Ryu & Ryuha & Ha
L.F. Wilkinson
What is the difference between the terms ryu, ryuha and ha?
I have been told several versions or sets of answers but am still uncertain as to the meaning(s) esp. within the context of gendai/modern/do forms vs. older koryu forms (bujutsu vs budo)
What I have been told is that "ryu" is a complete system (read everything from saddling the horse to knife fighting to proper care and use of the sword)..............that "ryuha" is a later and possibly "smaller" derivative/subset of the larger whole original ryu (either sword work only out of the larger system for example or the exact same material but slightly modified) and that "ha" refers mainly to a different method of teaching something (for example the Tomiki Ha Aikido or the Tomiki method of teaching Ueshiba's Aikido).
I pose the question in light of the recent threads of Shu-ha-ri discussion which of course raises another question......to wit........at what point is the formation and naming of something and calling it "ryu" appropriate? When can/should you start a new one?
L.F. ("no intention or desire to start anything new other than a discussion thread to solve some academic confusion") WIlkinson
Kim A Taylor
> which of course raises another question......to wit........at what point is
> the formation and naming of something and calling it "ryu"
> appropriate? When can/should you start a new one?
>
I wonder if any of the "legitimate" ryu were ever "started". Does the
founder actually stand up one day and say to himself "I think I'll start a
ryu"
I suspect most of the ryu that exist today were "started" several
generations of students after the "founder" began teaching some guys in
the back gazebo.
Kim "Chief cook and bottle washer of Daidokoro-ryu, founded one day while
walking to class"
==========================================
Kim Taylor
mailto:kata...@uoguelph.ca
519-824-4120 ext. 3700
Dept. Animal Science
U. of Guelph, Guelph Ontario
Canada N1G 2W1
FAX 519-836-9873
Join iai...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Send to: LIST...@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA
Command: SUBSCRIBE IAIDO-L firstname lastname
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kataylor/
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~iaido/
http://ejmas.com/
http://kendo-canada.com/
NEXT EVENTS:
Jodo workshops UG noon to 5pm Jan 16, Feb 6, Apr 16
Jodo workshops Toronto Yoshinkai 1-4pm Jan 22, Feb 19, Mar 11
Spring seminar UG May 19-22
July GSJSA "sword school" July 15-18 (craft) 19-24 (MA seminars)
==========================================
Neil Gendzwill
wrote:
>
> I wonder if any of the "legitimate" ryu were ever "started". Does the
> founder actually stand up one day and say to himself "I think I'll start a
> ryu"
Mebbe not but it sounds like the ha are started intentionally. At some
point the student splits off from the teacher, or there are two or more
competing top students when the teacher dies, or whatever.
Anyhoo for the benefit of the original question, ryu and ryu-ha seem to be
more or less interchangeable, maybe Karl can enlighten us as to the
difference, I seem to recall that ryu-ha is more correct. Both refer to a
martial tradition. Ha is a branch off a main tradition. You would
commonly hear X-ryu, Y-ha where Y is more often than not someone's name.
Ha does not imply less (or more) stuff in the curriculum.
Neil
Musashi Natsuki
take on a style whereas "ryu" is the style itself.
As for ryu-ha, "ryu-ha" is more like a generic
categorical term referring to matters that deal with
whatever ryu & ha you are.
For example, I think one would normally ask someone
what is your "ryu-ha" is rather than just what his or
her "ryu" is. For me anyway, the word "ryu" by itself
sounds rather incomplete and could be taken to mean
quite a few other things, if the context of the
sentence isn't very clear, whereas when you ask about
"ryu-ha", there's less confusion as to what you are
referring to.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Karl Friday
What is the difference between the terms ryu, ryuha and ha?
What I have been told is that "ryu" is a complete system (read everything from saddling the horse to knife fighting to proper care and use of the sword)..............that "ryuha" is a later and possibly "smaller" derivative/subset of the larger whole original ryu (either sword work only out of the larger system for example or the exact same material but slightly modified) and that "ha" refers mainly to a different method of teaching something (for example the Tomiki Ha Aikido or the Tomiki method of teaching Ueshiba's Aikido).
As to "ryu" vs "ha", we just had a discussion of this a few months back. For the benefit of anyone who missed it (and actually cares), here's a rerun (hey, the TV networks do it, and still charge their sponsors big bucks ;-) ):
The distinction is pretty closely parallel to the one between "language" and "dialect" in linguistics. That is, there is a formal difference (one being a subset of the other) but in practice the distinction is often blurred.
In the case of linguistics, a dialect is defined as a variation of a language; when dialects diverge to the point at which speakers of either can no longer understand one another, they have become distinct languages. In practice, however, political considerations often take precedence over linguistic ones in determining whether two forms of communication are "languages" or "dialects." Thus Mandarin and Cantonese are "dialects" of "Chinese," while Danish and Norwegian are separate languages.
In the case of bugei traditions, a "ha" is theoretically a subdivision of a "ryu" (actually, both terms are used alone only as suffixes to school names--the Japanese term that we tend to render as "school," "style," or "tradition" in English is "ryuha."), as in "Ono-ha Itto-ryu" (the Ono branch/line of the Itto style/school). But in practice whether descendent branches of a parent school style themselves as "___ha" or as distinct "___ryu" is often a matter of historical/political circumstance. The key issue is whether the parties who created the division (and the names) chose to emphasize their connections to the original system or their separateness from one another. Thus you can find pairs of distinct "___ryu" that look very similar and pairs of "___ha" that (after several generations of separate evolution) now look almost nothing alike.
A common pitfall into which a great many Western students of Japanese arts fall is to attempt to impose Western-logic-derived patterns of order on Japanese organizations and classification systems. Traditional Japanese (hell, for that matter *modern* Japanese) were just not as systematic and compulsive about such things as modern Westerners are.
In the history of bugei development continual splitting, fragmenting and branching off of lineages was the rule. Sometimes the founders of branch lineages chose names that were a close variation of the name of the parent tradition, sometimes they gave them entirely new names, and sometimes they just styled them as sublineages ("___ha"). Other times the creators of new systems picked names that (deliberately or coincidentally) were very similar to those of completely unrelated schools.
I pose the question in light of the recent threads of Shu-ha-ri discussion which of course raises another question......to wit........at what point is the formation and naming of something and calling it "ryu" appropriate? When can/should you start a new one?
A new ryuha can be the result of a dramatic insight that takes one's own art in a completely different direction from that of one's teacher, or it can come from a political or administrative split with one's teacher or fellow students, or it can begin with a combination of the above. It's kind of like the case of religions; basically, you have new ryuha when you identify it as such. Sometimes that identification can even be made in hindsight--a few generations later, for example. And then the whole question is further complicated by the difference between what the practitioners of a system themselves style it, vs. the way academic-type analysts might choose to classify it. One could, for example, make the argument that the Katori Shinto-ryu and the Kashima Shinto-ryu should be classified as two "ha" of a single "ryu," in light of their common origins and similarity of principles (and the fact that the Katori/Kashima distinction in the ryuha names didn't exist until the late Meiji period). But I doubt that you could do that without strenuous objections from the members of both schools.
The best thing, I think, is just to take the "ryu" and "ha" labels at face value for what they are: reflections of historical circumstances and beliefs on the part of the masters of a school over time. Keep in mind, BTW, that these are not bugei terms: they are used in reference to most traditional Japanese arts and quite a few modern activities as well.