Traditional Versus Modern

[Dragn]

Because you view Okinawan te as the true form of Karate our points of view will continue to conflict. I do not consider Okinawan kenpo to be the only true MA. Just one small peice of a much larger picture.

Actually I was thinking about the very points you mentioned just today. Its true that the perfection of good character was very much a part of the culture of both Okinawa and Japan. And particularly true in the upper classes. Therefore it is only natural that it was emphasised in the training of warriors. To try and separate the physical and inner discplines is to be in total ignorance of Asian thought. It was part of their life AND part of their training. One does not go without the other.

In the writtings of Funakoshi you can see that development of moral character was of prime importance in his Okinawan Karate.

Going back to the roots of Kung fu, the influence of Zen Budism from the Shaolin Temple and Taoism are also clearly present .

Martial training and spiritual training have always been closely intertwined. Times of peace may have led to these aspects being emphasised, such as in the Budo arts.

But even Muay Thai has various spiritual traditions. Perhaps not so focused on perfection of character. But Thailand has a strong Buddist culture. Young men will often spend a length of time as a monk. So perhaps this is why there is less of an emphasis of this kind of teaching in their fighting arts. Its taken for granted that the fighters know the importance of developing good character.

In todays troubled shallow world, it is of even more importance that we do not reduce our arts to mere physical violence. It seems to be a habit of some western martial artists to try and strip the fighting arts of the cultures that influenced their development, and turn them into mere methods of violence to suit their own violent natures.

IMHO this is a lack of understanding caused by the cultural gap in our ways of thinking.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Drag'n

[Jussi Häkkinen]

So you think its Ok to teach people how to kill each other without teaching them the necessary disipline to control their mind and emotions.

Yes, if there's a sound educational structure in a society. You learn respect and the rules of your society in school, not in martial arts. That way, you can better concentrate on whatever you're learning in MA's, instead of having to study things that you already know - that it's generally a bad thing to kill or maim people in modern society. It's already common knowledge and one doesn't need to study that when studying martial arts.

IMHO this is a lack of understanding caused by the cultural gap in our ways of thinking.

I believe that the overly emphasizes "perfection of the character" -ideology is indeed a lack of understanding from western side, caused by the cultural gap in our ways of thinking. Originally, martial arts are a very much more mundane thing.

[ninjanurse]

I wouldn't use the word mundane but I agree with you in principle on that point. Martial arts were simply the way you lived and trained everyday...nothing special or magical. The discipline you obtained through training was integral to your success as a warrior and in todays thinking that translates into developing "good character"-as obviously we don't go around hacking people with swords, or fighting the our farms, etc.. Hence, we emphasize the budo aspects of our training.

Many martial artists today try to separate the two but you can't escape it totally (discipline in the ring dose translate to discipline in other areas-inmost cases)...and in any competition, even to the death, the more disciplined and passionate fighter does have the advantage-whether he is of good character or not.

[Hobbes]

I, as many of you here, have over 25 years practice. Frankly (no offence to frank), there has always been a "flashy" side to MA. The flash factor usually grabs the crowd and holds the greatest interest. A lot of writing has been done with regards to such phrases as: "back to basics", "old school" and words such as "Pure", "Traditional" etc... Lets face it, those who can will never be able to convince those "who think they can". Perhaps its a waste of energy trying. My wife has a M.Sc ,is an expert in biochemistry, and a RD (registered dietitian). She teaches graduate students at a top ranked university. When it comes to nutrition and diet, who wins? The guy in the "Natural Nutrition store" with a weekend course in basic pill pushing, or her? You guessed it, its not my wife. People have been lured for centuries by the quick fix. Its an interesting study in human psychology to say the least. So is "old school" really better? What are we talking about here? Has our knowledge about who the human body works increased in the last 20 years. You bet! have there been parallels in other sports, yup! So what is the heart of the matter? What I've seen over the last few years is that overall decrease in patience. People are wanting more, sooner, while doing less to get it. I can't blame them, but that only works with certain things. Getting a black belt isn't the same thing as being a black belt. Proficiency in something is a lot different than mastery, so if getting a black belt these days means I can do a double somersault, triple backflip spinning middle toe kick that will woooo the crowd, then many are very good black belts. If a persons objective is to get a BB as fast as possible, they may not master anything. My objective in my training is multi faceted. The end goal is to survive, ... period. Kill or be killed, but that's just me, however my emphasis has changed as I wind down the path. The social interaction of the club is a powerful motivator, the desire to pass on something to someone else is also a major factor. For me, I've realized that people train for all sorts of reasons and its up to me as a teacher to realize that this is a reality. These days I try to separate the style from the substance. Context drives tactics and strategy, which in turn drives technique. If someone kicks high with a flipper kick to score the point, then the context has dictated this. As a kid I would shoot tin cans with a pellet gun and slingshot. When it came time to pick up a rifle in a combat context, the skills transferred reasonably well.

Most adults have not had the experience of being in a real life hand to hand combat situation, which I hope remains the case.

I had a student who practiced for three years and was pretty good, but the only contextual experience she had was dance. This was the frame which which she understood everything we did, until the day her now ex-boyfriend beat her to within an inch of her life. She, being the fighter she is, experienced a drastic and radical change in her kata, and practice. The shift in context was remarkable. I saw determination, focus, fierceness, speed, power, patience, explosiveness go off the charts overnight. To her, karate became a therapy, and a shield. I would not wish this to happen to anyone, but she had confided in me that her practice gives her a greater sense of dimension. I could never have trained this experience into her and if I tried to push her too far (previous to this experience) I would have lost a good student. Now, she drives herself and has since become a police officer.

With great power comes great responsibility. My Sensei always say: Don't use canon to hunt squirrel.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Hobbes

[Gen_Tora]

I remember this story about a samurai who was also a master painter. When asked why see was focused with both brush & sword his reply was that he did not want his soul to be completely stained in blood. Allot of the character development of karate is a cultural aspect of japan or okinawa. Not a true aspect of the art. Think about this what we learn in the US isn't real karate, I mean how many of learn to count to 10 in japanese? But how many japanese already know this?

Following the origional spirit of karate, karate is about making yourself a weapon. Now what good is a sword if it rests in a sheath? Because a sheathed sword is the first deterent of conflict, a drawn sword is the second deterent of violence, & a bloodied sword is the end of violence. That type of human understanding has always been a part of human culture (eastern, middle-eastern & western) but since few people actually raise their children today, its also seen as heavily lacking.

[Dragn]

So you think its Ok to teach people how to kill each other without teaching them the necessary disipline to control their mind and emotions.

Yes, if there's a sound educational structure in a society. You learn respect and the rules of your society in school, not in martial arts. That way, you can better concentrate on whatever you're learning in MA's, instead of having to study things that you already know - that it's generally a bad thing to kill or maim people in modern society. It's already common knowledge and one doesn't need to study that when studying martial arts.

If you think that there is a sound moral educational structure in our society then we must be living in very different worlds. The decay of values in modern society is a major point in my arguement for the importance of self development in the teaching of a martial art.

Perhaps we all have a basic understanding of whats right and wrong, but do we have the discipline to act on these values in the heat of the moment?

Besides, many of us will never need to use the fighting skills we train so hard to develop. But the mental aspects of our training will help us in every aspect of our lives. To ignore the development of the self in your training is to loose a very valueable tool.