Iaido vs. Iaijutsu

[Kusarigama]

What's the difference between Iaido and Iaijutus. I understand the difference between do and jutsu, but I can't see there being as big a diachotemy between the two, as there is with Kendo and kenjutsu, which are very different in many ways. Are the techniques in Iaijutsu more dangerous? More combat oriented? In what way are they different?

" 'Do' represents a singular path or way. 'Jutsu' on the other hand offers many different routes. Suio Ryu is a Bujutsu as it offers many routes and tributaries which it demonstrates in its techniques. Therefore, the Hekiunkan (the name of the Honbu of Suio Ryu) is not a Dojo as such as it is not a place to follow a single way, this is different for Kendo practitioners."

- Katsuse Yoshimitsu Kagehiro
15th Generation Headmaster of Suio Ryu Iai Kenpo

[Halcyon]

" 'Do' represents a singular path or way. 'Jutsu' on the other hand offers many different routes. Suio Ryu is a Bujutsu as it offers many routes and tributaries which it demonstrates in its techniques. Therefore, the Hekiunkan (the name of the Honbu of Suio Ryu) is not a Dojo as such as it is not a place to follow a single way, this is different for Kendo practitioners."

- Katsuse Yoshimitsu Kagehiro
15th Generation Headmaster of Suio Ryu Iai Kenpo

That's an interesting quote, Britt. But it's a bit oblique, don't you think? What's your interpretation of what that means about the difference between jutsu and do?

[pgsmith]

It was created as soon as japanese ken began being forged with curvature, as a way to quickly take down your opponent on the battlefield.

Interesting premise. Especially considering the fact that according to Dr. Karl Friday, professor of Asian history at University of Georgia and a holder of Kashima Shin ryu menkyo kaiden, swords were very rarely used on the battlefield. Me thinks you should spend a bit more time studying from proven sources.

Oh i have also found this on Wikipedia witch kind of explains some of it also

Ugh! Never quote Wikipedia as a source! Unless you are very well versed in the subject, you have no way of knowing whether what you are reading there is good information or total crapola. Always take anything on Wikipedia with a large grain of salt.

[Nichiren]

Ugh! Never quote Wikipedia as a source! Unless you are very well versed in the subject, you have no way of knowing whether what you are reading there is good information or total crapola. Always take anything on Wikipedia with a large grain of salt.

LOL sure thing was just reading it and it made sense with what i had seen so far

oh and i take everything I find on the Internet with a HUGE grain of salt. :P

[Kenzan]

Interesting premise. Especially considering the fact that according to Dr. Karl Friday, professor of Asian history at University of Georgia and a holder of Kashima Shin ryu menkyo kaiden, swords were very rarely used on the battlefield. Me thinks you should spend a bit more time studying from proven sources.

My understanding was that prior to the Edo period, and on the battlefield, The Spear was the prime weapon of choice, as well as (and to a lesser or higher degree depending on the era,) the bow.

[pgsmith]

My understanding was that prior to the Edo period, and on the battlefield, The Spear was the prime weapon of choice, as well as (and to a lesser or higher degree depending on the era,) the bow.

Actually, according to Mr. Friday's analysis of recorded battlefield casualties, distance weapons were far and away the preferred weapon on the battlefield. Prior to the introduction of firearms, arrows and rocks accounted for 75% of casualties recorded, followed by spears and then swords (at 7% if I remember correctly). After firearms were introduced, arrows, rocks, and firearms accounted for 72% of recorded casualties, with spears and then swords at roughly the same percentages as before. This was part of a conversation on the iaido-L from a number of years ago. I tried to see if I could find his original conversation in their archives, but the iaido-L server is down at the moment.

pgsmith, does your icon mean the two posters bellow you have to kiss?!?

Nope! It means you have to kiss my post!

[Kusarigama]

That's an interesting quote, Britt. But it's a bit oblique, don't you think? What's your interpretation of what that means about the difference between jutsu and do?

My personal opinion is that this is something one has to experience for oneself through hard training.

For a glimpse of Katsuse Sensei's thoughts on these matters, please visit the following:

http://suioryu-usa.org/bucreates.html

[Halcyon]

My personal opinion is that this is something one has to experience for oneself through hard training.

So you're saying that training hard will clarify the difference between jutsu and do? Let's be clear about what we're saying here if we're going to borrow other people's words.

[Nichiren]

What's the difference between Iaido and Iaijutus. I understand the difference between do and jutsu, but I can't see there being as big a diachotemy between the two, as there is with Kendo and kenjutsu, which are very different in many ways. Are the techniques in Iaijutsu more dangerous? More combat oriented? In what way are they different?

ummm good question guess i can give you my take on it ... dosent mean im right though :P

Of what iv seen they are both the same thing the only differences is when it used. Where i study Kobudo we learn many diferent things from Kenjutsu paired kata, Iaijutsu, Bojutsu, Naginatajutsu, Yarijutsu and Ryoto. We use the term Iaijutsu. For the term Iaido it seems a more recent and used mostly by people that study only Iaijutsu.

so im guessing

Iaijutsu : study of Iai as part of a larger curiculum.

Iaido : Study of Iai in its self.

well thats how i see it.

Oh i have also found this on Wikipedia witch kind of explains some of it also


from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iaijutsu)

Delineation from battōjutsu (抜刀術), literally "technique of drawing the sword" is more difficult: battōjutsu is the historical (ca. 15th century) term encompassing both the practice of drawing the sword and cutting (tameshigiri). The term iaijutsu (居合術) became prevalent later (ca. 17th century), and the current term iaidō is due to the general trend of the 1960s to replace -jutsu with -dō in Japanese martial arts in order to emphasize a mental or even spiritual component. In contemporary usage, battōjutsu focuses on the techniques of cutting, with individual practice kata that starts with the sword in the sheath.

[Bennosuke]

A little aside...

pgsmith, does your icon mean the two posters bellow you have to kiss?!?

hehehe, sorry, I have a terrible sense of humor.
So in conclusion, there is no physical difference just mental/spiritual or phenetic difference between iaido and iaijutsu?

[Charles Mahan]

Let me repeat...

It's just a word. It doesn't tell you much about a particular art, it's effectiveness, or the way it is taught.

[splice]

So in conclusion, there is no physical difference just mental/spiritual or phenetic difference between iaido and iaijutsu?

Iaido is a term that some sword schools use to refer to themselves. Iaijutsu is a term that some sword schools use to refer to themselves. The schools choose the term they want to use based on whatever they feel like. There are a number of schools that have branches using one term and other branches using the other (and yet other branches using yet other words). This doesn't mean that they have a different philosophy, nor does it mean they have the same.

As Charles said, they're just words. Don't worry yourself about them, and investigate individual schools as opposed to very generic terms that no one really agrees about the meaning.

[michaelm]

In this article koryu.com link, Dianne Skoss has some interesting passages on the dichotomous use of the suffixes -jutsu and -do.

[My paraphrase...]
There is no difference. It depends on who you talk to and what ryu they practice.


When speaking of Japanese MA as a whole, the jutsu vs do argument is used to make broad categorizations of the arts and philosophies of practice.
Instead, a more useful classification is the distinction between koryu and gendai--it's generally accepted that anything that originates from the Meiji period onwards is gendai.

"Yagyu Nobuharu, headmaster of the venerable Yagyu Shinkage-ryu tradition of heiho, sometimes refers to his art as kendo, even though it is quite clearly classical kenjutsu and not at all related to modern kendo" -D.Skoss

[satsumaruma]

Is it just me or haven't we had this question before?

Not criticising just getting a sense of deja vu

[fifthchamber]

No, that doesn't work.. I would guess that aside from Britt's (correct) assertion that hard keiko is always good, he means training in your ryuha and understanding exactly what the terms your school uses mean, in reference to your school..Anything else is a waste of good time..
As posted, Katsuse Sensei's use of the terms is as a distinction, although I suspect that even he would use either depending on with whom he was conversing..
(As an aside, Nichiren, it's "so(u)jutsu", not "Yarijutsu"... 槍術 being a combination of 槍　やり and 術　じゅつ but not being read as such..).