 |
| Archives Home Page |
| Following is Tom Smyth's translation of a translator's translation of Hataya Sensei's view on....... What's the Difference Between "Jutsu" and "Do" I think everyone often questions the real distinction between these two words. Many times these two words are often interchanged and used to describe the same style or art form. This is not an accurate way to use these words. During Hataya Sensei's visit to the Hombu in Februrary for shinsa, I asked him through Hiroko (the translator) if he could explain the differences. i will attempt to do his answer justice. Prior to the abolishment of the samurai class in the mid 1800's, all martial art forms were known and taught as "jutsu". Jutsu means to defeat your opponent at any cost. For the samurai, this was a daily requirement if you wanted to live to eat rice the next day. Emphasis was on winning the fight, pretty much in any way you had to. Techniques were very practical and efficient, bearing in mind the reason they were taught. With the abolishment of the samurai, the requirement for these art forms disintegrated. Wearing swords in public was no longer allowed. There was no longer a need to study and learn these art forms to make it to breakfast tomorrow. This brought about the developement of the "DO" art forms. |
| "DO" means to preserve the art. These were developed to preserve the basic philosophy and meanings of the "jutsu" art forms but lacked the need for practical and effective techniques. Emphasis was turned more to the inward developement of the mind and individual and perfection of a few specific techniques. Just how impractical they were became apparent in the late 1800's. Japan and China were at war. The "jutsu" arts were a thing of the past and a Ken-do master was teaching basic swordsmanship to the Japanese military. The Chinese were easily defeating the Japanese. As it turned out the only strikes they knew were the three basic strikes taught in Kendo, to the head, wrist and body (chest). These were in effective since the Chinese wore helmets and bandoliers, rendering the techniques all but useless. The Japanese military saw this and replaced the Ken-do curriculum with a ken-jutsu training plan. The results became quickly apparent. With the lack of emphasis on just three specific techniques and use of more practical varying techniques as well as the "defeat your enemy in any way possible mindset", the Japanese soon defeated the Chinese. It was this developement which provided the direction for the development of the military teaching methods which was the foundation of Toyama Ryu. Sensei further offered another example of "jutsu" vs. "do". In Jiu-Jitsu, you did not only throw your opponent, but broke his arms and/or legs as you did so he would not get up again. Modern day Ju-do is obviously not this way. He said this is a further example of how the "do" arts have been modified to preserve the arts, but have lost their original intent and focus. Tom Smyth |
 |
| (Curtesy of Guy Power) |
|