"Barefoot Zen" by Nathan Johnson...anyone else rea

[Sasori_Te]

I just finished this book. It was VERY interesting. Mr. Johnson has obviously put a lot of time and effort into his work. The book discusses the zen roots of the Shaolin arts and how they relate to chinese arts as well as karate. The main gist is that so-called martial arts all have their history rooted in the Shaolin style of "Crane Boxing". He puts forth the argument, with some pretty strong evidence, that the original Shaolin arts were purely Zen exercises and not in any way martial as this is totally against the Buddhist principles. He goes on to point out that many Okinawan katas are best explained as solo training exercises for push hands. His examples are Sanchin, Naihanchi and Rokoshu (sp?). His arguments are very convincing. It provides a unique insight into the roots of all of our "fighting" arts. I'm curious of anyone else's opinion. I highly suggest reading this book.

[equaninimus]

I've read the book, but I don't think much of it. I applaud Mr. Johnson for his willingness to go out on a limb, but his shodddy research (which reminds me very much of the methods used by those who write about the "grail kings," or the "lost hermetic secrets of magic") makes it more of a novelty than a useful work. The telling point of the book is when he discusses his attmepts to "become Japanese" when doing Japanese styles, and his attempts to "become Chinese" when doing Chinses styles, in the past. You are better off reading Kiyoshi Arakaki's book. It isn't as entertaining, but it has some wonderful information.

[tommarker]

It is an interesting read, and I've played with some of the drills... It's an interpretation, and a fun way to consider some techniques.

 

But I don't think of it very highly as an academic work or his attempts to marginalize us brutish strikers

[equaninimus]

The true failure in his use of the imaginiation as research tool is his hillarious portrayal of Itosu crab walking sideways around Okinawa in naihanchi-dachi.

[tommarker]

 

He does raise an interesting point, but it's nothing new. He basically points out that some of the applications presented in karate books are unworkable and unrealistic. The example he shows of Pinan Godan is a good example.

 

But what does he do? He creates his own locking/throwing applications that are just downright silly. Again, look at the Pinan Godan "example."

 

He says the opening move of Bassai is a poot block, and a couple pages later quotes ancient masters as saying that there are no blocks in karate. However he does say that a lot of the crossing hand blocks are good for evading grabs/locks, which I agree with, but I still think that after you evade said grabs, the next move beats the ever-loving crap out of the person.

 

So some strikes can be poor blocks, but apparently they can all be "great" throws and locks.

 

I just got home from work and re-read the book. I was too nice earlier.

[equaninimus]

As I said before, he gets a pat on the head for being willing to break out of the mould, but one gets the feeling he never had any really good teachers.

[tommarker]

agreed.

 

unless he is intentionally avoiding good bunkai just to push his agenda

[Sasori_Te]

He also based his entire argument mainly on these 3 kata. I did wonder what he thinks the rest of the kata were. Or maybe he doesn't think about them since they might shake his present interpretation.