ways of categorising the age of different systems. In essence, koryu predates the Meiji Restoration, gendai is after it (about 1862). So no, adaptation does not turn a koryu system into a gendai system. A common example I often give is the Kashima Shinryu. Each of the last few headmasters, up to the current Seki Humitake, have changed the way the system is taught, removing kata, bringing them back in, simplifying things, adding to them, or just changing the way a kata is done. In the current generation of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu under Iwami Soke, the same thing has happened, with the way certain kata are performed being altered. The "unofficial" 25th head of Shinto Muso Ryu Jojutsu also added some material, including bringing some back into the art which had been neglected. And each of these remain koryu systems.

People like the Skoss' main complaint against systems such as the Bujinkan being classed as koryu is not the technical curriculum, it is the way it is being passed on. They freely state that at the very least Takagi Yoshin Ryu and Kukishin Ryu are independant koryu, however they are not taught as such, and that takes away the classification. The arts themselves may be classed as koryu, however the Bujinkan is classed as Gendai as it is not really teaching these arts (seperately, in a koryu fashion), but rather blending them into a new system, known as Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.

While you never made any claim for your system being koryu, by definition if it is really a ninjutsu system, it would need to be one. But the way it is passed down may not have it quailfying under the Skoss' ideals.

However since "ninjutsu" is a more gendai term then a "koryu" one it makes perfect since for it have gendai expressions. There are gendai forms of jujutsu dedicated to fighting methods more then philosophy, the common distinction between budo & bujutsu, in the world today. Thus gendai ninjutsu seems just as plausable; I'm neither claiming a koryu lineage nor am I aserting a specific "brand name" beyond the one it was taught to me under.

Actually, no. While it is the current vernacular, it has been since the mid Edo Jidai, which places it in the koryu terminology (if you want to use that terminology here, it's not really correct). And so you know, to the Japanese there really is no distinction between budo and bujutsu. It appears to be us Westerners who look to much into that one. It really doesn't exist in that way. Some "jutsu" arts are very philosophical (ninjutsu itself comes to mind, but there are also things such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu Kenjutsu, it is said that you need to understand Bhuddist scripture to really know that art), and plenty of "do" systems that are highly focused on technique (judo, Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo, and more). So that imagined distinction should go.

As said, ninjutsu requires the historical link. There is no such thing as gendai ninjutsu, nor can there be. So even if it is plausible to you, it still isn't possible. Again, that doesn't make any other art worse, or better, in fact it may be exactly what you want and need, but it cannot be ninjutsu. Without the koryu-style lineage and history, it cannot be ninjutsu. At all.

Sorry I don't buy the ninja history thing when those claiming it the most simply don't have it themselves. Instead I see it has more or less as marketing puffery; trying to debase the market competition.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however that doesn't change the simple fact that every person who has gone searching for legitimate ninjutsu have always found that the Bujinkan and it's various spin-offs are the one and only source for this area of knowledge. This is not marketing anymore than stating that 250 year old French Brandy is found only in bottles that were filled in France 250 years ago. Not bottles filled 20 years ago in Kentucky. Might both still be brandy (here read "martial arts", rather than "ninjutsu"), but only one of them could possibly be 250 year old French brandy.

Think of it as this, lineage is fine for proving a lot of things but it doesn't alter the product. I can teach combatives and I can call "guerrilla-combatives" but its still a the end product of "combatives." Now I can't say its "Applegate/Fairbairn Combatives" without having a lineage to show that, but I still have "combatives." Saying I can't call it combatives because I can't trace a lineage to Fairbairn, Applegate or Stykes is a bit childish.

Well, this is going to come down to what you want out of your art. If you want the old knowledge, if you want to learn from time tested strategies, if you have a historical interest from an almost anthropological point of view, then the veracity and history will matter a great deal. If you are after just something for here, now, in the current environment, with modern weapons and don't care if it is new or old, then you have no need to study ninjutsu.

Your combatives idea is a bit off. Combatives is a term that can encompass modern, primarily military, methods, so you can certainly come up with a new form of it not based on Fairbairn et al, however with ninjutsu, I think I've said this before, but there is no way to create a new system of it. The circumstances no longer exist.

While the Omoto-Ryu as I understand is derived from an older system of "ninjutsu" its still been modernized even before I learned it; to include some weapons from kobudo & techniques from other systems. It makes use the skillsets involving stealth, evasion, survival training, meditation, herbal medicines, various weapons far exceeding koryu school and even into modern firearms training. Yes, the school even deals with aspects of espionage work & even covert warfare and tactics. Is a Koryu system? Nope, but it is still ninjutsu making use of those skillsets.

But unless you can show a link to a genuine ninjutsu ryu, it isn't ninjutsu either. It may have superficial similarities, but it simply isn't ninjutsu. And I really don't think you need it to be for you to still enjoy it.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Bruno has been formulating a reply for a little while now, let's see who gets there first...

My apologies.

I was indeed writing up a reply, going into the more nitpicky angles of the argument. And then I thought to myself: 'why bother'. After all, all arguments have been put on the table.

What usually happens right around the time I was going to reply, is that someone simply refuses to acknowledge the arguments of the others, and the discussion goes round and round, covering the same essentials over and over in slightly different wording.

So I simply closed my browser window and mowed my lawn and spent a couple of hours de-mossing it so that I can start practicing outside now that spring is coming about. That seemed to me a far better use of my time than wasting time on a circular argument.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Some arguments are best just left to drift, ehh!


Seriously Chris did a really nice job in pointing out some very pertinent points.
Simply put you cannot and should not create a style in todays world and call it Ninjutsu. If you do so then you risk permanent ridicule and people will simply never take you seriously!

 

[Draven]

Some arguments are best just left to drift, ehh!


Seriously Chris did a really nice job in pointing out some very pertinent points.
Simply put you cannot and should not create a style in todays world and call it Ninjutsu. If you do so then you risk permanent ridicule and people will simply never take you seriously!

Thats true Brian, of course you also have to realize that by the standard imposed by that the x-kans are all hypocritical & they have no claim either. Consider that the only varified aspects of Takamatsu's lineage is Takagi Yoshin ryu & Kukishin ryu is independantly varifiable. More so, no one associated with ninjutsu claims them as ninjutsu nor their practicers outside of x-kan claim any connects to ninjutsu. Concerning Toda (the source of Takamatsu's Ninjutsu lineage) there are so many contradicting dates given for the time of his life & death so that he is considered suspect or to have even existed.

Problem with the "koryu arguement" is that no ninjutsu school today is proven as a koryu system, regardless of how many frachise websites argue differently. Just as there are specific gendai jujutsu schools which do not trace themselves to a koryu samurai but still reflect a particular skillset can call itself jujutsu, why can't one do so for ninjutsu?

More so, since the whole existance of Togakure Ryu among other ryu-ha are all hinged on Toda's existance & we are to believe that Takamatsu & it was recorded that Takamatsu made him up as well as Togakure Ryu then it means still no "koryu connection."

Ah, yes the Bujinkan can prove a legitimate history to two jujutsu schools which do not want to be involved in ninjutsu and the only two recognized koryu ninjutsu schools include ninjutsu only as a course in tactics. Like I said its all marketing & trolling or flaming for pointing that out (which I'm amazed hasn't been done yet) only shows that one is trying to defend that position. No ninjutsu school is legitimately koryu though there are koryu systems which have ninjutsu included.

 

[Touch Of Death]

If Ninja are a result of a caste system, then India could have similar peeps.
sean