Talk:Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū

Eishin Ryu Mon?
I've noticed that this mon seems to be worn by quite a few Eishin Ryu iaidoka. Why is this? What's the history of it? How did it become associated with Eishin Ryu? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.148.226 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In yamauchi-ha we use the nine bamboo leaves, encircled. It seems to be a fairly common mon - when a bunch of us were in Japan a few years ago you could see keyrings and so on with this mon for sale in some shops.

Scottprobst (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ZNIR Focus?
This summary of Eishinryu tends to be very ZNIR centred, especially with regard to the list of Soke after Hyakuren Kono. I would suggest that we make some attempt to reflect at least the three major federations (ZNKR, ZNIR and DNIR) in the pages.


 * Somehow the balance between all of them is going to be hard to maintain. Each one of the different lineage groups tend to believe their way is right, and that all others are not. Is there possibly a way we can gracefully include all of the major linages, without going crazy about mutli-revisions and not produce some sort of war out of it?      I am in the ZNIR group (well my ranking comes from Seitokai actually) so I know what I have added is mostly true of ZNIR and the MJER that I study. But I am aware that there are other variations on the theme, and other groups who claim the same style name with different path from Oe-soke. I've only vaugely aware of Dai Nippon Iaido Renmei (DNIR) other than it was formed in 1974. (70.122.231.223 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I like the idea of focusing on ZNKR, ZNIR and DNIR, and then perhaps an "Unaffilliated Groups". I'm also ZNIR (since 1990) but have also briefly visited a DNIR dojo outside of Japan to practice. DNIR was a split off group due to Fukui Torao Seisan becoming Soke. I knew Fukui Soke and now am a member of his son's dojo. There was much controversy and when I started Iaido in 1990, there was still negative talk amoung the higher ranking sensei about this. I think if we can maintain objectivity and have some DNIR and ZNKR to become involved this article could be a comprehensive and definitive article.--Jdcounselling 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, ZNKR has no authoritative control over MJER or any koryū system. It only controls its own koryū derived ZenKenRen Iai and Jo kata. This is addressed on the main iaidō page now. I can't speak for the other federations but I'm sure traditionalists would object to their identification as being "in control" as well, since they are all modern constructions. Just because a shihan is a member of a particular federation doesn't mean that it is officially endorsed or under federation control. I think it would be best to list where the splits and disputes in the lineage exist in a neutral manner to keep everyone happy. Where multiple branches are using the same name, delinate them as XYZ-ha MJER. Red phase 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the history's will never all line up and it is hard to be objective, I think we need to try. Emphasis should be placed on the validity of ALL Kongen no Maki holders, making a point to mention that -- even though each and every individual will not be discussed here in detail -- what is posted isn't definitive of all practitioners. --Kenkyuukai 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think focusing on the various federations is a mistake. Federations are a way of connecting arts and artists and helping them continue their respective lineages, but have no direct connection to these lineages.  This is a place to pass on information about a koryu; the individual affiliation of each instructor should be secondary.  The koryu lineage, with the awarding of Kongen no Maki to upwards of 16 students of Oe Masamichi, is confusing enough without placing undue focus on what the modern federations are doing [differently]. --Kenkyuukai 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reopen this discussion as the article remains unbalanced in this area. Kōno Byakuren did not to my knowledge name a successor (I believe I have a source for this somewhere - apologies for not citing it right now) and as such it is very difficult - if not impossible - to objectively identify the current sōke of Eishin-ryū (Koryu.com also makes this assertion). To make the article balanced, each of the lines making claims of leadership should be included, along with other lines of transmission that do not make such claims. As suggested above, it would be best if all Ōe sensei's students were named and the subsequent lineages identified. I can work on this from various sources I own but I suspect I will also need the input of others. --Oroshi (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the page should be much more exapansive in acknowledging the different currently existing schools and broader structure of organisations inside and outside of Japan. I've found that in the last year a great deal of uselful information has been taken from this page which only serves to confuse those who might be genuinely interested in the development of MJER. 202.59.16.106 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel this is the case, please add the information to the article.


 * The original hope when overhauling the article was to try and reflect all opinions, but in the end this proved so complex that we decided to avoid bias by omitting the contesting lineages. If you feel you can reintroduce more useful information in a balanced manner, please do so. Unfortunately, it is beyond my abilities. I am neither a koryū scholar nor particularly knowledgeable - I merely read books and cite from them.


 * I notice that the lineage section has recently been re-edited to reflect the Seitōkai/ZNIR viewpoint (incidentally rendering some of the following qualifying paragraphs inaccurate). I don't want to get into an edit war, and I have no opinion on the matter, so I will leave it be. I will simply say that none of my Japanese sources (including those published after 1974) list a sōke after Kōno Hyakuren, and I wouldn't presume to pass judgement on who is sōke myself, hence the lineage in the article finishing where it did.--Oroshi (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the recent changes are very positive; leaving out some history just due to the objections of some can be very destrucutive in terms of the relationships between schools that exist in fact and have some legitimacy, whether or not they are recognised by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.64.163 (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While a lot of good discussion went on some time back, I note that there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of an update on this ZNIR focus in some years. At present, As Oroshi points out in 2009, the article is still unbalanced, and cites the ZNIR lineage as being the official one despite the fact that this has been contested by other organisations. While Kenkyukai argues that Federations and lineage are not linked, considering that each Federation recognises a different Soke, it seems that in modern times at the very least, this statement no longer appears to stand true. I agree it would be nice if such splits did not occur, however... The DNIR recognises Hirai Ajisai (senior) as the 21st Soke, Hirai Ajisai (junior) as the 22nd, Seimiya Ayosai as the 23rd, and Fukushima Ashosai as the 24th (and current) Soke. The argument that I have been told for the lineage being from Ajisai Hirai senior is that he was the one who organised the funeral of Kono Hyakuren, which, in the absence of a successor being named, indicated the person to follow as the next generation. I'm not disputing that ZNIR has their own valid arguments for why they believe that Fukui Torao was the next Soke after Kono Hyakuren, but there are strong views from others that would make the article appear biased as it currently stands.124.35.202.12 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we seperate the kata/waza/techniques and put them in a new article?
What the topic says. The list of kata and the works is taking up alot of space in this article. I think we can afford to move them to a new article and expand the other sections of Eishin-ryu instead. Any yays or nays? Fred26 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree to that, but we really need some of the respected iaido sensei and high ranking praticitioners to shed some of their history of the art to the article. This is hard, though, as much of MJER has been, and will be, kept "within the family" (70.122.231.223 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree with moving the waza list to a new article. If other Remei are represented in the main article then the differences in the respective waza "lists" can also be reflected in the waza article.--Jdcounselling 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand tidying up, but did the Paired Kata lists get moved anywhere or just deleted? Kata names aren't secret and I'm in favor of spreading as much knowledge about the lesser known parts of MJER as possible.--Kenkyuukai 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ōe sensei's name
The article uses two different versions of Oe Masamichi's name. This is confusing and inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

History
I know some of, but not all, of my own style's lineage and history, but not well enough to post all of it without verifying it first. If you study MJER, regardless of your particular governing affiliation (znir/znkr/dnir/dnkr/etc etc), and know history of your affiliation, or your lineage, etc... please add it (here or article). I know we all believe in our own lineage strongly, but hopefully through all of it, we can find some common truths, or find a way to incorporate all of it into the story that is MJER today. (70.122.231.223 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC))


 * This idea of deleting some of the histories of one lineage or another, whether disputed or not, is really counterproductive. We need to be presenting unbiased information rather than lineage-centred accounts of history.

Scottprobst (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This site (http://www.eikoku-roshukai.com/index.php?title=MJER_History) shows 3 other branches. You could add more detail, but would it actually be useful? It all gets a bit 'Judean Peoples Front'. The bottom line is that Oe Masamichi did not appoint a successor, but he did award at least 16 teaching licenses which is very high. I think that ending the lineage at Oe Masamichi and then putting any further detail in the 'students' section is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Waza name translations
I am interested to know what the source for the translations of waza names is, as several of them do not seem to match the Japanese. In particular, these three:

鱗返　Urokogaeshi (currently listed as "dragon turn.")

Uroko means "scale" (as in a fish's scales). It does not have the meaning of "dragon." The dōka for urokogaeshi is 瀧の波瀬のぼる鯉のうろつくは水せき上げておつることなし, or very roughly, "when ascending the waterfall’s rapids, the carp that linger are washed back down" (excuse my poor translation - neither poetry nor archaic Japanese grammar are my strong points).

惣捲 So Makuri (currently "Complete Resolution").

総捲り, to use its standard spelling, means "all-encompassing." The kanji here have the same meaning (incidentally, the rōmaji should also be revised).

信夫 Shinobu (currently "Assassin," it includes the following note:　"Prev. translated as "Loyal Retainer" possibly because the waza was developed by a retainer who used the technique to take down an assassin in the dark.")

I assume the translator here is thinking of 忍び, the noun form of shinobu, and making a connection with "ninja." However shinobu in no way means "assassinate," and neither does shinobi mean "assassin." The word　means "endure" and also "do by stealth." The kanji used in the waza name are 信 (shin), meaning trust, sincerity or faithfulness, and 夫 (fu) meaning an adult male, especially a soldier. The name clearly has a deliberate double meaning. I note that the speculation given about the origins of the name is also unsourced.

I don't want to revise these without any discussion, as they may have been derived from a primary source that has simply not been cited. However, unless someone can provide citations I will go ahead and revise the translations accordingly. Oroshi (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the translations can be done without completely. In addition, although I don't object to its inclusion as it is certainly interesting, I do question the usefulness of the Japanese names/kanji. --Kenkyuukai (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the translations in my recent edit of the techniques section. I have kept the kanji for now as I think they may still be useful. --Oroshi (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks good, with a few exceptions. You romanized Tachi Uchi no Kata, 7 真方 as makkou (まっこう). My line reads it as written, mappou (まっぽう).  Also, there is inconsistent use of 之 (正座の部 vs. 詰合之位).  The rest (both romanization and kanji) look correct, but I'll get out my list later and double check things. --Kenkyuukai (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For some reason Mitani writes the 部 with の but the 位 with 之 - I don't know why, but I decided to continue the convention. 真方 I was unsure of anyway, as my line doesn't practice the revised set, just the koryū. I've heard it referred to as Makkō, but I don't have any source that calls it that, so feel free to revise. --Oroshi (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both ～之部 and 真方 (まっぽう) are used in my dojo and are also in Yamakoshi's book, so I'm going to change both of them.
 * Also, I did notice some differences in naming of kata, at least in the paired sets. How should we address this?  Also, what are your feelings of using pre-War/unsimplified kanji?  For example, from the Daikentori set I just added, 榮 vs. 栄.  What about things like 〆捕 vs. 締捕? --Kenkyuukai (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know some of the paired waza have multiple names (打込 is also called 留之剣, for example). There are also alternative names for some Ōmori-ryū waza (前 is also 前身, etc., although this usage seems rare). I think as far as the paired waza go, we could cite two names so long as we have sources for them.
 * For traditional/simplified kanji, I am unsure. I think it is probably best to stick with the written form used by whichever source we are citing.　Unfortunately this will most likely create a mix of new and old characters.　What are your thoughts on this? --Oroshi (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major revision
I have noticed that this article is in quite a mess right now, and over the past few days I've been working on improving it (offline for now). I will be updating sections when I feel I have enough material of sufficient quality. I will be using published primary sources to the best of my ability. Unfortunately all my sources are Japanese, so if someone has a better source in English, please revise accordingly.

I have several major aims, and I would like to outline them here before I begin editing, so that others may comment, criticise or make suggestions. My hope is that we can eventually get the MJER article on a par with something like the Shintō Musō-ryū article.

What I currently intend to do is as follows:


 * Add more citations.
 * Clear up ambiguous, POV or erroneous information from the history, and expand this section. Work to maintain a consistent tone/style.
 * Balance out claims of leadership of MJER. There are many contesting factions and whilst I understand that people may feel strongly that one particular individual has authority, the article should make it clear that there is no true consensus. Therefore I would like to note that lineage post-Kōno Hyakuren has been contested and list all claims of leadership by different groups in a subsection, in a fair and balanced way.
 * Add a list of Ōe's students, noting that some received licences of transmission but the exact number is not known. Confirmed recipients may be marked as long as sufficient sources can be found. I will try to add dates for the students as well. I will also stress the legitimacy of all these students and their subsequent lineages.
 * Fix the lists of waza. I am actually going to start by lengthening these through re-introducing lists of Tachi Uchi no Kurai, Tsume Ai no Kurai and so on. Later these can be split off into a separate article if needs be. I will be fixing the English translations or perhaps removing them completely. I will move the Battō Hō lists to the end of the section as these are not practised by a large number, perhaps the majority, of MJER practitioners and so are a little confusing in their current position. I will also be removing the lists of federation waza as these are not MJER.
 * I am not sure what the value of 'governing bodies' is in the article. Either it needs to be clarified or I think it should be considered for removal.
 * As iaidō and iaijutsu now point to different articles, introduce an iaidō/iaijutsu description format where necessary.
 * Fix general spelling and romanization.

Please comment on this and let me know what you think of the suggestions. --Oroshi (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of most of your proposed changes. Many of them should go without saying (citations, erroneous information, spelling/romanization).  There are, however, a few points I would like to address:
 * A Japanese source is preferable to none at all. If you have them, please include them.  If there are sources in multiple languages, even better.  I am actually quite suspect of some of information floating around the internet in a variety of languages except Japanese.
 * Balancing out claims of leadership is good, but there will never be a consensus. I think the issue is best left largely untouched, as is done on the Japanese MJER page.  The (contested) lineage past Oe Masamichi is superfluous.  It is confusing and would require an extraordinary amount of space to list all Kongen no Maki holders and their relations only to end up with an incomplete or unverifiable list.
 * I am for re-introducing the waza lists for paired waza, or at least the number of waza per set. I do not consider Batto Ho to be koryu but do not object to its listing here; so long as it's ambiguous status is mentioned, place it where you will.  Governing bodies and federation waza can be deleted as they have little or no connection.  Even the waza derivative of MJER/MSR would best be explained on the respective pages.
 * I don't know why the iaido and iaijutsu pages were split, but I hope we can ignore most of that here. A mention that MJER is referred to as both should suffice. Kenkyuukai (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I have prepared lists of all the lineages I know of but to be honest it is still a mess. I think it may be best to just state seitō lineage up to Kōno Hyakuren, and then that 1) seitō lineage is currently contested and 2) there are multiple lines of transmission coming from various students of Ōe Masamichi (with a list of students if needs be). All my Japanese sources state seitō lineage up to Kōno Hyakuren and then stop, even those published post-1974. I think this is quite telling. --Oroshi (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and updated the two least-sensitive sections - History and Techniques. I am delaying updating Lineage as I think it would be better to have a little more discussion first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroshi (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I'm going to go ahead and update it. Someone can always change it back again if they have a problem with it! I will be adding sources for the lineage once I get one of my books back from a friend. --Oroshi (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the new version. It is clear and concise.
 * How are we to deal with citations for things have been transmitted orally or solely within schools? For example, I know that Daikentori is still known and taught because my teacher knows and teaches it.  I don't know if these techniques are cataloged in any of his scrolls, as I have not seen them, but they are listed on our dojo's curriculum.  This "unofficial" curriculum also lists bangai that fall outside the standard 3 (or 4, as I thought Shihougiri/Akumabarai was fairly widely practiced).  My teacher is also the source for Itabashi Ryu Bojutsu being known in remnants.
 * I will add the waza names for Daikentori. As you said, if somebody doesn't like it, they can always revert it back.
 * Many other citation problems could be solved if someone where to get their hands on Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū Iai Heihō Chi no Maki by Masaoka Katsutane. Unfortunately it is out of print. I'll take another read through Yamakoshi's book (MJER: The Iai Forms and Oral Traditions of the Yamauchi Branch) for additional citations.  --Kenkyuukai (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My sensei has a copy of Chi no Maki but I'm not quite ready to ask to borrow it! I have been trying to get hold of Yamakoshi's book for a while so I'm glad you have that for reference (if you have any advice on where I could get a copy please let me know).
 * I removed Shihōgiri from the list of Bangai as one of my main sources (Iwata's book) states that Ōe only created three Bangai. I believe my line practices Shihōgiri too but I'm not advanced enough in my study to know for sure, and I don't have a written source for it. I do know we have at least three Bangai in addition to the ones I listed, though, so extra Bangai seems common. If you have a source that lists Shihōgiri in the Bangai you could reintroduce it (or we could list it as an example of a Bangai waza practiced by some, but not all lines). --Oroshi (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard that Iwata sensei only counts the 3 from Oe sensei from the English Roshukai guys, though I heard they still practice Shihogiri. Oroshi, please check your user talk page. --Kenkyuukai (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of chūden
The name is actually pronounced tachihiza, not tatehiza. The sitting posture is correctly called tatehiza nowadays, but it was also read tachihiza in olden days and this is the reading in both Musō Jikiden and Musō Shinden. Bidouleroux (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Age of school
Since Oe Masamichi was a legitimate headmaster, him renaming the school from Hasegawa Eishin Ryu to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, and reorganizing the curriculum, does not really constitute forming a new school (as headmaster and kogen no maki, he was within his right)

Furthermore, it is obvious, that if we start looking at it from the point of view of a name, all the various parts of MJER, such as Eishin Ryu, Omori Ryu, etc, just from the name, are their own schools, which is obviously nonsense.

Additionally, it is obvious, again, from the name, that prior to being called Hasegawa Eishin Ryu, the school was called something else (Shinmei Muso Ryu?), since Hasegawa Eishin was only 7th headmaster.

Point is, argument that "in 1900s the name got changed, so it's a different school now" is a fallacy, since the techniques remained the same.

Lastly, Japanese practitioners of note (Mitani, Yamakoshi, Iwata), clearly felt that it is koryu, as opposed to ZNKR Seitei.

Therefor, I am changing the opening paragraph back to reflect that this is a koryu school, with origins in 1600s, that currently fractured into multiple branches. Urokugaeshi (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421044815/http://www.151a.net/iai/tech/waza.html to http://www.151a.net/iai/tech/waza.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)