So is it safe to say that neither of those books would present Ninjutsu as dead specifically because of Seiko's passing? -Daniel
For book one, yes it is safe to say. For book two, it does say that, "The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja..." And further states that "No ninja exist today." Donn then went on to say in the same paragraph that, "Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on ninjutsu." Hope this helps, George
Maurader posted So after all this talk about what a good source the Encyclopedia Britanica was and how he was right and the Bujinkan guys, and myself were all wrong, it wasnt even in the book in the first place. And now he cant even remember when he read it, if he even did. I know I cant insult the guy by saying what i would like to say, but im laughing my socks off. Laughing out Loud Ha Ha Ha Garth
Knock yourself out however, George Kohler's second book by Donn Draeger does state "The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja..." And further states that "No ninja exist today." Donn then went on to say in the same paragraph that, "Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on ninjutsu." This tends to confirm what I have been saying and according to it, all you Bujinkan guys are nothing more than ninjutsu re-enactors or LARPers.
Marauder posted If one looks at this there is a problem with this logic. According to Donn Draeger in Asian Fighting Arts, a book that in my opinion having read it, only gives a basic overview of the ninja, including many of the stereoypes, but that aside, says that and that However he then goes on to say that So surely Mr T Hatsumi (Masaaki Hatsumi) who is a known authority and as Don Draeger has stated has done the most research, then surely the logic folows that it is Mr Hatsumi that really knows the truth. But I can see this argument going around in circles as Marauder attempts to clutch at straws, in order to prove his argument, now quoting from books he has never read. Garth
Just out of interest and following on from the Donn Draeger debate over Hatsumi and Fujita, but from some internet browsing (I know not the best source) but it seems like Mr Draeger worked on "You only live twice (1967)" and Asina fighting arts came out in 1969. However it also seems like this book may have had certain problems assocoated with its publication http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsdraeger_fightingarts.htm And of interest to this discussion Im wondering if Mr Draeger wrote about Seiko Fujita before he met Dr Hatsumi. After all wasnt Mr Draeger a student of Dr Hatsumi for a short time. Any one? Garth
Yes, we are going round in circles. Re. Draeger's book, how do you know I have never read it? Can you read my mind? I have read many books on the fighting arts and for the record, yes, I have read that book. Research and knowing are two different things and the truth is relative to an individuals belief system.
It is a possible that it could be. Hatsumi started to come well known from 70's onwards but was getting TV publicity form the 1960's in Japan. So your assumption may be correct.
Marauder posted Then why didnt you use that rather than a fictitious account from the Encyclopedia Britanica. Garth
Yes I agree with that and it is that attachment/association that enables a person to link the two together. It is also this technique that memory trainers use to improve peoples memory.
Like when I was 11 I read in the Puffin book of Horror (which was about the occult, death and paranormal and other things that I found interesting) and one question was Did Dracula have a moustache. Of which it was true as he had a white one to match his complexion. And that was 20 years ago.
First of all it said "no ninja exist today." Are there any Samurai today? No, there are not, including shogun, daimyo, ninja, ect.
Marauder posted yes its an interesting view point. Truth of course can mean that which is true (Fact) The truth (fact) is though, is that very few things are truth, which is why one can talk about a truth as being an opinion, i.e as with a religious truth. (See below) So indeed truth can be different to reasrach in this definition, But to get to real truth (Fact) one must carry out research. (Of course this sentence itself is also not true because if there is no such thing as truth, then it cannot be true that there is no such thing as truth) so why did you not remember that is was the book Asian fighting Arts and not the encyclopedia britanica? Garth
Because when I think of where I read that passage, even now when I visualise it, I see myself reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is what I am linking it to even though I know now that it is not in the EB. You were a Police CSO were you not? You should know that when taking statements, the longer the period after the event that a statement is taken, the less accurate and reliable it becomes. Unless they have a photographic memory which very few people do.
After 24 hours it becomes less likely that any detail will be gained if someone was to give a statement. 48 hours and it's a struggle. This is wel known. But we are talking about facts, not statements. You said the EB had a passage in that regarding Hatsumi and the Shinobi arts. It was proved wrong. We all make mistakes, but a mistake like this needs proof when making a statement. It would be like me saying I killed my neighbour due to their dog panting in their garden. It is unfounded. They do not have a dog and they are away on holiday. But it is a statement that can at some point be brought up through a google search months or years later and be read. To be able to point to a book/passage/text is paramount when discussing history. IT is like saying Hattori went to America and won big in Las Vegas. He broke the house and made millions so he could live a great life in Beverly Hills. He is still there today larging it up with Hugh Heffner in the Playboy mansion. That is a statement, but completely untrue. Or the story of the Samurai betting who was the most skilled swordman. After them being good by cutting off passing birds wings and butterfly's wings, the last one missed. He told them that fly will never reproduce again. We can only take the word of that on face value unless we go looking for the fly. It seems we found the fly and it indeed will not spread maggots in cadavers anymore. So best thing to do is to say you were wrong and let this matter lie. No one would say any less of you after if you did, but to keep it going and grasping straws will only give you a less than honest respect in this sub forum.
