Sanchin

[bushido_man96]

I thought I'd get this started, so....ahem....HERE BEGINS THE DISSERTATION OF THE WAY OF SANCHIN KATA BY KRIS WILDER.

Something that jumped out at me on pg xii of the foreword by Hiroo Ito:

A physique strengthened from karate is not created only from muscle strength, but from a flexible muscle tone. It is not possible to perform strong karate without this characteristic. A body strengthened with bodybuilding will have an adverse effect. There are no historical documents describing weightlifting among samurai soldiers. Bodies with hard muscles will slow the karate movements of the body (emphasis are mine).

When I see statements like this, I almost immediately take issue with it. There are a few points I have problems with here. First off, is the use of the term "bodybuilding." Bodybuilding became a term to describe anyone that chose to pursue the increase of strength through lifting weights; it became a catchall term for many who didn't understand the concept of what they were describing.

Secondly, this feeds into the idea that being strong is detrimental to the Martial Artists in general, and Karatekas specifically. I think it is irresponsible and dangerous advise to give anyone to avoid seeking out strength training as a way for people to improve their interaction with the physical world...because it is a physical world. Based on what I've seen as an instructor and martial artist in general, there is no indication that being strong is detrimental to martial arts performance; in fact, like any other physical activity, being strong is beneficial. A very strong man can learn to perform with the same mechanical efficiency as a weak man.

The third issue I have is with the idea that there is no historical information that indicates that samurai lifted any kinds of weights. So what? I'll bet they didn't drive cars either....because they weren't there. This statement is not an indication that strength training would not have been beneficial to the samurai.

Something I've noticed over the course of my MA career, especially early on, was that it seemed taboo for someone to want to get bigger and stronger, whereas if someone was already big and strong, it's ok. I've always seen this as a rather huge inconsistency.

For these reasons listed above, I've made it a rule to never take "strength training" advise from Martial Artists.

Those are some opening thoughts from me. I can't wait to hear others.

[Zaine]

Chapter 1: The History of the Sanchin Kata

Something notable here, before I get into the bulk of the chapter itself, is that Wilder has a penchant for analogies. I think that this hurts him in a lot of places throughout the books, where it seems that he often becomes too focused on this-or-that comparison and his point gets away from him. A great example of this is on the first page of the chapter, where he makes an analogy about the Civil War. The paragraph adds nothing, and it comes off as an attempt from the author to seem intelligent but falls flat. If he makes later additions, I would hope his editor advises that he omits many of these comparisons.

Another pre-analysis gripe that I have is that he really needs to cite his sources when talking about history. He goes, briefly, over the history of Bodhidharma and, as a scholar myself, there needs to be something of a paper trail. It's fine if these are just things he knows, but he needs to back it up with the scholarship. He opens himself up to legal issues if his words are too close to someone else's without proper credit given. It also gives the reader a place to go for further research. He gives some citations, but they are insufficient and often incomplete. I should be seeing specific books or papers cited when it comes to historical references. For example, he writes "During Bodhidharma's time, people often would come to the temple for may reasons . . . Many were turned away" (Wilder 2). Where is he getting this information? Where can I research this claim? It's not that I disbelieve him, it's that there is probably a source for his information. He should be giving that source.

I think that the history Wilder gives here is good. It seems to line up, more or less, with other claims that I have seen made, namely that Sanchin can be traced back to Bodhidharma's journey and the lessons he gave to the Shaolin Monks. Others, such as Jesse Enkamp, make similar claims. He also mentions that forms within Kung Fu that seem to be the progenitors of the kata. In my research, I have found similar claims (albeit backed by sources).

Wilder makes a case for the necessity of change on page 3, saying "[T]he key concept of change is context. If change is a result of suiting the needs of the practitioner enacting the change, it may well be credible. However, change can result from mistranslation of a movement, or a misunderstanding of the intent behind a form or an element. While some changes are credible . . . others are accidental." I found this refreshing, as a number of books and articles I have read recently seem to abhor change within a martial art. I know those in this forum tend to gravitate towards the opinion that change is good, but running into traditionalists (I call them this for lack of a better term) can be a little tiring. In this need for change, Wilder also mentions the existence of two branches of Sanchin. One which turns, and one that does not. I practice the one that does not, but have seen the other performed many times. I would have like a deeper dive into these two branches of Sanchin. What are Wilder's thoughts on the history here? Wilder's own version, found in Chapter 26, is one that turns. Are there certain styles that prefer the turning and others that don't? What does that lineage look like? These are the unanswered questions that I was left with and, as I recall, later chapters fail to pick this point back up. In the end, if we're going to have a chapter about the history of Sanchin, I want it to be meatier. This seemed to be a summary. I understand that there is a desire to move the narrative and not wanting to belabor a point, but I feel that this is a subject that the author could have spent more time on.

Finally, he defines the benchmarks for success in doing the Sanchin kata. I might have ordered them differently, but if we're going to benchmark any kata, I think that these are a good baseline. Even then, I think that my ordering would be a personal reflection of my journey. I would put Mushin higher, for example.

[bushido_man96]

I'm curious about the history aspect; is there actual history pointing to Bodidharma actually teaching Sanchin (or his derivative) to the monks, or is Sanchin just grouped into the possibilities of what could have been taught to the monks?

[Zaine]

When I see statements like this, I almost immediately take issue with it. There are a few points I have problems with here. First off, is the use of the term "bodybuilding." Bodybuilding became a term to describe anyone that chose to pursue the increase of strength through lifting weights; it became a catchall term for many who didn't understand the concept of what they were describing.

Interestingly, I find this sentiment to be prevalent in karate circles. I remember my first sensei telling me something similar, and then hearing it from others around me. The reasoning was varied, from "it makes you slow" to "it makes you more sensitive to attacks." It always struck me as odd, as well. Why wouldn't you want to do bodybuilding? Why wouldn't strengthening your muscles be anything but a boon to anyone doing martial arts? If throwing a punch takes good rooting and uses the back muscles more than the arm, then common sense says to make sure to strengthen your legs and back. If I have trouble keeping my balance when kicking, then common sense says that I need to strengthen my core. I came to your same conclusion, no strength training advice from Martial Artists.

is there actual history pointing to Bodidharma actually teaching Sanchin (or his derivative) to the monks, or is Sanchin just grouped into the possibilities of what could have been taught to the monks?

None whatsoever. I think that Wilder is just grouping a possibility, as you say. Even within that realm of possibility, however, the chances seem slim. We don't really know what, exactly, Bodhidharma taught the Shaolin, just that he seems to have taught them an exercise regimen that evolved into kung fu and karate. I'm of the opinion that anyone claiming to know something that came directly from Bodhidharma was either lied to, or is actively lying about the origins of their techniques. Is Wilder lying? I don't think so. I think that he's regurgitating legends that he has heard many times over. A big problem with documenting the history of martial arts in general is that so much is myth and legend, and I don't think Wilder is to blame for believing this particular story.

That said, I would have liked him to be more critical. Some kata we know the origins of. Pinan/Heian was created by Anko Itosu, Kusanku seems to have been created by Matsumura Soken, etc. However, there are a plethora of kata that we don't know the origin to, Sanchin being one of them. Wilder alludes to this in this chapter, but doesn't do the critical scholarship necessary to, at the very least, give us the other stories. I understand that this is the story that Wilder believes or wants to believe, but a book like this should offer up all sides of the story so that the reader can make their own critical assessments.

[bushido_man96]

I've even become somewhat skeptical of the Bodidharma theory of MA promulgation, as well, over my years of study and reading. It doesn't seem like very much is actually known, but quite a few assumptions are made.

[Zaine]

Bodhidharma is an interesting figure, for sure. The source for his transmission of the exercises is apocryphal and doesn't show up until the 17th century in Yijin Jing. In fact, as far as I can tell, most scholars are at best doubtful as to whether Bodhidharma taught the Shaolin Monks these movements at all. It's certainly referred to as myth and legend enough times for me to give pause to the claim. At the very least, I don't personally believe that Bodhidharma taught the Shaolin martial exercises. My guess, assuming that he taught them anything of physical exercise, is that he taught them something more akin to Qigong or Yoga, and then the Shaolin developed their techniques from there. I think it's probably more likely that the Shaolin developed it independently.

[bushido_man96]

That's the way I would lean, too.

[Zaine]

Chapter 2: Learning by Emulation and Repetition

My feelings on this chapter was that it could have been one page. In the margins of this chapter, I wrote "We don't have to explore every metaphor." This is, as previously mentioned, a critique that I have about this book overall, but this chapter really falls into the trap of over-explanation. As something of a petty aside, his note on Pax Romana is incredibly simple. On page 5, Wilder states:

This pattern of training, systematic and standardized, created the greatest army known to man at the time and sustained the Pax Romana for two centuries.

This is apropos of nothing, in the realm of karate or Sanchin, but the Pax Romana was a much more complicated machine than just military practice. The economic boom of the Pax Romana played a really big part in it. It wasn't just the threat of military action, it was also that the vassal states had little reason to rebel against such riches as the Romans were offering, which they could get themselves.

Petty tangent over.

The message of this chapter is that repetition and emulation are key to learning. He'll get no argument for me here. Latin has a saying: Repititio mater memoriae. Repetition is the mother of memory. People have often remarked that I learn kata really quickly. A part of that is because I know so many kata already, and the more kata you know, the easier it is to learn new kata. That's why learning kata is scaffolded like it is, with most of the beginning kata being shorter than the ones we learn later. The other reason is that I practice it over an over again. I emulate what I have seen to make sure that my technique is good. It's solid advice.

However, Wilder writes something that I am struggling with, a little. On page 5 and 6, he writes:

Sanchin kata provides the repetition in a mechanical form to achieve the muscle memory needed to perform in a stress situation . . . This slowing down of the movements permits the practitioner to learn in a manner that is known today as the demonstration phase of the education process.

I have 2 issues here. The first is that I don't believe that Sanchin is a kata that is good for self defense. I think that it is a kata that is good for meditation. I also think that it is a kata that enhances the understanding of your other kata. My kata practice exploded when I learned Sanchin because it fundamentally changed the way that I approached kata itself. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Wilder's point here, and we agree with one another. I would certainly have liked him to elaborate on this point, over others.

The second is that, philosophically speaking, I'm not sure that I'm on board with the idea that Sanchin moves slowly for the purposes of education. It definitely helps for the educational purposes of learning Sanchin. It makes it hard to make mistakes. However, I think the dynamic tension of Sanchin teaches its own lesson. It requires you to be in the moment. It requires that you focus only on what you are doing now. In that, it also teaches you to do the same with other kata. Too often, I find myself not being in the moment with other kata, and instead thinking towards what's next. One of the reasons that I train kata so repeatedly, especially now, is to achieve that state of Mushin during the performance. It's so that I can just be in the kata as it happens instead of thinking ahead. That, in my view, is the educational purpose of Sanchin. It's about achieving Mushin/Zen and working more in the moment.

[bushido_man96]

I am really appreciating your reviews of the chapters here, Zaine.

Like you, I think he probably tried a little too hard to explain that repetitions are a good way to practice.

Just from what I've seen of Sanchin so far, I'd tend to agree with you in that I don't think it is a kata with much bunkai attached to it. I'm not sure if any is out there for Sanchin.

I don't really think that I've ever done forms as a way to meditated. I'm not much for meditation; just not my thing. However, I do find value in finding the focus to work through a form with consistent technique, power, and proper stances for generating power. I guess, in a way, this is a kind of meditation.

On another note, I started working my way through the kata for the first time the other day. I'm using the one Wilder does in the book. My plan is to memorize the movements first, then work on the technical aspects. One thing I am noticing is that I think I might be trying to step too far forward in sanchin dachi. A lifetime of stepping into front stances will do that to ya...

[Zaine]

I'm not a huge meditation person either, but doing a meditation through movement really connects with me. Maybe it's the ADHD, but I just can't stay still for long enough to meditate in what we think of as the traditional way. However, applying focus and centering myself through movements practiced 1000+ times is really helpful, especially when I am having bad days.

I was recently at a dojo that largely practices Korean karate (the base of their system is Korean, but they also mix in Japanese influences and kata) and they had the same issue as you are having with the steps. I come from an Okinawan system, where the steps are shallower, so it was a little easier for me to get in line with the steps. That said, Sanchin Dachi is even a little shallower than what I was used to so it took some time to get into that rhythm.