Karate ni sente nashi - There is no first attack in Karate

[muttley]

I've recently been reading a lot into Funakoshi's 20 guiding principles (well worth a read for any practicioner). Of all 20 principles, I have found Karate ni sente nashi to be the most important of all to me.

It could be due to my job, but I completely agree with this principle. The way I see it is that this is Funakoshi telling karate practitioners that they should be humble, honest and non-violent in all they do. To essentially live a life where they are externally calm even if all around them is kicking off and to never escalate a situation/be the person to offer or cause violence.

This principle is still so relevant (perhaps even more so) in the world in which we live and fits in so well with the UK Criminal Law Act where it comes to self defense, by following this principle, if you do have to resort to the use of physical techniques to stop someone from attacking yourself or a loved one, you are displaying that absolutely everything that went before was you trying to de-escalate or divert the person offering the violence.

I feel that in writing his 20 principles, Funakoshi has set out to every singel Karate-Ka exactly how they should be both inside and outside the dojo and displayed a heck of a lot of foresight in his writings.

[sensei8]

That was Funakoshi's philosophy! A noble intent, and a worthy intent as well, imho. Having said that, I will do unto my attacker before my attacker does it unto me. If my attacker forces me to attack first, I will do just that without any reservation, and in that, so will my attacker if the opportunity presents itself.

I'll try not to attack first, but if I do, I'll not worry about it.

[muttley]

That's the thing though, in no way does Karate ni sente nashi mean you cannot hit the attacker first, it simply means you are not the person that starts the issue.

For you to be confronted with an attacker in the street, provided you are not out looking for a fight, the attacker has identified you as a victim and has tried to engage you in a monkey dance. They start all the verbal crap or try to close the distance, you hit him, pre-emptive is far better than reactive. You've not gone against the principle of karate ni sente nashi, in fact you have epitomised it. They started the violence, you ended it.

[Safroot]

The way I see it is that this is Funakoshi telling karate practitioners that they should be humble, honest and non-violent in all they do. To essentially live a life where they are externally calm even if all around them is kicking off and to never escalate a situation/be the person to offer or cause violence.

If every one in this world tried to follow this principle .. Life will be completely different but this will never happen

[ps1]

I like a more modern take on it, yet just as prolific:

"Violence is never the answer; but it is an option."

[Nabil Kazama]

Nice topic, I shall be reading this multiple times. I learned something here, thanks man.

[brickshooter]

If I'm getting surrounded by more than one guy, or if I see my attacker pulling something heavy from his jacket, I'm dropping him regardless of what Funakoshi said.

I'll send my attacker flowers if it turns out that I over reacted.

[muttley]

If I'm getting surrounded by more than one guy, or if I see my attacker pulling something heavy from his jacket, I'm dropping him regardless of what Funakoshi said.

I'll send my attacker flowers if it turns out that I over reacted.

You misunderstand the Interpretation, in no way is Funakoshi saying you have to wait for anything prior to hitting, as I said earlier in the thread, pre-emptive is better than reactive.

I was reading an article on this the other day, can't remember if it was Motobu or Myagi but one of them was faced by a knife weilding idiot who was intent on teaching him a lesson in a fight. They were in a restaurant, Motobu/Myagi initially refused to fight but seeing that the guy wouldn't go away, he suggested they take the fight outside. As the knife weilder turned and started to walk out, he followed him closely. He took his time but launched a kick which landed on the guys back, flooring him and ending the fight.

In no way does that go against karate ni sente nashi, the guy threatened him, he ended it.

Hope this helps

[SteyrAUG]

Funakoshi also said..."Eternal peace is only a dream, however a joyful dream it may be. War is a method which God gave humans to organize the world" in his 1922 book "To Te Jutsu."

He said many things at different times and he was aware of the changing times from the ultra nationalistic Japan of the 20s and 30s that was engaging in military conquests to the times of post war Japan where everyone was trying to put a good face on things.

If you want an eye opener regarding Funakoshi try this.

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/01/29/funakoshi-man-vs-myth/

As one of my teachers cautioned me "Don't examine your heroes too closely or you may find mortal men." This is also a caution to not elevate such men to mythical status.

I have great respect for Funakoshi, without him it is unlikely any of us would have ever put on a gi. I think like everyone else he simply did his best and tried to do what was right, but like everyone else he had his failures and probably some moments that were not his finest hour.

As for "no first attack in karate" that is hardly a Japanese mindset, just ask the folks at Pearl Harbor. Within Shotokan itself is also Sen No Sen and that is seizing the initiative and it certainly comes with a first strike opportunity.

Certainly Funakoshi didn't want street brawlers in his dojo or those who would start fights when conflicts didn't need to exist or could have been avoided. But we have to be careful about accepting every single word as literal in a dogmatic form.

If you aren't fighting for "all the marbles" then you probably don't really need to be fighting in the first place. And if you are fighting for "all the marbles" I suggest a different precept which says "Always cheat, always win." There is no second place in violent conflict and they often bury the loser.

If you see it coming, and you can't see a way out, the best thing you can do is end things decisively while the opportunity still exists. You owe no considerations to those who bring you violence. I'm a peaceful person meaning I don't start conflict when it doesn't need to exist, but I will protect myself and my loved ones at the cost of the life of those who threaten us if need be. There is of course a simple way to avoid the entire matter.

[SteyrAUG]

This principle is still so relevant (perhaps even more so) in the world in which we live and fits in so well with the UK Criminal Law Act where it comes to self defense, by following this principle, if you do have to resort to the use of physical techniques to stop someone from attacking yourself or a loved one, you are displaying that absolutely everything that went before was you trying to de-escalate or divert the person offering the violence.

I wonder how many innocent people and "loved ones" died because somebody who could have changed things had to wait until the entire escalation of force flow chart played itself out before having the legal opportunity to end things.

If you are attacking my family, I'm not going to try and help them escape. I'm not going to try and distract the attacker. I'm going the end the threat as soon as it manifests itself. Thankfully I don't live in the UK.