The forum has been pretty quiet for a while, so I thought I'd get some discussion going on the topic of lineage for the Bujinkan practitioners here. The way I see it, there are two "sides" in the Bujinkan today. 1) People who are in a direct lineage to Hatsumi sensei and 2) People who come from a mixed Bujinkan salad. In the first section, we have people who are part of the direct chain of transmission currently starting with Hatsumi sensei and ending with the student in question. Depending on the situation there might be one or two links in between. Hatsumi sensei has a few disciples/deshi, and these masters in turn have deshi of their own, who in turn have deshi of their own, etc. The second section consists of people from the tradition of dojo hopping, who go to Honbu, practice with various shihan, etc. Here I also count the often high ranked people who believe they are direct students of Hatsumi sensei, without actually understanding what it means to be one. Obviously, I believe that the first way - direct lineage - is the only way to go if one sincerely wants to learn this art, but most people seem to disagree by going to different dojos (at best, some only stick to Honbu and the classes there) instead of trying to build a relationship with one master. My question is, what do you YOU think about this? And what is your situation/lineage? Is it direct or does it come from a mixed salad? Which is best? Why?
A good question Will and I personally see problems with both. In case one the student of the students of the student of the master has a problem. 1/ The old phrase "The further away from the source of the stream the muddier the water becomes" springs to mind. so if your are the student of the student whose a student of the student of the master your taking it that nowhere along that line one of the students has not made a mistake, fails to understand or adds in their own stuff that has nothing to do with what the master himself teaches. Its like Chinese whispers, the more you tell it the more it can change. So you have to have faith in your teacher that what he shows is exactly what his teacher tells him all the way up the line to the master. In the second example you gave, although this sounds the worse by training with many different people it acts as a kind of check list to makes sure you are studying the real thing and not someones take on it, even if you are the deshi of a deshi. Let me try to explain further. Lets say I am the deshi of the master and I write down what my teacher (the master) tells me. Now I pass that onto my student who also writes it down etc etc down the line. We could call this a direct transmission. BUT what if somewhere along the line there is a mistake or somthing added that is not part of the tradition? You would not know. This is why we had so many bad translations of techniques in the early days in this art. Simply because we had nothing to compare them to so we had to take on faith what we were told was true. And lets face it they were bad, but at the time we accepted them because we had nothing to compare them too. This is the same problem we have with historical documents when we only have the one record/document and no other documentation to back up, or compare what the document says. So if we have a document that says Julius Caesar invaded Japan, then the evidence is only as good as that document. You either accept what that document says or you don't, but you have no way of evaluating that document. But what if we have other documents that also support this view, or counter that view? Now we have a way of evaluating that document because we can compare it with other documents and authors. Image this: you have a teacher who tells (you because he is a deshi) that technique X is done this way. You have to take that at face value, right? But then you go visit other deshi and you find that technique X is done completely differently, or even doesn't exist. What does this suggest to you about your particular lineage and what your teacher is telling you? So although i'll agree with you that the first case is ultimately the best, as its good to get a teacher/student relationship that goes back to a master, it doesn't mean that it is not without problems and that the second case (Travelling around and visiting other teachers) is without merit. Indeed case 2 could act as the check to show that what you are being taught is ultimately correct. My view is get a good teacher who has a connection with a master, but train as much as you can, especially I presume in Japan where you can train with second generation teachers to get a wider view.
If you can do it, the first scenario is potentially better. If it is with soke or one of the shihan. Anymore removed than that you would have to be sure that your teacher does not mix in other arts or things from other experiences from their past (or current training in other arts) And what if you cannot tell? What if you place all your eggs in the wrong basket? Also some people may have great knowledge about history or technical detail but not really have great movement. As for people who only train at honbu, or even only at sokes classes that is also a very poor idea IMO. Not sure why people do that. Tricky, but great topic!
I think it depends upon whether you are trying to get good at learning an art form, or good at learning the traditions of an art form. Cross training generally brings alternative viewpoints and pressure testing leading to a greater understanding of the core art in a way that single teacher training does not.
People on these forums seem to have a tendency to conflate pressure testing with cross-training. Pressure testing and single-teacher training aren't mutually exclusive.
I understand that within an art there can be varying degrees of pressure testing, but it is only when you cross train that you can really push the limits, especially useful when training against other arts since they don't know when they are supposed to flop over.
OP - do you feel that your question is perchance a little biased in its phrasing? On the one hand you offer direct lineage, and on the other something that you might get on the side of your steak. Perhaps better phrasing might be more conducive to high brow discussion... But anyways - I am, by your term, a mixed salad. I have relationships in Japan but there is no understanding that I am on a transmission path with my teacher/s. I am welcomed, I am used as Uke, I am known by name, I converse about personal life, work, and training. I get what I want from my training, as such it is way better for me than having direct lineage, because that might not be what I want from my training.
Agreed. I come from a martial arts lineage where training in different schools with different masters was actively encouraged. I think Single Lineage versus Multiple Lineages would be a better title.
It is relevant to look at the claims made regarding the roots of the Bujinkan. Hatsumi claims to have studied boxing, judo, karate, aikido and others before training under Takashi Ueno and then Takamatsu. Takamatsu studied Takagi Yoshin Ryu under Mizuta Yoshitaro Tadafusa as well as a number of arts under Ishitani Matsutaro Takekage and also a number of arts under Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu. He also studied Sumo. If the fruit salad approach seems to have worked for Hatsumi and Takamatsu then why would you view this approach negatively? I guess you could argue that Hatsumi claims to have had 15 straight years of tutelage under Takamatsu, proving that he eventually found dojo-hopping distasteful. However, given that Hatsumi claimed to only be training with Takamatsu for once every three months (on weekends), then it can hardly be argued that he was what most would consider a particularly dedicated student.
Kave posted Can you substantiate this I know there was a newspaper article back in the 1960s/70s that came out with this story, but I don't know if Hatsumi Sensei has ever said this, or is at least common knowledge. Now of course we only have Dr Hatsumis word about this but I though he mentioned that he trained every weekend.
I agree. Btw, even Tanemura soke cross trains, even at this age (daito ryu and kenjutsu iirc). So it seems that the top people who already have MK in a number of systems see the value in cross training.
I think you are missing the beat here. I wasn't talking about other arts and cross-training, or training in other arts before starting this one. Takamatsu sensei studied under one master at a time, and his training in the Toda-den arts highly influenced (and indeed aided) his training under Mizutani sensei and Ishitani sensei. Hatsumi sensei trained various martial arts and then met Ueno Takeshi, who claimed to have trained with Takamatsu sensei but in reality hadn't, and finally met Takamatsu sensei and became his disciple and successor. Since then his life has been solely dedicated to the nine ryu. If there is one man who has dedicated his entire life since the age of 27 to the teachings of only one master, it is Hatsumi sensei. These nine ryu are not like boxing or wrestling where you can go to various instructors to learn different tricks to become a better boxer or wrestler. These arts are different, like it or not. Learning the progression and different levels in just the first of several kata in just the first level of one of the nine ryu is not the same thing as learning one way of doing Yokuto from one teacher and another way from another teacher and not having the means to connect the dots between them, or even tell if one is coherent with the other or not. My these is that to learn the intricacies of this art and be taken through the progressions and various levels within each technique in each ryu, one needs to be in direct connection to one master who in turn has learned in the same way from a previous master. This is pretty much indisputable, as it doesn't happen any other way. And a lot of people, like mattt, are happy with not being part of that, and this is the genious of the Bujinkan as an organization. My question, and what I am interested in, is what drives these people and what their thoughts on this matter are. If your source for that is the old newspaper article, it is in reference to one specific time frame during those 15 years when yes, he apparently was not able to travel more often. In general, as has been claimed many times, during those 15 years it was every weekend. And practice is done alone, something which he did during his time apart from his master. Not to mention the detailed written transmissions he received via mail constantly. A more dedicated student than Hatsumi sensei is difficult to find in both modern and historical times.
Single lineage vs multiple lineages could imply that one has several lineages separately, whereas in a mixed salad one has just mixed everything together in a bowl.
Guilty as charged :evil: No but seriously, my question is of course tainted by my point of view, but I think (hope!) I posed it respectfully enough for a good discussion. And this is what I really respect and this is the kind of post I was hoping for. Was this an active choice from your part? Why did you choose not to study under one master, since you live (lived?) in Japan, and instead went to several and continued doing so?
Or it could imply that you have several lineages. If you're going to go with the salad metaphor it should be 1kg of lettuce vs 1kg of mixed salad. Or Steak vs Surf & Turf.
You're all part of one lineage, unless your teachers and yourself have broken away from Hatsumi Sensei? He's the head of your ryu-ha. Thread end. :evil:
Indeed - this is why it is best to be as close to the source as possible, within the chain, and make sure to check and compare with the source to ensure that the water hasn't been muddled along the way. But in reality, the deshi of a deshi is encouraged to shape himself in the form of the master, who in turn was shaped in the form of his master, whereas training with many different people (who say and show different, incoherent things) in the Bujinkan does not encourage one to be shaped in a certain form. Actually, I think it's because of the mixed salad. If the people who spread the translations would have bowed their heads and begun to study the basics before the basics and build master-student relationships (not friendships) with the shihan instead of selling or giving out translations, they would have learned the techniques correctly and could have transmitted them in a better way. Your example is a bit skewed, although I understand your theory. If you are a deshi, there has already been established a certain level of trust and practice and understanding. If you suddenly go to another master (who is a deshi just like your master), first I have to ask - why? Why would you go to another master if you are already a deshi? What's the reason? Do you suspect that your master is teaching you wrong? When did this suspicion arise? (Because you have already built a trust over a period of time.) But okay, let's say you do go to the other master and he shows technique X differently. Then you should already understand that the master probably is not teaching you that technique, but perhaps just showing it to you in one particular light, or even purposely doing it wrong because you are not his deshi. But let's say he is showing one aspect of it that you haven't seen yet from your master. Does that mean your master doesn't know it? Or simply that your master hasn't taught it to you yet? And perhaps that was a wise choice, since you went to another master to check in the first place! These kinds of relationships do sometimes include a small amount of blind faith, to prove yourself willing to throw off all your clothes and jump head first into the pool. Kind of like in the Karate Kid, come to think of it.
Big Will posted It may not even be like that. Lets say I study under master X yet the opportunity to train under master Y arises, do you not go to master Ys class because you are dedicated solely to master X or do you grab that opportunity to expland your horizons. Or in another way if you train with Kacem, and Sven Eric came to your home town to do a seminar would you not go to Svens seminar because you are totally dedicated to Kacem as your teacher? Its not about suspecting that he's teaching you wrong, its about having a broad horizon and seeing different aspects of how people teach. Then that is good isn't it. Maybe, but maybe he's doing it right and your teacher is doing it wrong. And what if you visit ten dojos and all the other dojos are teaching method X and your teacher is teaching method Y? Are the other masters at the ten dojos wrong? I don't know as we are moving into the area of presumption and faith. Theres another word for "faith", its called "Gullability", and whilst I would presume that a teacher would want to teach you properly there is always a chance that what your teacher is teaching you is not correct. Now I could go on but I don't want to open up old threads, but i'm sure you know what I mean. Remember faith is often blind, and I think if theres one thing that this art is teaching is the ability to detect falsehood from truth. My point is how do you do that if you don't train with others now and again? Now just to finish with a question. When you were in Japan recently who did you train with? was it just Ishizuka or did you train with other teachers i.e. Nagato, Noguchi, Someya etc?
