Ninjukai Taijitsu - An Insiders Perspective

Neds atomic dustbin posted

We can only prove Bujinkan, Genbukan and Jinenkan and their off shoots as far back as Takamatsu. There is little if any evidence for Toda or any of the teachers that Takamatsu mentions.

We should bear this in mind before one talks about proving the legitamacy of ones art.

Gartg

 

You are missing points Garth. If Takamatsu did learn in Japan with Toda then there is a trail to follow. It may be a tenuous one at that but there is a line to follow.

Even by this there is a line to follow and what was taught as explained on the Genbukan website in question.

Ang on the other hand (according to the first post) does not seem to have any to follow. It is claimed to be fabricated and this is where if looked into can fall apart. The "lie" is as good as the person sticking to it. This you will know from your duty as a police officer. So if the case is a lie then it will be brought to truth in a court or be charged when it is found to be false.

 

Ned

I get your point, its not a criticism.

What i'm pointing out however is that regardless of what someone says as proof, unless you have the proof its meaningless.

As far as i'm aware Ang claims

Which actually bears no less weight than claiming that Takamatsu trained with Toda.

Sure there might be a line to follow in the later, but having no one follow that claim, or be able to follow that claim, even though its believed the claim is true does not add any credence to the claim.

But with any historical claim, one has to have proof that what you are saying is true. Its not a default by saying "Oh we cant prove this to be false therefore it must be true" Its just that we have no evidence that contradicts the claim.

Now if a person can provide proof beyond hearsay that the whole thing is just fraudulent, then thats fine. A claim that history professors have levelled at Dr Hatsumi and some of his Ryu Ha.

But as i said just because someone cannot prove that Takamatsu was lying, or that Toda never existed it does not meanb that Takamatsu was telling the truth or that X Kan Ninjutsu is real and not just created in the 19th/20th century.

You see based on the last premis, if we do accept something as being true until we find evidence that denies it, then we have to believe in Robin Hood, King Arthur, Fairies and any number of gods.

Garth

 

I think we have found a moot point upon agreement Garth.

Break out the bubbly, This is a rare case indeed and needs celebrating.

 

Isn't the analogous comparison that there is proof that Takamatsu sensei existed and trained Hatsumi sensei? Going a further generation back doesn't seem to be the proper comparison.

Maybe...but again Takamatsu sensei clearly existed and was, with 100% certaintly, a Shihan level practitioner of at least one koryu. So (in the voice of Carl Spackler) 'He's got that going for him.'

Belief is not binary, it's more properly understood as a probability function. In this way it's clear, on sight, that the schools of the Bujinkan and many other 'ninja' instructors who can't show a simple connection to Japan aren't anywhere close to each other, even if demonstration of some of the historicity of Takamatsu sensei's school could be 'problematic'.

 

It is if you are claiming your art is 900 years old and come from an unbroken lineage.

Garth

 

My last post addresses this as well.

 

Ok let me for the sake of argument make a hypothetical question.

If both Bujinkan and Ninjukai are shown to be fake does the fact that Bujinkan had a better back ground story make the Bujinkan less fake?

Or are they just as fraudulent as each other?

Garth

 

To make it easy:

If, in this particular example, Ninjukai was formulated in it's totality by it's current teacher and if kami did not appear in a dream to Ienao to deliver the basis of Katori Shinto Ryu I would in fact consider them different degrees of 'fraudulent'.

 

If you are right Garth, what does that make TSD?

Remember 2 wrongs do not make a right.

 

to be honest Garth for someone who constantly tries to discredit the Bujinkan (for whatever weak reason you have) you should remember your roots..you are nothing more than any of the rest of us...if our roots prove to be illegitimate then you have nothing just like the rest of us and saying you are an Indie wouldnt help either as all indies are either fake or Hatsumi born...

 

Neds atomic dustbin posted

Nutjob posted

Exactly my point.

Everything we believe about legitamacy of this art is based on two men Dr Hatsumi, and Takamatsu.

What if for example Takamamstsu did make the whole thing up as once reported in the Bugei ryu Ha Daijiten (Latter retracted)

Or that Hatsumi only trained once every three months with Takamatsu as reported in a Japanse newspaper.

Or that Takamamsru was in China for nefarious reasons than just travelling around eg with the black dragon society for example.

And yes if the Bujinkan was proved fraudulent then every other x kan and organisation associated with it would topple like a pack of cards.

Now as far as i'm concerned Ninjukai is a fraudulent as 23 pound note, but evenb saying that we have to realise that much of what we accept to be true is based on little more than faith.

Garth

 

What would Takamatsu sensei be doing in China with the Black Dragon?

The Black Dragon society is known to be linked to the Yakuza and the Yakuza have been known to show respect to not only Takamatsu but Soke Hatsumi himself. Maybe it was down to mutual respect that the Yakuza knew of Takamatsu and what he was capable of as do the Yakuza do today of Soke Hatsumi.

I know some people that are "hoodies" and I stay clear of them as they do of me. But we know of each other by face and that is it. But it does not mean we all get together and be something based upon supposition. Maybe they just respected Takamatsu sensei for who he was. We can not know for sure but we do know most of what Takamatsu done and for me that is endorsement enough.

 

Nut job posted

Ok i'm going to keep this short having spent the last two hours going through threads where I have defended both the bujinkan and Dr Hatsumi only to have MAP crash on me. (Why is MAP so slow in searches?)

But heres a couple recently

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86342&page=3

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10617243#post10617243

Its funny how some people have selective memories

Garth

 

not interested Garth, you pick a couple that you can find, i could probably find hundreds where you have a pop, people in glass houses....

 

It seems as if you're trying to simplify the matter too much.

What do you think about my last post about Katori Shinto Ryu? Are they frauds according to you, or is there a middle ground?

Additionally, it's not the case that 'everything we believe' about this art is based on Hatsumi sensei and Takamatsu sensei. There's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence and context that make certain claims more likely than others.

I'm not saying I have proof that Togakure Ryu is 900 years old, or anything like that. What I am saying is that trying to equivocate the (il)legitimacy of the US with that of North Korea by pointing to the fact that George Washington probably did not actually chop down a cherry tree and proclaim that he 'cannot tell a lie' (as many textbooks claim) is disingenuous.

This is clearly an exaggerated example, but my point is that history is not a series of true/false statements. There is, after all, a reason that History is not placed in the 'Science' section.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'proved fraudulent', as that would seem to be a very difficult thing to prove. However, if you mean something like, 'positive confirmatory evidence not being found'. That's possible. But, find it hard to believe that there would be card-pack-toppling going on.

It seems that in internet discussions many people want to push arguments over to extremes that almost certainly simplify matters past the 'simple as possible but no simpler' rule. The problem I have is that although debate is fun and can be rhetorically educational, the real interesting juicy bits are those in-between things. Everyone's too worried about being 'right' and not worried enough about discovering cool new ways to think about things.

We've had discussions in the past where people have been brave enough to put themselves and their ideas out there for scrutiny, but then a bunch of people jump in to score themselves 'I'm right and you're wrong' points rather than actually trying to understand the method of thinking and point of view of the poster.

Oh, well... If anyone wants to have a beer with me I'll be happy to make a fool of myself giving my opinions on those interesting in-between things.

 

Stephenk posted.

You missing my point. I'm not saying that the Bujinkan is fraudulent. I'm saying that we cant prove that its legitimate.

Thats not to say that it is fraudulent, just that we should be careful about calling others to prove their legitamacy when if we were called to do the same we might find it a tad difficult.

I mean evidence that could come to light that proves otherwise.

Let me put this in stone. I'm not saying for one moment that the Bujinkan is a farudulent organistaion built on fraudulent claims. ( I hope not) but that we have little evidence to prove what is said.

This whole debate reminds me of the Carlos Castanada claims. Back in the 60s the Castenada books had a cult following. He had made claims that he studied with the Yaqui Indians and become a sorcerer, and this stuff was even taught in universities.

It wasnt till after his death that the whole thing came toppling down as investigations proved that the whole thing was a lie.

Not saying the Bujinkan is of course, but we shouldnt accept that because something has stood the test of time and been accepted that its legit.

Garth

 

Garth, i we wrote that part above as again you keep on saying Bujinkan, my version would be more accurate...

 

Ok that will do

Garth

 

cheers...