Can an art with no students sleep and reawaken after all its instructors have been died?

[Daniel Sullivan]

This discussion recently came up in the mentors' lounge and with the permission of Sukerkin with whom I had the conversation, I have reposted it as a topic here. I wanted input from both western and eastern sword art practitioners, which is why I didn't post in the Japanese sword section.

Can a sword art (or any art really) cease to be transmitted due to a dearth of students (worthy or otherwise), sleep, and reawaken after all with any first hand knowledge of it have been dead for more than a generation?

It's a typical koryu reaction that the art does not need the student, the student needs the art.

Which begs the question, if there are not any students at all learning the art, what happens to the art? I understand the attitude, but I don't agree with it. In order to survive, the art does need the student. It may not need many students or more than one school, but if literally nobody is practicing it, it ceases to exist when the current practitioners die off.

On the art not needing the student philosophy, I reckon it is in part founded on the somewhat nihilistic Zen-like assumption that it if there are no students worth teaching it to then it is better that it sleeps. The art will not change for the student, the student must adapt to fit the art - I know that doesn't fit with modern cultural ideals of the individual being paramount but these arts grew in a very different soil.

Well, now you're qualifying the student. Really the art doesn't need just any students but specific types of students.

As to whether an art can sleep or if it simply dies, I suppose it depends on how you feel about reconstructing arts that have ceased to be practiced for long enough that that there haven't been any living practitioners for more than a generation. Look at the people who have worked very hard to reconstruct dead European sword styles; they had to do everything from scratch and either had to figure it out or try to match what they saw in old manuscripts to things practiced in other sword arts that are still living.

It is very hard to do and it is questionable as to how true the reconstructed art is to what the art looked like when it was practiced. At least with extant koryu, we can now record video files of them and photograph actual masters (rather than relying on artists' renderings), but you still have to assume that what was left behind for you to reconstruct is the entirety of the art. Not everything is commited to pen and paper; some things are kept out intentionally and other things simply don't make the trip. Or manuscripts do not survive.

While I don't feel that it is impossible to reconstruct an art, I do feel that the reconstructed art is inherently an offshoot of the art it reconstructs rather than being the art itself.

Only telling you like it is for koryu arts, Dan. All those other modern ******** styles can do what the hell they like :makes sure Master Ken moustache is glued on right: .

So if a Japanese koryu sword art literally ceased to practice because the last surviving practitioners agree that they will teach no more due to having no students worth teaching, and two hundred years later, an historical group with only kendo experience finds a few manuscripts and pictures and try to piece it back together, are they practicing that art? Would you consider them legitimate students of that art? Could anyone technically be considered a master in that art?

That is essentially what happened with a number of European styles; the styles ceased to be relevant and ceased to be practiced. People with modern fencing experience and perhaps experience in a non European style reconstructed old arts that nobody had practiced for more than a generation. I highly respect the work they've done and consider the finished product to be worthy of study. But I view that product as a representation rather than a continuation of the original.

So far as I know, another "koryu" perspective is that if you don't have a teacher with a lineage, you aren't legitimately practicing the art. If that is correct (if it is not, please tell me), then from a koryu perspective, the art can only be continued or die.

My own thoughts on the subject are above. To me, a reconstructed art is inherently a new and different art, even if it is meticulously researched and painstakingly reconstructed. I am willing to consider it an offshoot, but not the actual art. Now, that said, that is not a value judgement of the new art; it may be very worthwhile to practice. But it is a newer art in my opinion.

Thoughts?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think I got it all formated and included above. After the exchange had gone that far, Sukerkin and Chris suggested taking it out of the Mentors' lounge so that it could get more response. It actually began as an impromtu conversation that came out of another topic unrelated to sword arts or koryu. I edited out those parts, as they were unrelated to this topic.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One last comment; I also pose this to reconstrution of sword techniques in not only Eurpean and Japanese arts, but to those who do Korean sword work sourced from the Muyedobotongji.

 

[harlan]

May a non-sword person ask a question?

You use very 'poetic' language, 'the sleeping art', but are you looking at it from a purely technical point of view? I'm slightly aware that there is a 'mystical' link to some koryu, akin to Origin Myths (for lack of a better word...inspiration maybe?).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

May a non-sword person ask a question?

I would welcome that.

You use very 'poetic' language, 'the sleeping art', but are you looking at it from a purely technical point of view? I'm slightly aware that there is a 'mystical' link to some koryu, akin to Origin Myths (for lack of a better word...inspiration maybe?).

I took the term, "sleeps" from Sukerkin's comment:

it is in part founded on the somewhat nihilistic Zen-like assumption that it if there are no students worth teaching it to then it is better that it sleeps.

I chose to use it to indicate the notion of an art going inactive for more than a generation and, having no living practitioners to transmit it, being picked up again with only manuscript and illustration to go on.

As I don't get to into the mystical when it comes to the origins of the martial arts, I am looking at it from a technical, academic, and philosophical point of view. The complete package. If someone wishes to believe that their art's founder's sword was touched by an angel, transmitting the art directly into his brain, so be it, but I would be dubious if a modern human informed me that he had been given supernatural knowledge of a dead martial art.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I would tend to agree with you, Daniel. It's not possible. You may be able to recreate some aspects of the art, but not all.

On the other hand, many (most? all?) arts have been passed incompletely to people who took what they knew and taught it to others. What portion of those teaching today can truly be said to know every single facet of their art?

 

[Blindside]

I don't think you could accurately recreate a martial art, at least not with prior technology. Nowadays I could see where it is potentially possible with hours of video documentation of the basics, drills, kata, techniques, interviews on the philosophy, footage of sparring, etc.

 

[harlan]

If it's at all useful, one might consider the use of the technical terms 'dead' vs 'extinct' as used to describe languages, and exactly what is 'inactive'. Seems rather obvious technically speaking...no students=dead art. And dead is dead.

But if wandering down the zen philosophical path...it seems to me that an art lives through practice/use/student, sleeps if it exists only in books, and can come back IN SPIRIT but not bonafide lineage if the transmission line has been broken. Unless zen has a concept for 'terma', that is.

Thank you...and I'll go back to lurking now.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't think you could accurately recreate a martial art, at least not with prior technology. Nowadays I could see where it is potentially possible with hours of video documentation of the basics, drills, kata, techniques, interviews on the philosophy, footage of sparring, etc.

Of course that assumes confirmation that the entirety of the art actually is commited to paper, pictures or video. In the case of some modern martial arts (Kukki taekwondo for example), that may actually be possible. But I would not say the same of historical MA that have ceased to be practiced.

 

[pgsmith]

In my opinion, you are trying to paint a picture with too large a brush and not enough colors, as an art is more than just a collection of techniques.

Let's take a look first at the koryu, since I'm most familiar with that. A koryu school is not simply the sum of its techniques, it is a political entity in its own right, with its own handed down societal outlook. This is why a koryu will die out if the head of the art so decides. The vast majority of a koryu art is taught teacher to student, with very little being actually written down. Often, the part that is written down is couched in esoteric language that is only made clear by the seniors of the art. Once a Japanese koryu has died, the ryuha can never be resurrected. Some of the techniques of the art can be relearned, if someone is very knowledgeable in a similar art. However, the ryuha itself, with all of its oral tradition and societal outlook, has ceased to exist and can never be again. This means that anyone saying they are currently practicing a dead koryu are mistaken. They are practicing their reconstruction of a dead koryu.

The European arts had a lot more written down than the Japanese arts did. However, I believe that it is somewhat the same situation. Given enough study of the old manual, and practice with like-minded individuals, a coherent and effective art can emerge. I don't think that one of the old masters such as Liechtenauer would necessarily recognize it as the art that he wrote about, but it's probably as close as can be managed today. I really have no problem with those that say they are practicing Liechtenauer rather than specifying that it is their own idea of the art, since anyone practicing the old European arts is doing a reconstruction by default. The same can be said for Korean arts.

You use very 'poetic' language, 'the sleeping art', but are you looking at it from a purely technical point of view? I'm slightly aware that there is a 'mystical' link to some koryu, akin to Origin Myths (for lack of a better word...inspiration maybe?).

It is virtually impossibly to look at a sword art in today's world from a "purely technical point of view". Swords are an outdated weapon that are no longer used the way they were when these arts were created. Without engaging in fights with other swordsmen, there is no real way to gauge whether what you are doing is technically superior or not. Like any other art, a person can train for a particular outcome. If you are wanting to fight in the UFC, then your training would be geared toward that. If you are a LEO, then your training is going to be different. In the sword arts today, we all train just to be able to know a sword art because it is interesting. No one is thinking they'll need to whip out their swords and actually use them for anything other than training.

That's my couple of yen on it anyway.

 

[arnisador]

What's gone is gone. Modern Pankration is a cool idea but as subject to criticism as any other form of classical archeology. Have fun with resurrecting systems, but esp. for things pre-video you will have no idea if your balance, timing, force, etc., are right, and how things were really done (cf. TKD or Karate practice to TKD or Karate sparring).

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree with PGSMITH in that an art is not simply a collection of techniques.

In the method that I practice, the principles that drive the techniques are what is important. The techniques themselves are useful as techniques, but even more so they represent the underlying principles in action. As such, they become a vehicle to train your body to engage in a certain way that is deeper than the technique itself. Specifically, it is a full-body engagement that can be used to drive any technique, whether it is one of our "formal" techniques or some other improvised movement altogether. The formal material of our system, the basics, the techniques, the forms, teach the student how to develop that full-body engagement. I am certain that we are not the only system that attempts to accomplish this, but the specific method of HOW we go about it is what makes our system different from others. So really, the system is only a methodology used to teach a final skill: full-body engagement for all things that we do. One does not need to learn every form or every technique in the system in order to accomplish this. Sifu often jokes that the "advanced" forms are there just to give a teacher like himself a reason to keep students around longer, so he can earn more money. The forms that are taught at the beginner levels are the most important, and teach the clearest lessons. The later forms simply supply more examples, as a way to help broaden one's vision of what is possible. But those later forms are absolutely not needed in order to accomplish this. Sifu has said recently, that if one only wanted to learn how to fight effectively, he could teach them for one year, they would learn the principles thru the basics and the fundamental punching techniques, and they would not need to learn any of the forms. One could become very skilled without learning most of the formal curriculum. So from our point of view, learning the "complete" system is irrelevant, and it can be difficult to even say what the "complete" system is, given that some students in prior generations learned different things and that is reflected in the differences between the different lineages that exist today.

So what then, is the "system" or the "art"? For us, it is a tool used to help us develop that specific skill I mentioned above. Nothing more. Once that skill has been learned and developed, you can, literally, throw the formal material away. It has accomplished its purpose and is no longer needed (tho I would argue that it remains an effective way to continue to hone ones skills into the future).

If our system were lost and went extinct, and then someone attempted to resurrect it from books, manuals, and video, I think it would be disastrous. The video and the very few books that exist on our system are horrendous. Seems to me that most people are just collecting techniques, without understanding how the system is meant to teach something deeper. I've not seen a good example on video yet, of our system. If most people can't do it well with real teachers, how could one hope to understand it after it has died, thru video and books? It cannot happen. At best, people will try to re-create the techniques, and they will do so poorly. Our techniques are done in a specifically stylistic way that doesn't always make sense for direct application. But the stylistic method helps the body learn and understand full-body connection. We don't actually fight with the stylistic techniques. It takes a good teacher to really teach this and help a student to understand this. Otherwise, people are just copying movement without understanding why, and they get nothing of the benefits because it's all wrong in a hundred subtle ways that add up to disaster.

If our system were to die, then our particular training method would disappear. However, I think it would still be possible to develop the same skills thru other methods that are probably contained in other systems. So in the end, what does it matter?

In choosing a system to study, one must choose what is the best match for the individual, what makes sense to him as an approach to training. By losing our system, that just represents one method that works well for some, but not necessarily for everyone.

But to sum it all up, it is my opinion that once something dies, it cannot be re-created. Books and video might serve as an inspiration to a new method, but cannot be the old method resurrected. Honestly, there are a whole lot of things out there that are already dead, even tho people still practice them with an unbroken lineage.

 

[harlan]

Mr. Sullivan, thank you for the reply.

If I may ask another question...in the specific world of koryu/sword arts...what does 'transmission' stand for in it's fullest term? To the best of a current student's understanding of the original intent? What would be the answer to the original question by those entrusted with the responsiblity in previous years to teach?

 

[DennisBreene]

I agree with Michael. Even the good books on various martial arts that I have read are very poor substitutes to studying under the guidance of a master in the art. There is so much information to transmit that sourced material would resemble the Oxford English Dictionary by the time most of it was committed to paper. Even videos are only a slice of time that gives a very narrow view of the represented techniques. There is a loss of nuance that is vital to learning an art. Once there is no one left to teach with the experience of a master, that knowledge is lost, and at best you are left attempting to learn a "shadow" of the former art. I can't imagine learning surgery solely from a book. The many hours at the side of a skilled practitioner provided the guidance to understand when to vary techniques and honed my judgment and skills in ways that no amount of reading or watching videos could have. I think the argument is valid for any complex set of skills, it's just more fun to discuss as it relates to martial arts.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Mr. Sullivan, thank you for the reply.

If I may ask another question...in the specific world of koryu/sword arts...what does 'transmission' stand for in it's fullest term? To the best of a current student's understanding of the original intent? What would be the answer to the original question by those entrusted with the responsiblity in previous years to teach?

Transmission in its fullest term is the passing on of the entirety of the system coupled with the receiver's first hand experience in the system, whatever it may be. The first hand experience is what enables the receiver to understand the nuances that cannot be transmitted any other way.

Before I studied hapkido, I had seen videos of hapkido and aikido. I thought it looked interesting and I thought that I understood what I was looking at. After studying hapkido, I found that what I had thought was going on wasn't at all what was going on. Small subtleties that are difficult, if not impossible to transmit visually made all the differences. These things needed to be felt, not seen or read.

 

[Chris Parker]

This discussion recently came up in the mentors' lounge and with the permission of Sukerkin with whom I had the conversation, I have reposted it as a topic here. I wanted input from both western and eastern sword art practitioners, which is why I didn't post in the Japanese sword section.

Can a sword art (or any art really) cease to be transmitted due to a dearth of students (worthy or otherwise), sleep, and reawaken after all with any first hand knowledge of it have been dead for more than a generation?

....

My own thoughts on the subject are above. To me, a reconstructed art is inherently a new and different art, even if it is meticulously researched and painstakingly reconstructed. I am willing to consider it an offshoot, but not the actual art. Now, that said, that is not a value judgement of the new art; it may be very worthwhile to practice. But it is a newer art in my opinion.

Thoughts?

Ah, fun... I gave a rather short and to-the-point response in the Mentor thread, but might expand it here (and, possibly, seem to contradict myself.... ha!).

I took the term, "sleeps" from Sukerkin's comment:

it is in part founded on the somewhat nihilistic Zen-like assumption that it if there are no students worth teaching it to then it is better that it sleeps.

Honestly, while there has been quite an influence from Zen, particularly stemming from Yagyu Munenori's connection to Takuan Soto, on martial arts, I think that aspect is far more pragmatic.... in my opinion, it's more to do with priorities and values. There's no point continuing it if you're just not doing it properly. It's rather disrespectful to those who came before you, for one thing....

I would tend to agree with you, Daniel. It's not possible. You may be able to recreate some aspects of the art, but not all.

On the other hand, many (most? all?) arts have been passed incompletely to people who took what they knew and taught it to others. What portion of those teaching today can truly be said to know every single facet of their art?

Ah, let me explain the manner of Koryu, my friend...

Many Koryu still utilize a ranking system based on the attainment of a range of licences as the student progresses (some have incorporated more modern ranking, dan-i, belts etc, but it's not the norm), which signify the knowledge and understanding of that section or level of the art. The highest of these licences in the majority of cases is called Menkyo Kaiden (or sometimes the same idea, but with a slightly different term), which is pretty literally "licence of full transmission/initiation". It is awarded when a student has learnt every single facet of their art.

It's important to understand the difference between getting taught a technique, and having learnt it (in this sense). You might get taught it early on in your training, but it's not until you've repeated it over and over many, many, many times, when you understand the "why" of each tiny aspect of it, what the significance of the strategy is, and so on, that you would be considered to have "learnt" it. You need to understand it in the greater context of the overall art, where it fits in and why, and your performance of it needs to match the art itself. It's not enough to just cut to that point, step in this direction, and cut here as well, you need to cut the way the art teaches, step the way it directs you, hold the sword with the specific grip of the Ryu-ha, and more.

So, what portion of those teaching today can be truly said to know every single facet of their art? The teachers of many Koryu. Because that's the point of it.

I don't think you could accurately recreate a martial art, at least not with prior technology. Nowadays I could see where it is potentially possible with hours of video documentation of the basics, drills, kata, techniques, interviews on the philosophy, footage of sparring, etc.

The reason you can't just recreate an art (fully) means that what you're talking about still wouldn't be enough.

If it's at all useful, one might consider the use of the technical terms 'dead' vs 'extinct' as used to describe languages, and exactly what is 'inactive'. Seems rather obvious technically speaking...no students=dead art. And dead is dead.

But if wandering down the zen philosophical path...it seems to me that an art lives through practice/use/student, sleeps if it exists only in books, and can come back IN SPIRIT but not bonafide lineage if the transmission line has been broken. Unless zen has a concept for 'terma', that is.

Thank you...and I'll go back to lurking now.

Hmm, when talking Koryu, it's not really that the art lives through the students practice, it's that it lives through transmission. If it exists only in books, there is a break in the transmission, which means the art dies. And, when it all comes down to it, it's that very "spirit" that can't be found in books that stops a true re-starting of the transmission.

Mr. Sullivan, thank you for the reply.

If I may ask another question...in the specific world of koryu/sword arts...what does 'transmission' stand for in it's fullest term? To the best of a current student's understanding of the original intent? What would be the answer to the original question by those entrusted with the responsiblity in previous years to teach?

Not to answer for Daniel here, but I'll add my comments.

Think of transmission like a bloodline. It needs to go from one generation to the next, being passed both physically and "spiritually", so to speak. If a generation is skipped, it's like a parent-to-child connection being skipped. The next generation (after the skip), or any other future generations don't have any real claim to being part of the bloodline of the original family, no matter how similar they might be (cousins, for instance). Transmission is like that. Did that make sense?

In terms of what it entails, well, it entails passing on all aspects of the art. It's not a matter of "to the best of the student's understanding", as, if the student's understanding isn't sufficient, then they don't have the transmission (they haven't got it).

As I'm sure can be seen, my take is pretty simply that no, you can't recreate these arts after a separation in the transmission. However, it gets a fair bit more complicated than that...

In short, Paul is absolutely right, and, not surprisingly, I agree completely. I am familiar with a number of these reconstructed Koryu, and can't think of a better way to describe them than as a "reconstruction of a dead Koryu". But things get rather complicated when you start to see things like reconstructed sections of Koryu.... such as Toda-ha Buko Ryu and it's reconstructed methods for Nagamaki and Kusarigama. These kata were reconstructed by Ellis Amdur and his students for the 19th Head of Toda-ha Buko Ryu, using very detailed notes and documents left, and (to cut a middle-length story short) it needed to fit with the methods of the Ryu (which was a continued tradition itself). So Toda-ha Buko Ryu is a fully transmitted art, with a section that is reconstructed, but fits in perfectly (as the reconstruction was done within the Ryu itself). Additionally, utilizing the principles of Buko Ryu, Ellis has created a small syllabus of sword methods, under the name of Tenshin Buko Ryu Kenjutsu, which is not a reconstruction, nor a part of the Ryu itself, but is taught in Mr Amdur's dojo for a range of reasons. So how would we class that part? Well, it's a new art, taught as an assimilated system (in his dojo).

There are a number of other arts that have reconstructed portions of their Ryu-ha. These reconstructions are far more valid, in terms of transmission, than something like Katayama Hoki Ryu Jujutsu, which is a wholy reconstructed system by Nakashima Atsumi, some 70 years after the art itself died out. In a very real way, it's a brand new art, based on old documentation and material... but it's virtually impossible to say with any certainty that it's really similar, let alone the same, as the original. And that's even with (Katayama) Hoki Ryu Iaijutsu remaining a transmitted system, today completely separate from the Jujutsu of Nakashima. You also get the question of exactly what constitutes a continued transmission... the Hontai Yoshin Takagi Ryu, for instance, is a Jujutsu system which remains the same as it was in earlier generations... but the Hontai Yoshin Ryu is a more modern re-working of the art (it was restructured and altered a few generations ago). Are both of them really continued transmissions, or just Hontai Yoshin Takagi Ryu? It could be argued either way, really. And, of course, there are systems such as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, who, under the direction of Otake Risuke, have no intention of reconstructing any material they may have lost. According to them, there's no guarantee they'd get it correct, to the original transmission, so they don't see the point trying.

So, can an art be reconstructed? Yes. But it won't be the same art... which means the answer is really no. But parts can be reconstructed, provided it's within the family... maybe... and arts can be altered and remain correct in terms of transmission, or remain the same and stay correct... or be altered and be considered something completely new as well. Complicated, neh?

 

[harlan]

Thank you for the explanation. I don't mean to 'worry the bone' overmuch...but it's that little thing called 'transmission'. What it means...and it's that little thing referred to as 'spirit' that I'm...curious...about. Please correct me, but I have heard that there were cases when a school was carried on by an approved successor and technically meeting the 'transmission' requirements but realistically didn't 'get' the whole system. More of a 'we have to keep it in the family and he's all we have' kind of thing.

It's certain that technical skills would deteriorate over time in that situation...but as long as there are students, a bonafide 'transmission' line...the school goes on. Is this preferable over letting a school go extant?

And a clarification if permitted to ask: are there any overtones of the Buddhist understanding of 'transmission'?

 

[Chris Parker]

I might break this one up a bit...

Thank you for the explanation. I don't mean to 'worry the bone' overmuch...but it's that little thing called 'transmission'. What it means...and it's that little thing referred to as 'spirit' that I'm...curious...about.

Yeah... honestly, it's not an easy thing to explain. But I'll have another go.

We'll start with the idea of "spirit". All that refers to is the non-technical part of the art... each Ryu has it's own methodology and mind-set, it's own way of thinking, as it were. They have certain approaches they prefer, and others they don't. They have a certain "mind-set" when engaging, which is unique to that art. The timing is particular, as is the choice of angling, footwork, targeting, and so on. And, when you combine all of this, you get the art. Bear in mind that it's entirely possible to do the techniques entirely, technically "perfect" or "correct", but without the right attitude and mind-set, it's not the same art. To see this, I'm going to put a couple of videos of two lines of a well-known Koryu sword system... the techniques are the same, but the approach to them, the way the engagements are done, the timing, the whole attitude when performing, is wildly different. See if you can pick it:

I picked these videos, as they both show the five two-sword kata this school is famous for (go to 2:55 in the first clip to see them).

When it comes to transmission, it's really a general, overall term, and encompasses the technical material, as well as the adoption of the mind-set the system is teaching, it's tactical approach, it's methodology, and so on. Not just how to do the techniques, how to cut, etc, but making it so everything you do is an expression of that art's teachings.

Did that help?

Please correct me, but I have heard that there were cases when a school was carried on by an approved successor and technically meeting the 'transmission' requirements but realistically didn't 'get' the whole system. More of a 'we have to keep it in the family and he's all we have' kind of thing.

Hmm, sorta. In many cases, a Soke (head of the family) might be maintained, but if they don't teach, or (in cases) even train in the art, they are more of a figurehead than anything else. A political head. They are the ones who confer authority for that Ryu, but will often have an appointed head instructor (Shihan), or there might be a complete line of head instructors (Shihanke), ensuring that the transmission is still correct, complete, and maintained. Bear in mind that the idea of "keeping it in the family" is important for some Ryu, not for others....

It's certain that technical skills would deteriorate over time in that situation...but as long as there are students, a bonafide 'transmission' line...the school goes on. Is this preferable over letting a school go extant?

Nope, doesn't work that way. That's where the Shihanke comes into it.

And a clarification if permitted to ask: are there any overtones of the Buddhist understanding of 'transmission'?

Depends on the Ryu. For many from the Edo period onwards, sure. But that's going to get rather deep pretty quick if we keep down that path...

 

[harlan]

Thank you for in information...especially about highlighting the relationship/importance of a Shihanke.

As for the rabbit-hole, been there. When it comes to the 'black box' of koryu, there is a natural curiosity by outsiders, I suppose.