Talk:Kukishin-ryū

Hehe, actually, I practiced this on a slippery, rocking boat.

---

Is this a copyright violation? (i.e., was this copied directly from some printed material?) --Andrew 07:27, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page has innaccuracies

I really wish people within the bujinkan would research before modifying these wiki pages. For example, this sentence: "The Kukishin blood line is still alive today but they left the martial art in Soke Hatsumi's hands to keep it alive." Not only is it uncited and incorrect, it's written in a manner innapropriate for use in an encyclopedia.

I'm deleting the "they left in Hatsumi's hands" sentence, and I will be putting accurate information about Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin ryu, Hontai Kukishin Ryu (Bojutsu), as well as Kukishinden Happo Bikenjutsu. The research I have done on these arts can be verified by browsing available amatsu tatara scrolls or at the Kuki family website (http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/)

Paradoxbox2

---

I'm here too. I'll be adding sections as well when I get around to it. Kudos from www.kukishinden.org Mekugi 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran into a problem a while back with my understanding of ryu-ha while doing some research. I kept coming up with different Soke for what I thought were the same ryu... One thing I discovered was that there were different branches of the ryu that were divided up at different points. So often times you'll see two people with lineages tracing back with different people to one earlier soke, and it became a case of the soke having divided the ryu between two students. It may be important to differentiate between, say, Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin Ryu, and Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken, for this reason.Stslavik 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it is a problem. It's just a branch coming off the main line (the Tenshin Hyoho, for example). They exist, but are seperate. (Mekugi 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

I'd say it's inaccurate all right. Much of this is very similar to the version spread by Tanaka Fumon, and I have second hand knowledge about how he aquired his densho... According to our Hontai Yoshin Ryu legend, Kukishin Ryu was founded by our 4 dai soke - Okuni, Kihei Shigenobu in the beginning of the 18:th century. Kukishin Ryu has been taught within Hontai Yoshin Ryu since then. It includes stick fighting like bo- and hanbo-jutsu and no unarmed techniques. /Olle Borg 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. It's a legend and not fact- legend that comes from various sources, (id est:. fables, folklore and stories, not an archive) I might add. Even the Hontai Yoshin Ryu website in English and in Japanese states as much (so that must be taken with a grain of salt.) The person being talked about in the Takagi line is listed as a shihan of Kukishin ryu, not a lineal soke. According to my sources there was a friendly meeting where the two groups "exchanged" techniques, not created Kukishin ryu as by that time, Kukishin ryu had been around for a while- Takagi Yoshin ryu had been around too, but not as long. (see recent edit on April 10, 2007). They found superior techniques or methods in each ryu and an exchange took place. So was what you see now in Takagi Ryu is bojutsu and taijutsu, while in Kukishin Ryu it has similar bojutsu and taijutsu- but also naginata, kempo and so on. The Kukishinryu shihan took over the lineage of Takagi Yoshin ryu, and handed it down on that side. Kukishin ryu remained seperate. (Mekugi 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

---

Well, well. About the grain of salt... Our "legend" is the one accepted by Nihon Kobudo Kyokai and Nihon Budokan. May I ask if your source of information originates with Tanaka Fumon? /Olle Borg 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Sources

Hi! Actually that particular "legend" is not "accepted" by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (NKK) or the reason they are a member (that is another story entirely.) It's the lineage and succession of teachers (shihan) that gains the ryu's acceptance into the NKK, not the stories. This is done via an extensive interview process which takes those documents (i.e. lineage) into account. My information's origin is from the Kuki family archives and a one Mr. Takatsuka Eichoku personally. Incidentally, there are several koryu bujutsu in existance today that are not member of the Kyokai or the Shinkokai, but this does not mean they are illigitimate or dismisses them as fraud (i.e.: Bichuden Takeuchi ryu, Sosuishiryu, Fusen ryu, Nagao ryu and Kurodahan-den Yagyu Shinkage Ryu just to list a few.) Thanks! -Russ, Kuwana, Japan. Mekugi 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems I might have given you a bit too low credibility at first. - Sorry! Still, am I too rude if I question the objectivity of the Kuki family? I am aware that the unbroken lineage is one major key in the koryu acceptance. However, I'll do some more research, and hopefully I can give you a better comment soon... :) /Olle Borg 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello my fellow koryu-monkey ;-). You training Kukishin-ryu alongside Hontai Yoshin-ryu? Fred26 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! ;) - Yes, Kukishin Ryu is taught as a part of Hontai Yoshin Ryu. /Olle Borg 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Olle! You wrote: "I too rude if I question the objectivity of the Kuki family?" The family doesn't practice the ryu anymore, so they really don't have much stake in the ryu itself- so I would say they are fairly objective. When I refer to the "Kuki archives" I mean old documents that are kept in a shrine here in Japan (not by the Kuki family). These are clearly objective in terms of ryu history, the family name, lineage and so forth so there is nothing too bent about them. They are what they are.Mekugi 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for your reply! But, what shrine are you talking about? Our soke also has densho as proof of the Kukishin history. We too do not benefit from claiming that our heritage is much younger. I'm (still) not saying that our version of the history is the right one. I know that very good copies of densho can be bought (and have been bought) in Japan. Now, I don't know much of your investigation. Maybe it goes far beyond that. If not, maybe you too could be a little bit more careful when anouncing one legend as a fact? We don't know the facts for sure, and we never will. - No offence, just my humble reflection... /Olle Borg 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Unfortunately, I am not comfortable talking about where these documents are kept in a public forum like this. It’s not a secret or anything, just not my place to do so. Additionally, this is not about HTYR claiming a *younger* birth-date. It states there that Kukishin ryu is younger, which is not accurate. Why? Because there are documents that state the Kuki were practicing martial arts before that date. Not densho of the kata, but other documents such as historical records from older prefectures (I’ll get into that later). At any rate, I believe the densho Mr. Inoue has is (are) a modern one(s), unless he has something I don’t know about (which is possible). The reason I believe this is because of the reading and interpretation of the kanji translated to mean "Demon." The oldest surviving document I have seen is dated far older than 1790 shows the reading as "kami" and not "oni." This is a kind of "glitch" in the system, as kanji as they written today are far different from those written 100 years ago, and further back they are totally un-alike. This is simply because the gradual modernization of the Japanese writing system has omitted some of the older characters from the language and has replaced them with of ones that are more common. I have seen Densho of the kata dating from 1780, and it is in fact the same kanji found on the others, not a creative license taken by a calligrapher. Note here that despite the age of a document, this is a densho listing all of the techniques of the ryu...including naginata, taijutsu, bo, kempo, etc. As stated there are much older documents, those that I would label as "general" that are still surviving, containing military theaters, history, lineage, local rice paddy output and accounting, strategy and so on. Yet as for the eldest densho containing a complete summary of the ryu, the best one to date is really not "that old". This is true of many old ryuha, which usually do not have densho that pass the Edo era, but still have records of the practice of martial arts within the han, family, or whatnot (as is the case with Kukishin Ryu and, for example, the training given to the Kumano Suigun) that date them to the time that they were created. This goes along with what is written in the densho, and what is in fact recorded in the areas to confirm it. There are ryu with REALLY old documents out there, owned by ryu, but truly they are the luck of the draw, as rice paper does not last under the harsh climate of this country. What I am trying to say here is that the date of existing documents does not denote the age of the ryu itself but more likely what has survived through war, harsh climate, fire and mishaps. Again, as the declaimer on the HTYR ryuha website states, this is just what he was passed on form his instructor to him (for better or for worse). That, I believe, is why the disclaimer is on put on there. Fear not! It’s really not that big a deal (scroll up and you’ll see where I mentioned that before). Other ryu have this similar situation and it is nothing unusual. Sosuishi ryu also has a conflict like this regarding Takeuchi ryu, the brief description of the forming of SSR, a document about 200 years old, is not the same as the one that Takeuchi ryu has kept. I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the Takeuchi ryu version is the original one. It’s ancient and has been so for generations. There are actually several conflicting stories like this out there, some of them closer to one another than others, so really it is nothing new! Mekugi 09:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, and thank you for a long and interesting post! First of all, our web page was not published to tell our story. It was published mostly for political reasons (which are not relevant here). The disclaimer was posted to avoid conflicts, as there are more than one "legend" out there. Again, I strongly believe that unless someone invents a time machine, we will never know for sure which one (if any) is correct. As I am rather confident that our story with the "nine demons" (oni) dates back before "modern time", could it not be that we are actually speaking of two different schools? I have also heard from our soke, of the kami/oni difference. To me this would only mean that our Kukishin Ryu has nothing to do with the Kuki family. The question whether they were doing martial arts in ancient times then seems rather uninteresting to me, unless of course if anyone could proove a connection between the Kuki family and our 4 dai soke, Okuni, Kihei Shigenobu. - I know it's mentioned in some documents that he "practiced both schools" but that's not good enough!

Now, I still can't help being impressed by the amount of information you've managed to dig up, and I'm sorry for being a bit skeptic. So, what's your story and who is your teacher/soke? (Your presentation here really didn't give me that much info.) All these old documents that you are speaking of, what authority has established their age and authenticity? Are you able to read ancient japanese documents for yourself (which would make me very impressed and envious) or do you get them translated from someone? Olle Borg 12:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can vouch for Meguki, but I'll let him do his own introduction hehe. :-) Fred26 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! In this case I would have to agree with you on some things...being that we cannot really tell absolute, true origins of the school or really any piece of history for that matter (that goes for present day as well). So all that anyone has to go by is the oldest and likely (reliable) records. Furthermore the oldest and most reliable documents are precisely the ones I am speaking about. That being said, those documents are the source of most of the history on the family bujutsu in the modern times, including histories of the regions in which they lived and their influence as a high ranking feudal family is well known (the town I live in was attacked and defeated by the Kumano Suigun) and viewed by most researchers, those with far more education and credentials that me, to be the most authoritative. There are congruencies in other documents and historical records, so it is not the instance of "one story stemming from one place." Furthermore, the spelling of the name "Kuki" meaning nine-gods, and not nine demons, is a simple thing as A) ancient documents show the original "spelling" and kanji and B) the time that the "spelling" changed for modern documents coincides with the change in the way Japanese was written and how kanji is organized. This is the same school we are talking about, because Okuni is in fact listed in our lineage/historical documents and the one who introduced Takagi ryu to Kukishin ryu (that's the reason we have it). It would be actually fruitless, and much harder to attempt to prove otherwise simply because there is no proof to the contrary. It's archived and recorded- and well...there it is. It's not a time machine but the best that is going on. As for me...well...I'm a student of Kukishin Tenshin Hyoho here in Nagoya under the Sumera Budojuku. Our "head-teacher" is a one Mr. Takatsuka in Kansai and I am a student under one of his Shihan in Tokaido. I am not able to read everything in old documents- as the characters that are out of use, or the grammar / era-related kanji are extremely thick and difficult- but I have a good idea and with some help I catch on. I am attempting to expand my studies into ancient Japanese writing and language, but it is no easy task. I would be very happy if I could just pick up a 350 year old document and start reading as it would make things much easier for me- but as it turns out MANY Japanese scholars have problems reading them, so it is going to take a little more time than I am satisfied with in order to reach that point.

Mekugi 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot added

Whew! I have added a lot of content. Most of it is coming from the Kukishinden Tenshin Hyoho Website. There is a lot to edit out, such as the U in RYU is not Hepburn. Help greatly appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I see you are pretty busy right now, however, as soon as you can, please add some sources (citations) of the history of this ryu. Thank you Daoken 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving on it for sure...right now i just put in some general placemarks for the references (where the material came from). Later on I plan to provide some APA style citation with page and paragraph. Kudos! Mekugi 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

A bit of advice. The history seems to be well sourced, the Koryu listing also, the etymology as well It could be good if you could source from where are extracted the lists of techniques and the last statement about the existing branches so you don't attract a tag for lack of sources. Then you can concentrate in enhancing the content (always sourcing of course) You are doing a fine work I think Jenny^Len☤ 16:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay...I'll put together a better set of resources. Some of the history comes out of the Kuki family archives, so these are going to be hard to source. It's not my own original research, but someone else's...I just need to narrow it down as to which came from where. At any rate, Thanks to Bradford for giving it an upgrade :-) Mekugi 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that Librarian2 was finding you the Japanese isbn, that girl is one of a kind :) Jenny^Len☤ 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

I've been reading Serge Mol's "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan" and his account of the history, founder, and meaning of the "nine demons" part of the ryu's name is quite contrary to what is stated in this article. I don't have access to all of the other sources referenced in this article, but I was just wondering what everyone else thought about this. If reliable sources are in conflict, then both versions should be acknowledged. Bradford44 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I observe that the citation to Mol's book is not in the name section or the founder's section but in the influence of schools, indicating the pages of that citation and not other parts of the book, so it is not conflictive. However, I don't see a citation related with the name of the school which in true should exist ℒibrarian2 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You're quite right that they are not conflicting on the points their cited for, I was more concerned with the conflict in a general sense, and was hoping someone had some insight into why Mol's account of the ryu's history would be so different from the story given here. Certainly a published book should be given more weight than a website. Bradford44 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Serge Mol's book is not the greatest of resources sometimes and he mixes and matches some information. It's a good primer, but that's where it ends. For example the "Nine Demons" reference stems entirely from Hontai Yoshin Ryu and a few later writings outside of Kukishin Ryu itself. You'll see in his book that it is merely a sidenote to Hontai Yoshin Ryu on pages 199-202. In the second paragraph of page 200, you'll see a reference to Tanaka Fumon and "his research" to his school "Tenshin Hyoho Soden Kukamishin ryu." What he is talking about here is a document found in the Kuki archives which says that one of the ancestors of Takagi Ryu recieved a document regarding the martial arts from the Kuki family. His passage not very clear and it is misleading in that the Kukishin Ryu taught in Hontai Yoshin Ryu (a Takagi ryu exponent) is a fuzoku ryu (assimilated school) to them, one that was added after Takagi ryu's creation and is passed down in conjunction; however Kukishin ryu is a seperate school, one that predates the creation of Takagi ryu. Mekugi (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was just wondering if the Watatani, Ago, and Takahiro references (currently located at footnotes 2, 3, and 4, respectively) were in Japanese or English. Thanks, Bradford44 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The references 2,3 and 4 have (Jpn) after the title indicating the language code (library ref) and the NDLC code as pertaining to the National Diet Library of Japan ℒibrarian2 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the better practice is to use the {{ja icon}} tag in front of the reference. Please revert if you disagree. Bradford44 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All by the contrary, I thank you. I was unaware of that template, I will integrate it to my edits. Thank you ℒibrarian2 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems

To try to keep things simple, I have two concerns for right now. One, the information regarding the kanji 鬼 in the section titled "About the Name" and elsewhere appears to be, in a word, wrong. Likewise regarding the claim at the website cited for that section. Two, should the article mention Minaki Den Kukishin-ryū? Bradford44 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kanji

It's not wrong, it's technically accurate (meaning it's the correct way to read the name). More references can be provided- several in fact, but in Japanese. One can find the exact kanji in the scrolls and documents of the Kuki family plus within many, many reference books here in Japan; but very few in English. I think I can provide pictures of some of the scrolls as well. Kanji Daijiten (Kanji Encyclopedia) also list the kanji and its history, which is an arcaic "writing." Unfortunately, the combination of the two kanji has lost the true meaning in modern references. The Kuki family documents are the oldest in existence that have the correct, re-occuring, writing of the name.

The lineage Tree

The "lineage tree" that was posted on here was in fact the Hontai Yoshin Ryu lineage, not the Kukishin Ryu lineage.

On branches

If we mention "Minaki den" then we have to mention the rest. Why should we clutter this page up and why should they not have their own Wiki pages? My feeling is that this article is supposed to be a general overview of Kukishin Ryu, not on any of the branches. 8-D Mekugi (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change anything before reading the content

It seems to me there are a lot of good-intended people changing the content of the page without first reading it. This has been apperant in the changing of the name definition. It seems that while this is well intentioned, it is simply a product of not reading the page and editing it. So again, please read the content of the page -before- any edits! Much appreciated! Mekugi (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars - What's in a name?

I think that it is time to end the edit wars on this page regarding the reading of the name. It is against Wikipedia guidelines, and it makes for an ugly editing string in the history. Please stop replacing the name's translation with another and using the citation/information I have added to the page along with it. Please cite reliable, scholarly resources or add information to the section entitled "About the Name" if you want to express yourself. Again, please use resources and not only "other websites".

For more information about Edit Wars, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

"Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content :edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of:Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit."

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one."

Since this is not about only one point of view and the subject is already clearly explained and defined, then there should be no problem. Please cease and desist!

For more information about Citation, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

Thanks!

Mekugi (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kempo is NOT Kenjutsu

I don't know anything about this particular style, but I am confused about some of the links. This school is listed as teaching Kempo as part of its curriculum, but the clickable link leads to Kenjutsu. On the side, the description of Kempo is "sword art." However, this is false.

Kempo is also romanized as "kenpo," so my guess is that somebody confused this for kendo, which is often used interchangeable with kenjutsu.

I would fix the word / link myself, but without being familiar with this style, I don't know if it's the wrong word or the wrong link. Anyway, here is a quick reference for anyone who wants to correct it.

Kenpo / Kempo - Japanese word for any martial art that originates from China

Kendo / Kenjutsu - "way of the sword" and "art of the sword" respectively

BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

This is a problem with English and Japanese. Kempo, in this case, does in fact mean "sword law" (剣法 Kempo) and is proper. It does *not* mean "sword way" (剣道 Kendo) nor does it mean "fist law"　(拳法 Kempo). The words (剣法 and 拳法) are homonyms, but the Chinese characters make them completely different, so the mistake is easily made. :-) So in summary, there is a Kempo that is similar in meaning to Kenjutsu; this is not the same as Kempo as in "fist law".

As for 拳法 Kempo (fist law) meaning any martial art originating from China, that is unfortunately inaccurate. :-(

Kudos! Mekugi (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

The Kuki family martial arts is historically interesting regarding relationships to several other budo arts inkluding the Bujinkan. I'm not sure how many surviving koryu lineages there is, but those that are alive and kicking should be notable simply for existing. We're not talking about modern arts here, where you or me can create an new "style" and then claim it relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. --90.130.239.143 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)