As for difference in teaching the koryu, this can be a difficult thing to explain to those not actually training in a koryu. It begins with what the koryu originally were. Yes they taught martial arts, but they were political entities of their own, and some of them held quite a bit of sway with the powers that be in their time. One did not train in a koryu simply to learn a martial art, one
joined a koryu to become part of the school. The overriding thought was "what is best for the koryu to maintain its integrity and accurately continue its teachings." Dave Lowry wrote a fairly interesting article summing up the koryu perspective for those wishing to join the dojo run by Meik and Diane Skoss ...
So You Want to Join the Ryu?
This attitude, while both elitist and irritating to those not involved, is what has allowed the various koryu arts to be handed down relatively intact for hundreds of years. A great many of them have also died out during that time, but the general attitude is that they would rather allow the ryu to go extinct than to compromise the basic ideals of the school. Most koryu require an interview with prospective students, and many require letters of recommendation. All koryu with which I am familiar eschew airing their internal politics in public, and very few of them will even put much information about themselves on a web site. Public announcements such as the one in the original post are just not done in the koryu.
Yep. Highly unsurprisingly, I'm backing Paul completely here… and would simply like to add some clarification to his points.
While koryu can be seen as political entities (they were, and are to a great degree), or martial art schools (they were, and are to a great degree), it also can help to think of them as private clubs… ones that operate, largely, entirely within their own subset of by-laws and rules. They exist, not for those outside the club, but for those who are on the inside… so, while they allow outsiders to be aware of them, and have a small idea of what goes on inside, by and large, what happens inside the club is just for members only, as, in the mind of the ryu, anyone outside the club doesn't matter to it's existence.
This means a couple of things… one is that a ryu can become rather insular… limiting their involvement with the greater community, instead, simply looking to their own membership and practice (systems such as Unkou Ryu, a swordsmanship art that traces it's lineage to a student of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, is basically continued today by an ageing father and his son). It can also mean that the ryu can take the approach that outside interest in their teachings are an amusing side-note, but of no real importance (such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu's take on the popularity of the Gorin no Sho… it's somewhat amusing to them, but of no real importance, as they know that the only way to actually understand the book is to train in the ryu [and more])… or it can lead to a rather defiant "we can do what we want!" attitude, with the refusal to allow outside organisations or persons to influence the ryu and it's direction (which I've come across in a number of ways).
All this means that any issues tend to be handled in-house, both positive and negative… with the ryu tending to prefer public ambiguity over making public statements and clarifications. Those in the "club" know… and it doesn't affect those outside it, so why bother letting them know about it? As with anything in koryu, however, there are exceptions to any rule… and, occasionally, public statements are made. Even there, though, they are most commonly made with the interest of the ryu itself being the defining factor… for example, recently there have been a couple of videos of a particular ryu-ha being demonstrated by a young lady and her fellow students. This lady has been put forth by one of the larger koryu collectives as a new "representative" for that system… which, by itself is a shocking breach of etiquette on their behalf… but is further compounded by the fact that this lady is really little more than a beginner in the art in question (there are reasons she was put forth, but none of them matter, or are particularly valid, honestly).
As these videos began to come up on some koryu chat pages, prominent members of the school came forth to explain (in highly frustrated and vexed manner, understandably) just what had happened, who was involved, and why what was being put forth as their art was simply not it at all, despite the waza being ostensibly the same (in gross mechanical details, but not in any way that mattered). They disavowed the supposed representative, and expressed their extreme displeasure at the whole state of events. And this was done, simply, to avoid the impression that what this woman was doing was representative of their art… in other words, the statements were only made publicly in order to help preserve the integrity of their ryu. It's important to note that, once the situation was sufficiently explained, the same members of this ryu requested that the conversation (and threads) be ended, as they'd said all they intended to, and any further discussion was for in-house comment in the ryu itself (which is very much in line with the above observations).
This is a very negative story, and a very sad one for all involved (and those of us privy to it), but not all public announcements are so negative… one of the most intriguing occurred in 2005, when the current soke of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Iizasa Shuri-no-suke Yasusada, made a seemingly innocent statement (by Western standards). For many years, it has been presented in the West, at least, that there is one authorised teacher for the art, Otake Risuke, with any authority to teach having to come from him. The problem is that there are other teachers out there… most famously, Sugino Yoshio Sensei, who received his teaching authority from the previous generation soke. The two dojo have co-existed, primarily by keeping to themselves, with the Otake dojo maintaining it's place, and the Sugino dojo operating separately. When Sugino Yoshio passed away in 1998, he left his son, Sugino Yukihiro Sensei in the position of head of the dojo… however, Sugino Yukihiro (according to popular belief) was never given any authority to teach from Otake Risuke or Iizasa Yasusada Soke… which, according to popular thought, made it illegitimate.
This popular thought pervaded forums, chat rooms, and more, with comments almost exclusively coming from non-members of the ryu, stating with seeming authority who was and wasn't allowed to teach, and who was and wasn't legitimate (to the point that, when people came onto forums to say they'd found a dojo, they would be told that, if it wasn't part of the Otake Dojo, it wasn't authentic, it was fake, and so on… specifically citing Sugino Sensei and his dojo at the time). All that changed in 2005, when Iizasa Soke was speaking at a ceremonial meal after a day of embu (demonstrations) of various ryu-ha. Both the Sugino and Otake dojo had demonstrated… however, only the Sugino dojo representatives stayed for the meal (as was common, really). For his speech, Iizasa Soke identified himself first as Soke of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu… then he identified the members present as "these men are members of the Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu: Sugino dojo." In a single statement, he had legitimised the Sugino dojo for all present… which immediately threw all of the old assumptions into disarray. If Sugino was legitimate, what about other lines? What was "legitimate", anyway? How much authority did the Sugino dojo have? None of these questions were answered, of course… the statement was made for those present, seemingly to stop the constant querying, and, once made, it wasn't required that it be made again, nor expanded upon. Those in the club knew, those outside, it didn't matter if they knew or not. It doesn't change what happens in the ryu.
Thanks for the great explanation of the koryu mindset. I believe I understand now why they cling (not meant as a derogatory term) to those traditions.
Hmm, you might have missed exactly what was being said, then… koryu don't "cling" to tradition, koryu are those traditions.
It's much the same as the reason some TMA keep esoteric techniques, bow in a Japanese manner when they are not in Japan, etc.
I don't think keeping the (cultural) identity of the art is really anything "esoteric"… I do question those who add their own (often bizarre, and poorly understood or researched) "traditions", aping what they think an Asian cultural expression is, in terms of why they do such things, but that's another thing entirely.
It's just a much more intense maintenance of the tradition of the ryu, and that's something I can respect, though it's not my ideal.
Eh, not so much, really. Personally, I find that much of the "intense" maintenance of (so called) traditions are the more modern systems, and the fake pseudo-koryu arts… in koryu, we just follow what the art teaches… which is done by observing the traditions, certainly, but it's more like someone observing wearing a yarmulke when entering a synagogue, than someone following an extremist zealot idolatry, so to speak.
At the same time, I've often found members of koryu who have a very arrogant attitude toward TMA and ModernMA.
Really? That seems to go against, honestly, pretty much all koryu practitioners and teachers I've encountered… we do occasionally get accused of being "koryu snobs" (I'm rather guilty of that, clearly!), but most koryu practitioners I know are also modern martial artists in one way or another… with a great appreciation of what's presented in various systems and approaches.
(You don't seem to share it.)
Yeah, Paul's a good guy. He's in the club, after all…
I've seen some who were quite dismissive of anything not koryu as not "real MA".
I've occasionally made tongue-in-cheek comments along those lines, but only even to do with particular contexts… and, as I often say, context is everything.
I suppose we can find that same attitude in any MA group (MMA vs TMA and ryuha, TMA vs sport, etc.)
Possibly, yeah.
- perhaps I simply notice it more when it comes from the koryu, because my first experience with what I'd consider koryu (Yanagi-ryu) was entirely congenial and sharing, except for a few closely-held techniques (again, I think, part of the tradition of koryu).
Hmm… Yanagi-ryu… I don't know that it'd qualify as koryu, personally… there's certainly a basis there, most likely something Daito Ryu aligned (and I'm not getting into the whole "is Daito Ryu koryu?" thing…), but there are also more than enough questionable aspects to put some major doubts in my mind… Don Angier was definitely a highly skilled and knowledgable practitioner and teacher, especially in his Aiki methods and historical knowledge, but in other areas, the gaps were noticeable where there shouldn't be any…
I guess what I'm saying is that, if Yanagi-ryu is your go-to example of koryu, then it may behoove you to take a look at the idea that it's not a particularly accurate or "typical" one to use.
After discussion with his teacher (John Lewis), Mr. Inoue has changed his mind and decided to wear his black belt again. He details his thought process and his conversations with his instructor
here. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about it, but it's interesting to see how he came to his decisions. He seems like a sincere guy.
Yeah… look, again, I get his thinking (as expressed in his link), but it again smacks to me of that group of pseudo-Japanese, quasi-traditional "jiu-jitsu" teachers who announced that they were demoting themselves, only to reverse it a few months later… of course, I am rather cynical…
