Seisan kata

[bushido_man96]

If I had any issue at all its that the syllabus (for lack of a better term) is too robust for the average person with a normal life (I.E. work, family, other hobbies). I think we may see even more additions now that Master Kise's son has taken over the group. It's a lot of information.

Not to derail this topic too much, but I can sympathize with you here. My current TKD organization has taken to adding curriculum for the black belts. Some of it is in the form of the "black belt basics" that the GM has come up with (they are kind of like forms, but I always viewed them more as organized floor drills). The other is in the form of three-step sparring. Personally, I don't like them, I don't think they make much sense, and it just seems like he wants the black belts to have something else to learn and test on. Adding curriculum for the sake of adding curriculum, in my mind, just ends up with some questionable curriculum.

[wildbourgman]

I''ll bring it back just a little bushido_man, seisan is one of my test kata. I have two free hand kata, two weapons kata, one step sparring for my rank, basics for three different weapons, fight drills with one of the weapons, tuite (locks and grappling) for my rank and everything for each of those sections for all the other ranks before, many of which have been added to or updated since I first originally learned it. THEY ARE CERTIANLY NOT GIVING AWAY BLACK BELTS ANYMORE (if they ever did).

On the flip side I do worry that the majority folks with other concerns or interest will never physically or mentally master our style or simply not try due to being overwhelmed. Then who will be able to pass on the material that from what I see is only deeply known by a smaller and smaller group of people.

As far as seisan I really like the kata and its deep history.

[sensei8]

Seisan is one of my favorites for its application possibilities. It holds a deep place in my heart.

[Zaine]

On the flip side I do worry that the majority folks with other concerns or interest will never physically or mentally master our style or simply not try due to being overwhelmed. Then who will be able to pass on the material that from what I see is only deeply known by a smaller and smaller group of people.

I don't think that this is a new worry. I hope that this fear, which I share, is just a result of me not being aware of the breadth of practice for our system(s). Just recently I've met a lot of people who are Matsumura-Seito from all over the place. It gives me hope that the system isn't as small as I originally thought.

[wildbourgman]

On the flip side I do worry that the majority folks with other concerns or interest will never physically or mentally master our style or simply not try due to being overwhelmed. Then who will be able to pass on the material that from what I see is only deeply known by a smaller and smaller group of people.

I don't think that this is a new worry. I hope that this fear, which I share, is just a result of me not being aware of the breadth of practice for our system(s). Just recently I've met a lot of people who are Matsumura-Seito from all over the place. It gives me hope that the system isn't as small as I originally thought.

I've done a little research of the other "Klans" in the Matsumura system. I don't see them having the same amount of material such as free hand katas for example. Also, some such as SMOKA group seem to rail against adding to or amending what they were originally taught. I have mixed feelings about all of that. With my time in Shotokan from the 1980's, we did the opposite of that. We mastered a limited scope to the point it became boring for some and relegated you to mostly striking. Matsumura is kind of like an MMA gym less the depth of ground fighting but add the entire Okinawan scope of weapons. Even the above average practitioner doesn't efficiently master multiple disciplines.

I'm so sorry for derailing this thread but I think it's good content.

[Zaine]

Having come from a line that traces through SMOKA, I can definitely confirm that SMOKA is very conservative when it comes to their approach of karate. Coffman, and Gagne as an extension, really only want to teach karate in the way that they learned it. Coffman in particular is very loyal to the type of martial arts that he learned directly from Soken. While I have my own philosophical issues with this approach (i.e. whether karate should be prescriptive or descriptive, to borrow terms from my educational background), I understand the desire. Luckily for me, my teacher viewed martial arts as a living, evolving thing and broke away from the SMOKA philosophy. My sensei leaned into the MMA-like aspects of the system, and even added ground fighting to the curriculum to make the system more rounded. Nothing so in-depth as BJJ, but enough that we weren't useless on the ground.

I have noticed that the amount of SMOKA kata are greater than others, such as Kuda lineage. More than that, however, old lists from SMOKA websites indicated that the amount of kata after Shodan are exponentially larger. Mostly they're repeats of kata already learned just in the "Shorinji" style.

[Wado Heretic]

A shorin ryu variation of the kata exists, but it is not included in most lineages. what would be the most plausible reason to explain this? What shorin-ryu lineage has seisan and who might be the source of the shorin-ryu variant?

The Shōrin-ryū version of Seisan is very much like the version of Seisan in Shi’to- ryū identified as Matsumura-no-Seisan that is historically attributed to Matsumura Sōkon. Most versions of Seisan, or Matsumura-no-Seisan, found in the different schools of Shōrin-ryū can be traced back to Kyan (sometimes spelt Kiyan) Chōtoku. From memory the Kobayashi schools of Shōbayashi, Seidokan, and Shidokan can trace their versions of Seisan back to Kyan. Matsubayashi-Ryū, Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, and Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, all being founded by direct students of Kyan, also inherit their versions from his as well.

In short, the Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be easily traced back to Kyan, and most modern systems versions come from him. Where he got it is where the matter becomes confused. Tradition argues Matsumura because he was Kyan’s primary source of what is retroactively known as Shuri Te. Kyan’s Passai is recorded to have come from Oyadomari Kokan. As is his Wanshu although he learnt it from Maeda Pechin who was a fellow student of Oyadomari. Kyan is said to have learnt his Kusanku from Chatan Yara, and Matsumora Kōsaku is said to have taught Kyan his Chinto. In short, it is assumed that Kyan’s version of Seisan comes from Matsumura by product of elimination. The main problem with this being that Kyan did leave a written statement that he learnt Useishi (Gojushiho) from Matsumura with no mention of Seisan.

That said, if we are going by written sources, then we only have strong witness testimonials for Naihanchi Shodan, Useishi, and Kusanku being taught by to Matsumura Sōkon. The more complete list regularly given including Naihanchi Nidan, Passai, Seisan, Chintō, and Hakutsuru is again built on a foundation of assumption. Which is to say all, or the majority, of those who claimed to have studied with Matsumura appear to have included those kata in their teachings. However, with regards to Seisan, the historian Hiroshi Kinjo strongly argued that there is no evidence of a Shuri line of Seisan from Matsumura Sōkon. to Anko Itosu, and that the commonly accepted Shuri version must in fact be a Tomari kata. However, this assertion is not universally accepted, and some have offered evidence of a Shuri Seisan lineage including Mark Bishop and Patrick McCarthy. However, it is compelling that most versions of Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be traced back to Kyan, and that most of his teachers were from the Tomari region. Before him, as with Seisan in general, its origins are sadly lost to the mists of time.

My operant hypothesis is that the so-called Matsumura variation is the older of the two. This is because of a handful of observation. Aragaki no Seisan most closely resembles Matsumura no Seisan. This version is attributed to Aragaki Seisho who is the earliest person recorded performing Seisan. Aragaki was also a purported student of Ryu Ryu Ko, yet his version follows the embusen of the so-called Matsumura version, rather than the one followed by Goju-Ryu or Ryuei-Ryu, which are credited to other students of Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki was Higoanna Kanryo’s first teacher of Martial Arts before he departed for China. This Higoanna famously being the founder of Goju-Ryu Miyagi Chojun’s teacher. Thus, Goju-Ryu’s Seisan is attributed to Higoanna, and in turn Ryu Ryu Ko. Did Aragaki not teach Higoanna Seisan, or did Higoanna have it corrected by Ryu Ryu Ko while in China?

Those versions of Seisan which can be traced back to Kyan largely follow the same embusen:

Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn left, turn right, face the back, turn to face the front, turn back on yourself, and then back to the front to finish.

However, this is also true of the Aragaki version, who predates Kyan, as well as the version found in Okinawa Kenpo which has no clear historical connection to Kyan. Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, also follows this embusen.

In comparison, the Seisan of Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu go as follows:

Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn right, turn left, face the back, and then turn back to the front to finish.

The Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu are both directly linked to Ryu Ryu Ko and said to come from China. Higaonna Kanryo and Nakaima Norisato, the teacher of Goju-Ryu’s founder and the founder of Ryuei-Ryu respectively, both studied reportedly studied with Ryu Ryu Ko. Yet, there are two other versions I am familiar with, that are said to come from China, also follow this embusen. That is the Higoanna no Seisan of To’on-Ryu, from Higaonna Kanryu who studied with the Chinese envoy Wai Xinxian, who was reportedly a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, though I have found no clarifying evidence for this claim. The other is the seisan of Uechi-Ryu said to come from Zhou Zihe. Oddly enough, the San Zhan Taolu of Xiang Dian Quan, a form Luohan Quan found in Fujian province, follows a similar embusen though with some instances of moving backwards which is not done in Seisan. There are also a lot of moves in common with Seisan. Some hypothesise that it may be the Chinese version of Seisan, however, it is unproven and uncorroborated to say the least. I can see it being related to the Seisan that Higoanna, Nakaima, and Uechi brought back but I do not think it is convincingly one in the same.

The sticking point being that four of at least seven of eight versions of Seisan that have existed on Okinawa since the 19th Century in theory came from China in that century. They are not the ancient Okinawan Seisan. At least four could be attributed to Ryu Ryu Ko:

• Aragaki Seisho’s, possibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Chito-Ryu’s version and was the probable origin of Shotokan-Ryu’s Hangetsu.

• Higaonna Kanryo’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became the Goju Ryu version,

• Nakaima Kenri’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Ryuei Ryu’s version.

• Kuniyoshi Shinkichi’s, likely from Sakiyama Kitoku who was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Okinawa Kempo’s version.

We could extend this to five if it is true that Wai Xinxian, Higoanna Kanryu’s teacher, from whom the To’on-Ryu version of Seisan comes, was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko as has been speculated.

The Uechi-Ryu and Kingai-Ryu could also be directly connected. Kingai Roshi, teacher of Matayoshi Shinko from whom Kingai-Ryu’s Seisan comes, may have been an elder student of Zhou Zihe, the teacher of Uechi Kanbun. Thus Kingai-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu’s Seisan could be directly related. I did once read that Mark Bishop said they were identical; however, I have heard from a reputable source since that although there are some similarities in pattern and technique choice, the versions are not identical. I would mention that I do find Uechi-Ryu and To’on-Ryu’s Seisan very similar in pattern and technique choice as well. Indeed, I think To’on-Ryu’s is closer to Uechi-Ryu’s than it is to Goju-Ryu’s. But that is an aside.

Thus, five out of eight versions back to Ryu Ryu Ko, seven versions back to China, and said seven versions back to as little as two sources. Ryu Ryu Ko, and the teacher of Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe. Though, that is assuming Wai Xinzian was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko.

Our only outlier is Kyan Chotoku’s Seisan, from an unconfirmed source, which became the version in Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, Isshin-Ryu, and several Kobayashi-Ryu schools.

But Aragaki’s and Sakiyama’s Seisan, although plausibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, follow the same embusen as Kyan’s version. In contrast, Higoanna Kanryo’s and Nakaima’s follow the same embusen as that of Uechi’s and Higoanna Kanryu’s which come from a different source, but from the same region of China and in the same time frame. One explanation could be that Aragaki and Sakiyama learnt one version of Seisan as they were contemporary, and it was altered by Ryu Ryu Ko by the time Higoanna Kanryo was studying with him. However, Nakaima studied with Ryu Ryu Ko before Aragaki or Sakiyama, and the Ryuei-Ryu and Goju-Ryu versions are fairly similar to one another. We should also consider their similarity to the To’on-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu versions. It is known that there was significant interaction between the traditions of Luohan Quan (Monk Fist) and Bái Hè Quán (White Crane), which produced systems such as Incense Shop Boxing. Ryu Ryu Ko is thought to have likely been a White Crane Teacher, while Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe are believed to have practiced and taught Fujian Tiger-Crane. It is very likely their versions of Seisan are similar because they come from a similar point of origin. If we follow that logic, it leads to the conclusion that the Matsumura no seisan embusen is not entirely of Chinese Origin, but rather an Okinawan innovation that may have come from interaction with Chinese Martial Arts.

My speculation is that the Matsumura no Seisan Pattern is from an older stream, hence its origins have become so murky. Plausibly, Aragaki and Sakiyama must have seen a benefit in doing things different to what appears to have been Ryu Ryu Ko’s prescribed way. That is if we take Higoanna’s and Nakaima’s performances as reflective on the basis of following what appears to be the “Chinese” pattern when compared to other versions from China. Thus, I presume there must have been an Okinawa way to do Seisan, and then a Chinese Way. But we must beware innovation. Although it is unlikely they both made the same innovation after returning to Okinawa there is nothing to say they could not have, or perhaps agreed to make the change together as they could have in theory known each other. However, I am more inclined to believe they inherited the embusen from somewhere as that most easily aligns with the unknown source problem of Kyan’s. The recurring pattern suggests a tradition we have lost the history of.

Oddly enough, in Kodokan we break the rules I mentioned above with our Miyahira no Seisan. We follow the Matsumura Embusen, except we go right, then left, and then back to centre after the sequence of Kake-Uke. I believe this was a change made by Yuchoku Higa based on his training with Shinzato, or Miyahira he learnt it from again was part of a slightly different tradition. It was this anomaly that actually led me to my hypothesis about there being a modern seisan we can track, and an old seisan which is the one that has spiralled into many different versions.

[bushido_man96]

That was quite the dissertation, Wado Heretic. Very informative!

[sensei8]

That was quite the dissertation, Wado Heretic. Very informative!

I agree quite wholeheartedly; very lucid and intelligent.

[Spartacus Maximus]

Then Matsumura Sokon is very likely to have known, perhaps even taught it to some of his successors? If indeed he taught seisan, Itosu and his successors did not include seisan. Yet seisan is included in at least two lineages going back to a direct student of Chibana Chosin.