While I was visiting the Old Country last month, I had a nice visit with an old friend. This person went to Japan in the late 1970's to study budo, among other things, and then stayed, eventually becoming a Buddhist monk. Since he's my sempai, I find it interesting always when we meet to bring up whatever budo-related topic is on my mind. I always find his insights worthwhile.
We were chatting generally about relationships between Japanese traditional ryuha and non-Japanese dojo. He remarked that, in his mind, the best way to handle that sort of relationship is in a relatively distanced fashion - go to Japan and train, invite the teacher to come to your home country to train, even take your students to Japan to train from time to time, BUT - but - draw the line there.
He was not basing this assessment on budo alone, but from his observations of other types of Japanese cultural institutions that started branches overseas (generally at the behest of non-Japanese people interested in whatever the practice was). Specifically, he has seen some non-Japanese Buddhist temples that decided to break away from the Japanese honbu. While he did not get very specific, the impression I got was that the non-Japanese affiliates did not like to be micromanaged by the honbu, and eventually became unhappy enough to separate. In his opinion, this breaking away was more like "setting up your own religion," in the sense that a group that breaks away from the founding Buddhist sect is, in effect, unmoored. Where will the breakaway group get its spiritual guidance? From whomever is leading the group at the time of the breakup? Is that person in any way qualified to be a priest, or is he/she making it up as s/he goes along? A group that separates itself from the honbu could therefore be said to be effectively no longer practicing that type of Buddhism, and perhaps may not be practicing anything in particular at all.
Cultural differences seem to be at the heart of these sorts of breakups. The honbu cannot understand why the non-Japanese affiliate can't be more like their Japanese counterparts, and the non-Japanese affiliate cannot understand why the honbu's attitude cannot be more flexible. There is simply no middle ground where this situation exists. I can (and perhaps other readers can) think of a number of examples - not just budo examples either - that are similar. The relationship that springs to mind for me is Japanese classical dance, where the rules of the honbu are expected to be enforced even outside Japan, while no provision is made for the very weird things that can happen when "the boss" is half a world away.
Many people I know who study budo would love to be under the umbrella of a real Japanese honbu. I do know of several situations where this has happened. In at least one of these, the US shibu is very much under monetary obligation to the honbu, even to the point where the dojo is not able to maintain enough for operations without the instructor putting in some cash from time to time. As I understand it, part of the justification for this arrangement is that the honbu thinks of the practice as a form of property, and if you want access to this property, you must pay for it. You should, in fact, be happy to pay for it. There are other stories also, about money-making tactics, but I think you get the drift. Needless to say, there are times when quality is sacrificed in order to increase the number of students being promoted, but I think I have covered that elsewhere.
To be fair, there are some Japanese koryu teachers who think the practice is more important than control. They have a fairly hands-off policy, and don't seem interested in funding a retirement plan with the proceeds of foreign students. Any instructor fortunate enough to find such a group can embrace this relationship, while keeping a wary eye out: ryuha are human institutions, and a change in leadership (which is inevitable, given that humans grow old and eventually leave the scene) can change.
The micromanaging arrangement for koryu can hamstring not only instructors but also students. Very often there is no course of appeal for an unhappy student. The teacher controls access to the honbu, and the unhappy student, rather than being able to make an appeal or even a graceful exit is simply forced to withdraw. And in the hierarchical arrangement of official honbu-shibu setup in the US, there is nowhere else to go for a student who would like to pursue the style with a different teacher. The hierarchical nature, as well as the dearth of people generally involved in this type of arrangement here for instance means that a student who has an issue with the shibu cannot simply pursue the art elsewhere; he or she must leave entirely, or else suck it up in order to keep training. At least in Japan, in all likelihood, one could simply go to another shibu for training. Not here. Needless to say, an instructor who runs afoul of the honbu in the US will not be officially allowed to continue, in effect being put in a position of teaching "his own thing" or nothing at all, sort of like the renegade priest mentioned above.
The styles that are more diffuse, therefore, like MJER and MSR, may have an advantage. Since there is no soke for MSR (and I understand, multiple ones for different branches of MJER), the structure is more flexible, and opportunities at least slightly more numerous in an art form that is still relatively unknown outside Japan (and not all that well-known inside it). I sometimes wonder if Hakudo, for example, did not name a successor because he welcomed this diffusion? I have no idea, but that is what seems to have happened.
I therefore think my sempai's thoughts are worth considering: train yourself, train your students, have the teacher come as a special guest from time to time. Even take your students on a special visit to Japan! But mind your dojo yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment