Hi
@dunc ,
Some things to clear up.
There are technical differences between the arts as they are trained in different lines
This is quite normal I think and not exclusive to Xkan vs Koryu
This is absolutely true. One look at, for example, the differences between the Kawasaki and Chiba lines for Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu is an example of that... you can also see distinctions between various groups for Shindo Muso Ryu, most notable between the Kyushu and Tokyo groups... different groups of Muso Shinden Ryu or Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu have variations in noto, reigi, syllabus content (some have some small additional areas, for example)... however, I would suggest you're missing a few key points.
Firstly, even with these technical differences, each art is still recognisable as that art... to use Shinto Ryu as an example, the Chiba line tend to be more "forward" with the direction of their weapons, whereas the Kawasaki are a bit more focused on large circles... but they are still using pretty much the same mechanical ideas. The same grips, postures, power generation, ri-ai, and applications of weapons... Shinto Ryu is Shinto Ryu, regardless of these more superficial changes. The way Shinto Ryu uses a bo is very much Shinto Ryu... pulling the staff back to get a secure grip on the base-third of the weapon before swinging the far end to the target is very much the Shinto Ryu method of using a bo... it's not the way it's used in Kukishin Ryu, or Chikubujima Ryu, or Takenouchi Ryu, or Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu... it's not the same staff methodology employed in Shindo Muso Ryu either, despite that coming from Shinto Ryu...
The point there is that, for example, if you were in a school that taught Shinto Ryu, and taught another art with bojutsu as part of it's skill-set, if both bo systems look the same, or similar, then at least one of them is incorrect, as it's no longer that school... even if the "order of strikes" is the same. So, when you get a collection of supposedly disparate systems, and they all end up using the same or similar movement concepts, kamae structures, footwork, fists, and so on, then you're not actually training in the ryu themselves... you're training using their kata to explore something different.
The next thing to recognise is just how close these various lines are, in regard to how changes would be implemented. The alternate forms for Kukishin (Kijin Chosui Ryu Kukishinden) Ryu and Koto Ryu are pretty much equivalent generations as Hatsumi/Bujinkan... both are the generation following Takamatsu. However, I'm sure you have seen just how very different the movement, kamae, and more are between the way, say, Koto Ryu is done in the linked video, and how it's performed in the Bujinkan... yet, the version shown is the version received from Takamatsu to Ueno Takashi (then passed onto Kaminaga Shigemi), a short number of years before Hatsumi started training with Takamatsu... so why are they so different?
Really, there are three possibilities... number one, Ueno Takashi changed the way it was performed drastically. However it doesn't really match the way other ryu were done by Ueno. Number two, Takamatsu changed the way the school was done in the few intervening years between teaching/giving the school to Ueno, and teaching/giving the school to Hatsumi. But if the idea is this is an old school, why would it be changed so drastically? Unless Takamatsu created the school, and changed his mind in how it was done in the intervening years....
The third possibility is that the school is done differently in the Bujinkan, in a way that matches the way Hatsumi had learnt to move, by applying such movement concepts to the order of techniques... which would match more of the Togakure Ryu and Gyokko Ryu concepts (as you look at them... really, Togakure Ryu more than anything else, as, and this might surprise you, it's the only one with a weight-back kamae concept... with Gyokko to give shape to the blocks, strikes, and so on... remember, these were the first two that Hatsumi actually got rank in). The natural extension of this, though, is, as we saw with Shinto Ryu bo above, once you take away all the concepts of that ryu, and leave only the sequence of movements, it's just no longer that ryu. It's only a set of actions.
I know, the standard response is "but these schools have been closely related for centuries!"... leaving off the highly doubtful reality of that statement, let's use a few more examples to show how that, really, isn't a major factor, and certainly isn't an explanation for what's seen in the way the kata are done in Bujinkan training.
Gyokko, Koto, and Togakure are all said to be from the same "family"... the founder of Koto Ryu is said to be Sakagami Taro Kunishige, 12th soke of Gyokko Ryu... and Togakure Ryu has been linked with Gyokko for a long time as well (being based in Hakuun Ryu, and Gyokko Ryu being founded by Hakuunsei Tozawa), however it's interesting to note that the soke lists only line up with the Toda family, after "4 missing generations) in the Gyokko list (the previous named head is Momochi Sandayu, likely positioned due to his "fame" than anything historically valid), so the argument that Togakure Ryu has been a part of Gyokko Ryu since inception is a bit of a stretch... more importantly, that then leaves Kukishin, Takagi, and Shinden Fudo being separate (historically... Shinden Fudo was said to be the school taught officially by Toda Shinryuken, however there isn't a historical connection before that). Kukishin and Takagi have a solid connection, sure... but they're not related to the others, according to the histories provided, so it makes little sense that they'd share much in the way of mechanics, kamae ideas, fists, naming concepts, and so on... but they do... in the Bujinkan (and the Genbukan, and Jinenkan, for the record... this isn't a "Bujinkan is wrong" thing).
So, let's look at something commensurate... Takenouchi Ryu is similarly linked with Takagi Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, and others... and, while there are certain similarities in some content and structure, the actual methodology of the schools have grown well and truly apart. However, when you get schools that are taught together, then end up not being separate schools, but different parts of the one... you could look at the Eishin Ryu Iai schools (Tosa-Iai), with the Eishin Ryu itself being developed by the 7th generation head of the Hayashizaki lineage, and the Omori Ryu from a senior of the same generation... over the last couple of centuries, while the different sections of the schools have their own contexts, the mechanics are largely shared across the school, making a single ryu (either Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, or Muso Shinden Ryu in the main). Schools such as Shinmuso Hayashizaki Ryu, though, although from a shared source, are massively different in methodology, context, weaponry used, and more. Shindo Muso Ryu also has a range of fuzoku ryu-ha (assimilated schools), the Isshin Ryu (Kusarigama), Ittatsu Ryu (Hojo), Kasumi Shinto Ryu (Ken), Ikkaku Ryu (Jutte/Tessen), and Uchida Ryu (Tanjo)... all of which are taught, and trained, as part of the Shindo Muso Ryu, and share the mechanics and principles of the "main" school.
What this means, really, is that the shared history of some schools doesn't mean that they should necessarily
all be so similar... even some of the shared ones shouldn't necessarily be expected to be so similar either.
Oh, and while we're looking at Kukishin (now Kukamishin) Ryu and Takagi Ryu, and their separation from the forms taught in the Bujinkan etc, the separation is again only a generation or two... Ishitani taught both schools to Takamatsu, as well as teaching Kakuno Hachiheita, whose students would form the mainline for Takagi Ryu Jujutsu (Tsutsui Tomotaro) and Hontai Yoshin Ryu (Minaki Saburoji). These teachers would then be contemporary of Hatsumi... and, as there is very much shared mechanical approaches, ri-ai, and so on between those two lines that are entirely absent from the Bujinkan (or Genbukan, for that matter) approaches, again, the question would be if Takamatsu changed them (to suit the other schools), or if they have been altered in performance in the current generation. As for Kukishin, well, Takamatsu was a shihan of the school, he was instrumental in re-constructing and restructuring the naginata, rewriting the Amatsu Tatara scrolls, and so on... so we're again only a generation or two removed from the mainline (even after Takamatsu split from them around 1934, some senior members of the ryu were still coming to him for additional training). So why does Bujinkan bojutsu not feature the same mechanics and methods of performance and transmission as the "actual" Kukishin (Kukamishin) Ryu? Again, the most likely is that the kata (sequences) were taught, but built not on Takagi Ryu (or Kukishin Ryu) concepts and principles, instead being basically built on the established movement that Hatsumi had... either realising that the basis of Togakure/Gyokko was going to "work", or that it would take too long to start each school from scratch, or that it would be just too problematic to do each in turn properly (all of which are valid reasons).
What's interesting is that, specifically in the bojutsu, the Genbukan are a lot more "Kukishin" than the Bujinkan approach... which I feel comes down to Sato Kinbei. He trained a lot longer with Takamatsu, from when he was still with the Kuki family, so likely learnt it more "correctly"... when Tanemura went to study with him, that got drilled more, which explains how that has then influenced everything the Genbukan does (again, there's little separation of the ryu there, as can be seen in the videos from Michael Coleman, or by looking at any Genbukan demo).
Apologies for repeating myself, but if you want to go deep into the unique characteristics of any of the ryuha then you can.
And, apologies for repeating myself, but that just isn't seen in any evidence that has ever been seen or presented. Deep into the kata as taught in the Bujinkan? Absolutely, and no argument at all. I just don't see any evidence that there's actual ryu-ha transmission... so you're getting deep study into something else. And, before we get the wrong idea again, that's not a criticism, it's an observation. If you want one system (with a variety of "flavours", but still the same dish, as it were), with consistency of principles, concepts, and so on, then that approach is exactly what should be done... if you want the actual ryu, though, this is never going to give that to you, as the ryu themselves are, by necessity, no longer there.
There are (or were) teachers who show you these things and whether you had a relationship with them that was conducive to this
Again, I've heard this over and over. And, yet, there has been no definitive example, nor any evidence of such happening. And, to be clear, if you are studying and training in a particular ryu-ha, and doing it properly, then it will be expressed in all movement... and, even up to Hatsumi, including all the senior Japanese, and so on, I have seen exactly zero examples of such. They all express Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu movement, regardless of the "school" they're showing... if they'd been trained in the individual schools, it would show when they did them. Additionally, even if there was someone who had genuinely learnt the schools in this manner, could embody them in the way that would be expected, the fact that that's not the way they're taught in 99+% of cases makes it kinda moot, regarding if the ryu are taught in the Bujinkan, doesn't it?
It would depend somewhat on what period you were training in
How so? Has Hatsumi forgotten the movement of the schools? Has Noguchi? Ishizuka? Nagato? I ask about them specifically, as they have been named as the new soke for Koto, Gyokko, and Shinden Fudo Ryu respectively... and, other than personal differences, there isn't a ryu-ha difference in their movement or technique.
Look, again, I get the old claim of "well, when there weren't so many people, you could have done this, but we weren't there...", and, honestly, it's not a real argument. even in footage from "back in the day", there's no evidence of anything like it... despite certain ranks and licences being awarded.
In my view folks training in the Bujinkan should go through various phases of their development:
1) master the basic building blocks of taijutsu (think the TCJ)
2) master the forms from the ryuha (& their unique insights, movements, tactics etc)
3) learn to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryuha more generally
Each of these takes quite a long time and a lot of effort and it’s not really a linear progression in practice
That's pretty close to the actual idealised approach, and I'd agree... except to say that your third point is where it falls down. Yes, begin by building a structural base (concepts of kamae, defence, movement, and so on), and the Ten Chi Jin is fantastic for that. Yep, next you go through the kata from the ryu-ha... and that's precisely what you'd be doing. You'd be using the basic structure (attained by studying the TCJ diligently), and then you'd do the sequences (the kata), through the filter of that single basic structure... in other words, you're not doing the ryu-ha, you're doing sequences (kata)
from the ryu-ha... which is a big difference. Without that, once you got through the TCJ, what you'd need to do is literally start learning everything all over again... new postural concepts, new ri-ai, new striking and receiving methods, new distances, new ways of organising your body, new ways of thinking, and far more...
But, as I said, it's the last part that fails... "learn(ing) to apply the broader principles embodied in the ryu-ha more generally". Now, if it was "learning to apply the various principles found in the various kata in a broader sense", that would be fine... there's this complete misunderstanding of classical arts in the Bujinkan, stating things like "all the kata can be used against all different attacks, and can be adapted to any situation" (as well as ideas that all schools also cover all aspects, all weapons, and so on... no, they don't. They just don't. The same way not every book tells every story. They simply can't). Ryu-ha are cultural and contextual studies as much as anything else. The kata are defined, really. Can they be expressed in different ways? Yes... within context. Can the concepts be applied in a broader sense? Yes, but not by doing the kata in different contexts... they're no longer the kata then. In fact, the idea of taking these ideas, and applying them in a variety of contexts, against a variety of attacks, is very much a modern art thing... and very much a Bujinkan one, at that. It's kinda the antithesis of ryu-ha study, in many ways. Yes, the ryu should be something that informs your way of dealing with the world in all ways... but the danger in constantly changing the context is that you're more and more likely to not be true to the school anymore... again, this is exactly how the Bujinkan is designed... where keeping true to the school isn't a factor, because, well, the schools aren't taught.
Not quite….
Chris said that you couldn’t learn the ryuha within the Buj
Yep. And you described specifically
not learning the ryu-ha... but taking from them to inform something else (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu). Again, this is what all the evidence points to.
Hi
@BrendanF
Apologies - I rushed my response
The process i described is absolutely the one to learn Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, in my view that is…
Agreed.
Having said that you can learn the Ryuha within the Bujinkan if you want
Without any evidence to support that, I continue to be skeptical. Bluntly, the number of Bujinkan members who have the first idea of what ryu-ha training would actually constitute I could probably count on one hand... I think three come to mind straight away, and that's about it... and none of them are Japanese, for the record.
There are (were) teachers with traditional licenses
Yeah... I've covered the issues with relying on that majorly asterix'd detail, though. The thing is, qualification is one thing, what is actually done with the qualification is quite another. I might have a Masters degree in Classical Music Study, but it means nothing when I'm teaching someone how to play blues guitar... you're not learning classical from me. In other words, the licence only matters if that's what's being taught... and there is no evidence to suggest that's the case.
& there are teachers in the Bujinkan who teach the ryu as distinct arts. Ie with different body movements and tactics
How are you defining "different body movements and tactics"? The tactics should be dictated largely by the kata, which itself is dictated by the context, so even in a single ryu you get a range of tactics... the "different body movements" is where it gets to it, though... are we talking about variations of an underlying physical structure and body organisation (which, again, is the only thing I've ever seen, in any format, from anyone in the Bujinkan).
I'll give an example from Ellis Amdur, which will hopefully illustrate the change I'm talking about. Ellis Amdur is a senior practitioner of two classical ryu-ha, Araki Ryu Torite Kogusoku, and Toda-ha Buko Ryu Naginatajutsu. Within Araki Ryu, there are techniques for kusarigama, and within Toda-ha Buko Ryu, there used to also be techniques and teachings for the weapon. In fact, the design of the weapons is rather similar, so Ellis was given the opportunity to try to reconstruct the older kusarigama teachings within Buko Ryu. He got together with a few others, and began deciphering the written descriptions of the kata that had been handed down... but, as they hadn't been practiced in a couple of generations, although they had the written (sequence) kata, the movement had not been transmitted... so they didn't teach them. But, with Ellis' understanding of the weapon from his Araki Ryu study, he was granted the chance to change that.
Ellis and his colleagues worked hard on it, and, at the end of their efforts, presented the techniques to Nitta Suzuyo-sensei for her approval. The techniques followed the sequences as written, but Nitta-sensei was not happy with them... they weren't "Buko Ryu". Ellis had allowed aspects of his Araki Ryu to influence the way he was using the weapon. He went back to his work, and, without changing the kata, changed the way the kata were done... using Buko Ryu body structure and organisation. Nitta-sensei was pleased with this version, and had Ellis and his training partner demonstrate them at the next major embu. Today, they are part of the Betsuden (additional teachings) of Toda-ha Buko Ryu... which would not have happened if all Ellis had done was do the sequence.
In a similar fashion, my biggest struggle right now is keeping my body structure and organisation separate for my different schools... Shindo Muso Ryu proving quite an interesting challenge! Now, I can do SMR kata as if it's Katori Shinto Ryu, but then it's not SMR... or I can do them like Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, but, again, that's not SMR. Or I can do them like Kukishin.... or like Budo Taijutsu... but again, not SMR. By the same token, if I do any of those schools like SMR, I'm not doing any of those either... just a sequence. In fact, I often say that Katori Shinto Ryu and Niten Ichi Ryu, despite both being sword arts, are almost exactly opposite to each other... the body organisation is different, the range is different, the cutting mechanics are different, the grip is different, even the way of stepping is completely opposite to each other. And the only way to do them any justice is to only do them... I need to keep them completely segmented. Otherwise, I'm just doing movements, not the ryu... and I'm interested in the ryu.
Even foundations like the punching and blocking methods are quite different from one ryu to the next
I've seen variation being taught, but nothing that I would say is "quite different"... additionally, I don't think even these variations are accurate... say, here's a sample, as a striking attack, how would you describe the difference between the attacking strikes of Gyokko and Koto Ryu? As well as their blocking methods? I know how I was taught the "difference", but, when it comes down to it, they're variations, more than differences... I'm curious as to your experience there.
General training (eg at the Hombu) doesn’t really go into this much (a bit but not much) which is why I think
@Chris Parker is understandably making his assertion
If I was limiting my observations to just that, then I'd be agreeing... I'm including, not just hombu, or Hatsumi's classes, but, well, everything. Daikomyosai (that were ostensibly specifically about particular ryu-ha), old Manaka seminars that were specifically about the schools, I would suggest thousands of hours of video of practitioners of all levels from all across the world teaching "specific ryu-ha", as well as more general Budo Taijutsu, and, at the end of the day, I have not seen a single frame from anyone, at all, that come close to implying actual ryu-ha transmission and training. Ever. From anyone.
Personally I have enjoyed going deep into the distinctive characteristics and methods of the different ryu. I feel I’ve benefited from spending time (probably 20 years or so) going deep into this,
To be honest, and this is also from watching your own videos, I would again suggest that you're going "deep" into the kata from the schools as taught and trained as a facet of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu... ryu-ha study is simply not seen there. Good videos, sure... but not ryu-ha accurate... or, rather, not ryu-ha distinct.
but I appreciate that it’s not for everyone and it’s probably not necessary to achieve the goal outlined above
Which is, really, one of the strengths of the Bujinkan for people who are looking for that. The freedom to explore your own path, to a level you want to. In a ryu, that's not so much the option... you're expected to go as deep as possible into the ryu. and there's not so much picking and choosing what you're interested in (there used to be, but that's a completely different discussion).
having said that in my view there are some key movements that unless you understand where they come from don’t make sense and I feel any people are missing out because they haven’t been taught these things
Can you give an example of something where the ryu-ha context is something not found in the Budo Taijutsu exploration of a kata? As I said, the kata are context-specific in the first place... looking at it from a Bujinkan or ryu-ha perspective will change that in large or small ways, but can be seen as quite close... in fact, looking at them from the perspective of a Bujinkan context may give you different answers than looking at them from a ryu-ha perspective... check the examples of Takagi Ryu to see what I mean... the mainline has a feeling of "opening" up and extending the attacking limb, often taking a number of steps back away from an attack (after walking towards the attacker first)... I have never seen anything like that in the Bujinkan approach to the school... so what context is the important one? Well, it depends on where you're learning it... if you're in the Bujinkan, then the context implied there is the more valid one... if you're looking for the ryu-ha, though, well... it's a bit different.
It does.
Of course we could debate forever whether going deep into the Bujinkan’s ryuha and learning their distinctive characteristics and methods constitutes learning the ryuha in the traditional sense…
We could, but we could also short-circuit it and say no, no it doesn't. And we could point out that anyone with experience in studying a ryu-ha in a traditional sense says the same thing, and the ones who say it does are almost exclusively (I use the qualifier "almost" to allow for someone outside, but can't think of a single example) Bujinkan members with no actual experience or, bluntly, understanding of what ryu-ha study actually entails and involves.
There is a distinction between devoting all your training time to one ryu / method (very traditional approach) and training in several discrete ryuha
Well, yeah... however, training in multiple ryu-ha was actually not that uncommon historically... something that gets missed a lot these days.
I’m defining learning the ryuha as the latter not the former,
To be honest, I'm not sure entirely what you're meaning there. You are defining "learning the ryu-ha" as "training in several discrete ryu-ha"? I'm presuming you are specifically saying that "learning the ryu-ha
in the Bujinkan" is what you're defining?
but there is a spectrum between:
a) doing forms from different schools without changing your underlying taijutsu
b) learning the schools as discrete entities and differentiating between their methods, tactics etc (my definition of learning the ryuha), and
c) devoting yourself to one ryuha / method (or perhaps a couple that have come together over time) which is the more traditional approach / definition
Ah... cool. So, from your spectrum list there, I would suggest that b) is not anywhere near as discrete as you may imagine... again, that is a quite accurate description of exactly how I have gone through them for 25 years... the thing is, without the inherent body structure unique to that ryu, all you're doing (and all I was doing, let's be clear) is going through variations from the schools, and applying your underlying taijutsu/body mechanics/organisation to such. Again, without getting into a ryu, and studying how they operate from the inside, it's not an easy thing to see... but, once you do, it's absolutely obvious.
The majority of the Bujinkan, really, are probably a lot closer to a), and feel they are b)... when it comes to c), that's something that, really, has never been a part of the Bujinkan. Frankly, the Bujinkan is far less "traditional" (and, really, far less "Japanese") than most practitioners realise... but, again, that's another discussion entirely...
Hi
Thanks for this and I tend to agree that going deep into a sophisticated ryu with a very broad curriculum would require a long time and many hours on the mat
Let's take Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu as an example, then... there are 12 long sword kata, 7 short sword, 5 two sword, some 20 bojutsu, a bit of jutte, and some yawara... I don't know that I'd suggest it's a broad curriculum (Deep, yes! Broad? Not compared to others... it may even be a stretch to call it "sophisticated" in many ways, honestly... I mean, the first kata is pretty much walk up to the opponent, when they cut, evade to the side and stab them in the throat... not much sophistication to that idea!). Despite that, to truly inhabit the school, to embody it in your thought and action, yes, that takes a lot of dedication. And that's with all the aspects to the ryu that are absent from Bujinkan practice that allow you to get to the heart of the ryu... it's even harder with the way the Bujinkan teaches...
Using my categorisation a) is the mainstream Bujinkan approach, b) is possible in the Bujinkan, and c) is probably not possible in today’s Bujinkan for westerners (maybe in the future some of the new soke will change things who knows)
I agree with everything except the last part... it would rely on the new soke having actually been transmitted the ryu in the first place... as I think I've expressed, I don't think that's happened... from Hatsumi onwards. The new soke, realistically, aren't soke of anything other than a name... which is a shame... what the Bujinkan actually needed was a defined successor... splitting up titles to schools never taught or transmitted lessens the Bujinkan as a whole, and has no actual benefit. I mean, Nagato isn't teaching Nagato-ha Shinden Fudo Ryu, and no longer doing, say, Ganseki Nage, or Sanshin, or the Kihon Happo... nor is he no longer teaching hanbo, or sword, or bo, or the myriad other weapons. In fact, each of the "new soke" that I've seen comments from have stated that they're going to simply continue teaching as they have been... which means (Bujinkan) Budo Taijutsu... so what's the point of them being soke of anything? There's also people saying, "yeah, these guys are the new soke, but Hatsumi is still the soke, so he's still in charge"... which denies the reality of them being soke in their own right...
It's really kinda simple. If the ryu are split up, then there's no longer a Bujinkan... if the Bujinkan is continuing, then the ryu aren't a factor, so the new soke don't matter... this, on top of the announcement at the end of 2017 that there are no more Bujinkan Hombu membership cards, or kyu certificates, and that the various Dai-Shihan are to look after their own membership requirements/fees/cards etc, kinda means that, realistically, there is no such thing as the Bujinkan anymore... other than in people's perception. It's an interesting situation...
