Takamatsu and the bugei ryuha daijiten

[Aiki Lee]

OK. I'm gonna open up a can of worms I think, but I've been wondering about the Takamatsu lineage and what is actually said in the bugei ryuha daijiten.

Has anyone ever read the BRDJ? If so, what does it say about Takamatsu? I keep hearing conflicting statements. I've heard that the authors were friends of Takamatsu. I've hear that they question his claims. I've heard from others that the BRDJ makes no opinion and just states the schools by name.

Does anyone know what it actually says about him?

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. Okay, first things first. The Bugei Ryuha Daijiten isn't just one version, there have been three separate editions, with alterations and corrections as you go, as well as minor tweaks in publishings inbetween. So which version are you asking about? Such essential things as dates and histories are presented differently (corrected, or added to) in different editions. Next, yes, Watatani was a friend of Takamatsu's... and while Takamatsu's word was taken by them, they also checked and cross-referenced where they could. But, as with much of these arts, that wasn't always possible. Thirdly, it should be remembered that, as well as the multiple editions, there are a number of Ryu that were attributed to Takamatsu, so when you say that the schools are basically just listed by name, that might be true of, say, Kumogakure Ryu, but not of Gyokko Ryu, depending on the edition. And, finally, as it's a list/compendium of Ryu themselves, the book doesn't address Takamatsu himself, but the Ryu he claimed.

This might explain why you're getting conflicting messages about it....

 

[Cryozombie]

As a follow up question, since these arguments are used so often to try and "debunk" the arts of the X-Kans, how many other arts listed in the various BRD are also not 100% verified?

I'm curious, just because it can't be traced 100% by these editions, is that grounds for it to be "fake" and if so, how many other arts then suffer the same legitimacy issue?

 

[Aiki Lee]

I guess I'd be asking about all three versions and why the corrections were made when they were. Sometimes corrections are made because new information gets passed to the authors, sometimes there were just typos, and sometimes its to be more politically correct.

thanks for the response Chris, and I think Cryo has a good question. I'm curious about that as well.

 

[Chris Parker]

I guess I'd be asking about all three versions and why the corrections were made when they were. Sometimes corrections are made because new information gets passed to the authors, sometimes there were just typos, and sometimes its to be more politically correct.

Bearing in mind that this is conjecture, as I haven't heard anything one way or another, but my take is that the later editions were due to questions that arose from previous ones, and further investigation by Watatani and Yamada. With regards to the Takamatsuden traditions, the biggest focus has been given to the Togakure Ryu entry, in which case the dates of Toda's death changed, and the history was greatly embellished in later editions. The second edition (1969) apparently originally included a reference to Togakure Ryu being developed from "ninja games", which was removed in later printings. This has often been used to indicate that Takamatsu created Togakure Ryu out of such games, but to me the phrasing is a little more open, and could simply be a misinterpretation of Takamatsu stating that the initial training began in "childrens games", as a number of old stories indicate, or even that his initial training in the Ryu (when he was a young boy, about 11 or 12) under Toda was based around such games while he continued in the more "combative" lessons of Shinden Fudo Ryu.

It should be noted that whenever there was doubt, or when it was clear that there was some embellishment going on, Watatani and Yamada made such things clear in the text.

thanks for the response Chris, and I think Cryo has a good question. I'm curious about that as well.

Cool, let's see what we have.

As a follow up question, since these arguments are used so often to try and "debunk" the arts of the X-Kans, how many other arts listed in the various BRD are also not 100% verified?

Yeah, this is kind of a problem with the way the BRDJ is being used as a source.... because it really shouldn't be used to verify or debunk anything. The simple fact of the matter is that there were two gentlemen, Watatani Kiyoshi and Yamada Tadashi, who were academics with a great love and interest in martial arts. To that end, they collected as much information as they could on the Ryu (and non-classical arts) as they could, by traveling and speaking to instructors, representatives, and practitioners, as well as reading and researching as much as possible, putting everything together in a book originally titled "Bugei Ryu-ha Jiten" (later Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten), essentially being "Library of Martial Art Systems". While quite an exhaustive list, it was not a complete, nor even "official" list, and included a range of arts that were not independently verified. As mentioned, though, they made notes where verification was not possible, or where aspects were doubted. This included the history (especially in later editions) of Togakure Ryu, the claims of Daito Ryu, even the stories of the life of the founder of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (they disputed the claims of his birth and death, his age, and the date of the founding of the Ryu).

I'm curious, just because it can't be traced 100% by these editions, is that grounds for it to be "fake" and if so, how many other arts then suffer the same legitimacy issue?

Honestly, it doesn't matter about what's listed in the BRDJ, as it's not an official list, nor is it "tracing" anything. All it means to have the schools listed in the book is that Watatani and Yamada heard of it. Not that it was genuine, Koryu, ancient, authentic, effective, real, historical, or anything else. Just that they heard of it, and wrote down what they heard.

The flip-side, of course, is that, due to the sheer volume of systems that are listed (note: I don't use the term "documented", as that implies official research and a kind of "stamp of approval", which shouldn't be applied here), if something isn't listed, then the question can be raised as to why not (there are some very rare systems that don't appear there, so it isn't an automatic strike against the system, but can raise the question). But, at best, having an art listed is corroborating evidence that someone outside of the system itself had heard of it. That's all.

As a result, something could be in the book, and "fake", and something could be not listed and "real". The appearance, or entry in the Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten is not indicative of anything to do with legitimacy, just that it's listed there.

I agree that it's a wealth of information, and certainly a first-stop when looking into a system you're not sure about, but it's never been intended to be any "official" statement of anything. And, honestly, it's usually Westerners who don't quite get what the book is who think it fills that role.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Interesting. Thanks for your imput. Personally, I tend to believe the history perpetuated by the Takamatsu line. I believe there may be some exaggerations (but as far as I know that's common in all martial histories), but overall I have no reason to doubt the authenticity.

Any ideas on what evidence one should look for if they were trying to determine if any lineage is legit, if it can't be verified by historical documentation?

 

[jks9199]

Yeah, this is kind of a problem with the way the BRDJ is being used as a source.... because it really shouldn't be used to verify or debunk anything. The simple fact of the matter is that there were two gentlemen, Watatani Kiyoshi and Yamada Tadashi, who were academics with a great love and interest in martial arts. To that end, they collected as much information as they could on the Ryu (and non-classical arts) as they could, by traveling and speaking to instructors, representatives, and practitioners, as well as reading and researching as much as possible, putting everything together in a book originally titled "Bugei Ryu-ha Jiten" (later Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten), essentially being "Library of Martial Art Systems". While quite an exhaustive list, it was not a complete, nor even "official" list, and included a range of arts that were not independently verified. As mentioned, though, they made notes where verification was not possible, or where aspects were doubted. This included the history (especially in later editions) of Togakure Ryu, the claims of Daito Ryu, even the stories of the life of the founder of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (they disputed the claims of his birth and death, his age, and the date of the founding of the Ryu).



Honestly, it doesn't matter about what's listed in the BRDJ, as it's not an official list, nor is it "tracing" anything. All it means to have the schools listed in the book is that Watatani and Yamada heard of it. Not that it was genuine, Koryu, ancient, authentic, effective, real, historical, or anything else. Just that they heard of it, and wrote down what they heard.

The flip-side, of course, is that, due to the sheer volume of systems that are listed (note: I don't use the term "documented", as that implies official research and a kind of "stamp of approval", which shouldn't be applied here), if something isn't listed, then the question can be raised as to why not (there are some very rare systems that don't appear there, so it isn't an automatic strike against the system, but can raise the question). But, at best, having an art listed is corroborating evidence that someone outside of the system itself had heard of it. That's all.

So, it sounds kind of like this book is similar in nature to Draeger's Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts, no?

 

[Chris Parker]

Interesting. Thanks for your imput. Personally, I tend to believe the history perpetuated by the Takamatsu line. I believe there may be some exaggerations (but as far as I know that's common in all martial histories), but overall I have no reason to doubt the authenticity.

Okay. At best, I tend to take more of a "grain of salt" look at them... for a variety of reasons.

Any ideas on what evidence one should look for if they were trying to determine if any lineage is legit, if it can't be verified by historical documentation?

Without historical corroborating documentation, I don't think it is possible to absolutely verify that a particular lineage is historically legitimate, especially when dealing with Japanese traditions. However, what you can do is to educate yourself as much as possible about history and contemporary approaches, then reference them against each other. Mind you, the more you get into that, the more you questions you might get about the arts you train in.... just a heads up, there!

So, it sounds kind of like this book is similar in nature to Draeger's Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts, no?

Hmm, no, really. Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts is more an overview of a range of martial traditions and approaches across the Asian continent and sub-continent, with particular examples given in each area based on the authors experience and familiarity. The Bugei Ryu-ha Daijiten is really more like an encyclopedia of Japanese martial arts, with entries for as many arts as possible, ranging from a detailed list of headmasters over it's history, as well as stories of the history and founding, and description of the curriculum contained, through to very short entries little more than the name of the system, and possibly it's location and current head. It isn't an overview of Japanese martial arts, which (like Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts) would be attempting to group them together, but a listing of each distinct and separate system. Links are only mentioned if there are related arts mentioned as part of the history.

 

[skuggvarg]

The Bugei Ryu-Ha Daijiten is what the name implies, a big encyclopedis on schools of warrior arts. Its a massive work of around 700 pages and like has been written before came out in 3 major editions, the latest being the 1978 edition which had many corrections. It lists the known Ryu-Ha by name in alphabetic order and, typically, gives the name of the school, the main fields it includes (like for example spear, sword, strategy), some information on the founding of the school, the list of famous persons/heads of the school and perhaps a small bit of other history. Its not much so it really should only be used as a first place to look. It has been interesting to Bujikan people because for a long time this was the only known information about bujinkan ryu-ha apart from Hatsumi senseis books. An interesting thing, considering the recent discussions on Gikan ryu is that it lists Hatsumi sensei as the successor of Takamatsu sensei. It also lists that thisnline of Gikan ryu went through Ishitani sensei.


Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm.

The Bugei Ryu-Ha Daijiten is what the name implies, a big encyclopedis on schools of warrior arts. Its a massive work of around 700 pages and like has been written before came out in 3 major editions, the latest being the 1978 edition which had many corrections.

And the 1978 edition's last version (including more alterations/corrections) came out in 2003.

It lists the known Ryu-Ha by name in alphabetic order and, typically, gives the name of the school, the main fields it includes (like for example spear, sword, strategy), some information on the founding of the school, the list of famous persons/heads of the school and perhaps a small bit of other history. Its not much so it really should only be used as a first place to look.

Out of interest, how does this add to the conversation? Isn't that just repeating what I've said?

It has been interesting to Bujikan people because for a long time this was the only known information about bujinkan ryu-ha apart from Hatsumi senseis books.

I wouldn't really read anything into that at all, myself. After all, all the information contained in the BRDJ about the Takamatsuden arts came from Takamatsu... so it's not really a secondary source so much as a repeat of the primary.

An interesting thing, considering the recent discussions on Gikan ryu is that it lists Hatsumi sensei as the successor of Takamatsu sensei. It also lists that thisnline of Gikan ryu went through Ishitani sensei.

You do realize, Richard, that those conversations are on MAP and Facebook, not here, so in all likelihood not many have any idea what you're talking about, yeah?

 

[garet jax]

Out of interest, how does this add to the conversation? Isn't that just repeating what I've said?

This isn't a conversation; it's yet another thread where you regurgitate easily accessible information ad nauseam to your teenage fan club who seem as willfully ignorant as they are eager to start discussions that conveniently hinge on your non-existent expertise. No one, including yourself, has contributed anything substantial to the discussion other than the aforementioned easily accessible information.

It may come as shock to you, but this isn't the Chris Parker forum.


- Mark Spada

 

[garet jax]

You do realize, Richard, that those conversations are on MAP and Facebook, not here, so in all likelihood not many have any idea what you're talking about, yeah?

You do realize, Chris, that by posting that information, those who actually didn't have any idea went and discovered those conversations, thereby in all likelihood rendering your arrogant statement completely redundant, yeah?


- Mark Spada

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy [url]http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377[/URL]. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Mark Cochran
-MT Moderator-

 

[skuggvarg]

Hmm.



And the 1978 edition's last version (including more alterations/corrections) came out in 2003.

Thanks for that info. Ive only read the 1978 edition but if there have been made changes to what is noted about the Takamatsu lines then this would be interesting info.

Out of interest, how does this add to the conversation? Isn't that just repeating what I've said?

Well the o.p. asked if someone has read the book so I figured he hadnt himself. What I wrote was a short descreption detailing how the information of each ryu-ha is presented. You had written some of it allready but not in such detail.

I wouldn't really read anything into that at all, myself. After all, all the information contained in the BRDJ about the Takamatsuden arts came from Takamatsu... so it's not really a secondary source so much as a repeat of the primary.

Well, I did write 'for those in the Bujinkan' and if you can point to some better source that is readily available then please go ahead. Regarding the information coming from Takamatsu, You are probably right here but do you know for sure or are you just going on hearsay here? Do you know what the authors checked and what not? What was the level of 'friendship' between Takamatsu and the author/authors? The reason I take this up is that a lot of misinformation has beeen spread around the BRHDJ, for example the mention of 'ninja games' that has been mention time after time but still no one has managed to show in which edition this is mentioned.

You do realize, richard, that those conversations are on MAP and Facebook, not here, so in all likelihood not many have any idea what you're talking about, yeah?

You do realise, Mr Parker, that those on here dont know or use my name but that you seem to have taken it upon you to spread it around despite the fact that I use an alias? Dont really care but since im not really on so friendly terms with you I do take offence. Anyways, feel free to start a thread if you like. For those who knows how to search the net im sure they can find the information themselves.

Now, have you read the texts mentioning Takamatsu and the Ryu-ha yourself or are you using english translations floating around?

Regards / Skuggvarg