![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in need of grammar correction. While quite interesting, it feels to me like it was written by someone who has English as a second language. It could be made more clear and concise.
I am under the understanding that Niten Ichi is predominantly practised with two katana, and not with a katana and wakazashi pair. What little I recall of Musashi's writings I think he recommended training right from the beginning with two katana, as he regarded this as the most desirable practice and said it would be difficult to have the off-hand un-learn the wakazashi in order to pick up a katana. -- Enlashok 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited out "Kuroyama Roiyaru" from the lineage. Please see Kenji Tokitsu's "Miyamoto Musashi: His Life and Writings" pp. 130-131, William Scott Wilson's "The Lone Samurai" p. 178, and Imai Masayuki's "Miyamoto Musashi: Dokkodo, Niten Ichi Ryu Seiho" p.127 (japanese language). Terao Kumenosuke Nobuyuki was a direct student of Miyamoto Musashi and received direct transmission from him. There was no one in between. The name "Kuroyama Roiyaru" seems unlikely; there is no reference to it anywhere I have looked, and the name "Roiyaru" is not in my Japanese name dictionary. It is, however, an english loanword for "Royal". Therefore there is no reason for this name in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.137.132 ( talk) 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I'd like to discuss the inclusion of the other successor of the seito line, Yoshimoti Kyoshi, in this article. For more information, please refer to:
The reasons are:
Given this, and respecting the proposal of Wikipedia to be open and neutral, it should be included Yoshimoti Kyoshi as 12 successor (Junidai) of the Seito Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (succeeding Kiyonaga Fumiya, daijuichi) and of Mr. Chin Kin, of Taiwan, as daijuichi.
In the dispute section of this article it could be explained that Iwami Toshio Gensho don't recognize the other as successors and that he is not recognized as soke for the other successors, but as a daijuichi successor.
-- NitenBr 17:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that Gosho-ha is again pushing its POV down the throat of this article yet again. Obviously they wont be able to see facts but here they are anyways: The HNIR tradition has one headmaster: Iwami Toshio Gensho, the 11th in line. There is no 12th leader like the Gosho-ha tradition article claims. This fact is recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai. They recognise two lineages of HNIR, neither of which are Gosho-ha: 兵法二天一流剣術(福岡) - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術(熊本) - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)
None of the above traditions and orgs recognise the Gosho-ha claim to sole, or otherwise shared leadership of the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio. The official HNIR tradition, regardless if Gosho-ha wishes to recognise this t or not, is led by Iwami Toshio. The lineage in English can be found here which is the official site of Hyakute Colin, a Menkyo Kaiden (complete License holder in a MA-system), who also belongs to the official HNIR line under Iwami Toshio.
These changes of the main HNIR article to try and reflect that Gosho-ha is the current leader of ALL HNIR traditions must stop, for they are not recognised as such nor are they accurate according to above sources. Nor shall the Gosho-ha try to rewrite how the HNIR tradition do their training including the bit about Aikuchi. Regardless of what method Gosho-ha HNIR uses to train Aikuchi it is totally irrellevant in THIS article since Gosho-ha and the main HNIR traditions are NOT one and the same. They have nothing to do with each other: they are seperate under different leaders and different views. What Gosho-ha headmaster say about how the main HNIR tradition performs its training is completely and utterly irrellevant.
Finally: If these intrusions on the factual accuracy in both this article and Gosho-ha article continues I will be forced to do an official request for arbitration in order to hinder further similar edits.
Fred26 ( talk) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-- NitenBr ( talk) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Fred26 ( talk) 10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If this Kendo magazine is "the worlds most respected publication" then they sure have proven one helluva dissappointment, not to mention a complete and utter failure to exhaust the sources available at their disposal which included the HNIR with Iwami Toshio, and you can quote me on that. They have really botched the job this time. And trust me, I'm not the first, and I wont be the last to say that.
Ok, I'm seeing a pattern here so let me get things into perspective. (I'm gonna keep using "Gosho-ha" since otherwise it would be confusing to call both sides for "the official HNIR".) So to make it easier for all the peeps, here are the Main line of HNIR arguments and statements in a nutshell:
剣術 - Kenjutsu 兵法二天一流剣術(福岡) - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術(熊本) - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)
Here are the Gosho-ha statements, which furthermore, for the other peoples reading pleasure, is led by a splinter faction (Gosho-ha) that broke away from the main HNIR tradition and have no part of it. Here is what you say in a nutshell:
To summarize why Gosho-ha has no leg to stand on:
Fred26 ( talk) 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Fred26 ( talk) 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BigScottUK ( talk) 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
About the Jisso Enman no Bokuto. There were a legal action moved by Iwami Toshio requesting the sole possession of the Bokuto of Miyamoto Musashi, today in guard of the Usa city temple and available to the three successors of Imai Massayuke or their successors. The action was denied by Japanese court in July 2007. The court decided that there were other successors with the right to have access to the Bokuto and that the property must continue with the Usa Shrine based in testemonials and the documentation provided by the shrine. So: 1- The affirmation the the Bokuto belongs to Iwami Toshio in incorrect 2- There are a legal antecedent against his recognition as sole successor
Remember that we are not talking about one sensei's (Gosho Hanshi) point of view. The japanese budo community recognizes Gosho Sensei and Yoshimochi Sensei as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu representatives. They constantly represents the ryu in major events. In 2007: -Kyoto Taikai -All Japan Naginata Championship -Miyamoto Yori Taikai in KOKURA.
Your allegation trying to discredit Kendo Nippon are absurd. Have you at least read the article? Will you also say that the organization of Kyoto Taikai, lacks of research?
More on Menkyo Kaiden: Iwami Toshio received his Menkyo Kaiden from Imai Soke, who never received his. The truth is that the person who taught Imai Soke was Shihan Gosho Motoharu, who did'nt gave him Menkyo Kaiden. -- NitenBr ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BigScottUK ( talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. As such, the long discussions about what the "truth" and "proper succession" (or any variation thereof) should not occur here. Stick to discussing and reporting what can be verified in independent reliable sources. In the article, attention should be given in proportion to how prominent such claims are in the reputable references. That is to say, if there is a clear majority/mainstream opinion presented in the sources, that should be the primary opinion/set of facts presented in the article. If something is a clear minority view, it should be given a small amount of space in the article. If a particular claim is an extreme minority opinion, only appearing very rarely or only in sources of questionable reliability, then it is likely it shouldn't be discussed at all. If there are any questions as to whether a particular source is reliable, you can always ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you still cannot come to an agreement, asking for more outside input and/or informal dispute assistance may be helpful. Vassyana ( talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I must ask you (NitenBR) again not to revert the edits and try to superimpose the Gosho-ha POV on the main HNIR article. Thanks Fred26 ( talk) 09:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://ejmas.com/tin/2007tin/tinart_calgaryniten_0710.html
http://www.koryu.com/guide/niten.html
http://www.waterlily-aroma.co.uk/niten/Ourgroup.htm
http://www.koryu.fi/NitenIchiRyuKenjutsu.htm
Fred26 ( talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the best outcome here is to split the two pages completely into:
...with the minimum of links to each other.
A point on naming conventions:
HYOHO Niten Ichi-ryu is the name of the seito line as recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (NKK) and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai (NKS), the two groups in Japan that deal with historical schools (koryu). Gosho-ha is exactly that, a -ha (a breakaway group, or a branch from a group) and shouldn't carry the name HYOHO as this is the name of the main (seito) line. Mr Yoshimoti is well within his rights to run his own school without the authority of Iwami Toshio, the current soke, but he should not be using their full name.
Gosho-ha NIR can call themselves the seito line, have the backing of all the gendai (modern) budo groups or magazines they like - or perform as many embu as they so desire, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are not recognised by the people that count (NKK & NKS). These guys will only deal with koryu groups and a small amount of important genbudo groups (such as Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu). They will not recognise modern breakaway groups as this is goes against everything they are trying to protect.
BigScottUK ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Except when referring to specific branches or works, the school that Miyamoto created is always called simply "Nitenichi-ryū" (二天一流) in Japanese. Is there any reason why this article should be named "Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū"? Hyōhō is of course just a generic term meaning "strategy", and it's only used in some branches of Niten Ichi-ryu. Of course, there is also no compelling reason why it should be "Niten Ichi-ryu" instead of "Niten'ichi-ryu", but that's another question. If there's no objection I will proceed with renaming to "Niten Ichi-ryū". o ( talk) 01:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It should be understood that the Ryu is the intellectual copright of its head. In this case Iwami Toshio Harukatsu. There is a dispute over the use of Kani above but they cant even read the present Soke's kanji correctly. A Ha usualy evolves at the suggestion and permission of a Soke. Not on ones own idea. As mentioned both Kobudo Associations recognize the present Soke. What is not mentioned is the fact that both association are run under the auspices of Nippon Budokan with full recognition of status by Monbusho the Japanese goverments eduction authority. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hyaku (
talk •
contribs) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you get that joke with that altruistic/talkative Samurai from that movie? If you use the Daikyu to parry, while being fast and strong enough to split, you might actually end up with two opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:3AC2:0:18C9:E4CB:F40A:315B ( talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in need of grammar correction. While quite interesting, it feels to me like it was written by someone who has English as a second language. It could be made more clear and concise.
I am under the understanding that Niten Ichi is predominantly practised with two katana, and not with a katana and wakazashi pair. What little I recall of Musashi's writings I think he recommended training right from the beginning with two katana, as he regarded this as the most desirable practice and said it would be difficult to have the off-hand un-learn the wakazashi in order to pick up a katana. -- Enlashok 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited out "Kuroyama Roiyaru" from the lineage. Please see Kenji Tokitsu's "Miyamoto Musashi: His Life and Writings" pp. 130-131, William Scott Wilson's "The Lone Samurai" p. 178, and Imai Masayuki's "Miyamoto Musashi: Dokkodo, Niten Ichi Ryu Seiho" p.127 (japanese language). Terao Kumenosuke Nobuyuki was a direct student of Miyamoto Musashi and received direct transmission from him. There was no one in between. The name "Kuroyama Roiyaru" seems unlikely; there is no reference to it anywhere I have looked, and the name "Roiyaru" is not in my Japanese name dictionary. It is, however, an english loanword for "Royal". Therefore there is no reason for this name in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.137.132 ( talk) 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I'd like to discuss the inclusion of the other successor of the seito line, Yoshimoti Kyoshi, in this article. For more information, please refer to:
The reasons are:
Given this, and respecting the proposal of Wikipedia to be open and neutral, it should be included Yoshimoti Kyoshi as 12 successor (Junidai) of the Seito Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (succeeding Kiyonaga Fumiya, daijuichi) and of Mr. Chin Kin, of Taiwan, as daijuichi.
In the dispute section of this article it could be explained that Iwami Toshio Gensho don't recognize the other as successors and that he is not recognized as soke for the other successors, but as a daijuichi successor.
-- NitenBr 17:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that Gosho-ha is again pushing its POV down the throat of this article yet again. Obviously they wont be able to see facts but here they are anyways: The HNIR tradition has one headmaster: Iwami Toshio Gensho, the 11th in line. There is no 12th leader like the Gosho-ha tradition article claims. This fact is recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai. They recognise two lineages of HNIR, neither of which are Gosho-ha: 兵法二天一流剣術(福岡) - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術(熊本) - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)
None of the above traditions and orgs recognise the Gosho-ha claim to sole, or otherwise shared leadership of the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio. The official HNIR tradition, regardless if Gosho-ha wishes to recognise this t or not, is led by Iwami Toshio. The lineage in English can be found here which is the official site of Hyakute Colin, a Menkyo Kaiden (complete License holder in a MA-system), who also belongs to the official HNIR line under Iwami Toshio.
These changes of the main HNIR article to try and reflect that Gosho-ha is the current leader of ALL HNIR traditions must stop, for they are not recognised as such nor are they accurate according to above sources. Nor shall the Gosho-ha try to rewrite how the HNIR tradition do their training including the bit about Aikuchi. Regardless of what method Gosho-ha HNIR uses to train Aikuchi it is totally irrellevant in THIS article since Gosho-ha and the main HNIR traditions are NOT one and the same. They have nothing to do with each other: they are seperate under different leaders and different views. What Gosho-ha headmaster say about how the main HNIR tradition performs its training is completely and utterly irrellevant.
Finally: If these intrusions on the factual accuracy in both this article and Gosho-ha article continues I will be forced to do an official request for arbitration in order to hinder further similar edits.
Fred26 ( talk) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-- NitenBr ( talk) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Fred26 ( talk) 10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If this Kendo magazine is "the worlds most respected publication" then they sure have proven one helluva dissappointment, not to mention a complete and utter failure to exhaust the sources available at their disposal which included the HNIR with Iwami Toshio, and you can quote me on that. They have really botched the job this time. And trust me, I'm not the first, and I wont be the last to say that.
Ok, I'm seeing a pattern here so let me get things into perspective. (I'm gonna keep using "Gosho-ha" since otherwise it would be confusing to call both sides for "the official HNIR".) So to make it easier for all the peeps, here are the Main line of HNIR arguments and statements in a nutshell:
剣術 - Kenjutsu 兵法二天一流剣術(福岡) - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術(熊本) - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)
Here are the Gosho-ha statements, which furthermore, for the other peoples reading pleasure, is led by a splinter faction (Gosho-ha) that broke away from the main HNIR tradition and have no part of it. Here is what you say in a nutshell:
To summarize why Gosho-ha has no leg to stand on:
Fred26 ( talk) 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Fred26 ( talk) 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BigScottUK ( talk) 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
About the Jisso Enman no Bokuto. There were a legal action moved by Iwami Toshio requesting the sole possession of the Bokuto of Miyamoto Musashi, today in guard of the Usa city temple and available to the three successors of Imai Massayuke or their successors. The action was denied by Japanese court in July 2007. The court decided that there were other successors with the right to have access to the Bokuto and that the property must continue with the Usa Shrine based in testemonials and the documentation provided by the shrine. So: 1- The affirmation the the Bokuto belongs to Iwami Toshio in incorrect 2- There are a legal antecedent against his recognition as sole successor
Remember that we are not talking about one sensei's (Gosho Hanshi) point of view. The japanese budo community recognizes Gosho Sensei and Yoshimochi Sensei as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu representatives. They constantly represents the ryu in major events. In 2007: -Kyoto Taikai -All Japan Naginata Championship -Miyamoto Yori Taikai in KOKURA.
Your allegation trying to discredit Kendo Nippon are absurd. Have you at least read the article? Will you also say that the organization of Kyoto Taikai, lacks of research?
More on Menkyo Kaiden: Iwami Toshio received his Menkyo Kaiden from Imai Soke, who never received his. The truth is that the person who taught Imai Soke was Shihan Gosho Motoharu, who did'nt gave him Menkyo Kaiden. -- NitenBr ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BigScottUK ( talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. As such, the long discussions about what the "truth" and "proper succession" (or any variation thereof) should not occur here. Stick to discussing and reporting what can be verified in independent reliable sources. In the article, attention should be given in proportion to how prominent such claims are in the reputable references. That is to say, if there is a clear majority/mainstream opinion presented in the sources, that should be the primary opinion/set of facts presented in the article. If something is a clear minority view, it should be given a small amount of space in the article. If a particular claim is an extreme minority opinion, only appearing very rarely or only in sources of questionable reliability, then it is likely it shouldn't be discussed at all. If there are any questions as to whether a particular source is reliable, you can always ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you still cannot come to an agreement, asking for more outside input and/or informal dispute assistance may be helpful. Vassyana ( talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I must ask you (NitenBR) again not to revert the edits and try to superimpose the Gosho-ha POV on the main HNIR article. Thanks Fred26 ( talk) 09:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://ejmas.com/tin/2007tin/tinart_calgaryniten_0710.html
http://www.koryu.com/guide/niten.html
http://www.waterlily-aroma.co.uk/niten/Ourgroup.htm
http://www.koryu.fi/NitenIchiRyuKenjutsu.htm
Fred26 ( talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the best outcome here is to split the two pages completely into:
...with the minimum of links to each other.
A point on naming conventions:
HYOHO Niten Ichi-ryu is the name of the seito line as recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (NKK) and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai (NKS), the two groups in Japan that deal with historical schools (koryu). Gosho-ha is exactly that, a -ha (a breakaway group, or a branch from a group) and shouldn't carry the name HYOHO as this is the name of the main (seito) line. Mr Yoshimoti is well within his rights to run his own school without the authority of Iwami Toshio, the current soke, but he should not be using their full name.
Gosho-ha NIR can call themselves the seito line, have the backing of all the gendai (modern) budo groups or magazines they like - or perform as many embu as they so desire, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are not recognised by the people that count (NKK & NKS). These guys will only deal with koryu groups and a small amount of important genbudo groups (such as Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu). They will not recognise modern breakaway groups as this is goes against everything they are trying to protect.
BigScottUK ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Except when referring to specific branches or works, the school that Miyamoto created is always called simply "Nitenichi-ryū" (二天一流) in Japanese. Is there any reason why this article should be named "Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū"? Hyōhō is of course just a generic term meaning "strategy", and it's only used in some branches of Niten Ichi-ryu. Of course, there is also no compelling reason why it should be "Niten Ichi-ryu" instead of "Niten'ichi-ryu", but that's another question. If there's no objection I will proceed with renaming to "Niten Ichi-ryū". o ( talk) 01:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It should be understood that the Ryu is the intellectual copright of its head. In this case Iwami Toshio Harukatsu. There is a dispute over the use of Kani above but they cant even read the present Soke's kanji correctly. A Ha usualy evolves at the suggestion and permission of a Soke. Not on ones own idea. As mentioned both Kobudo Associations recognize the present Soke. What is not mentioned is the fact that both association are run under the auspices of Nippon Budokan with full recognition of status by Monbusho the Japanese goverments eduction authority. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hyaku (
talk •
contribs) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you get that joke with that altruistic/talkative Samurai from that movie? If you use the Daikyu to parry, while being fast and strong enough to split, you might actually end up with two opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:3AC2:0:18C9:E4CB:F40A:315B ( talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)