PDA

View Full Version : Koryu and Neo-Confucianism (Shushigaku)



Joseph Svinth
21st January 2006, 03:06
Nathan and Mark --

If for the sake of argument we agree that a punch is a punch, and a leg reap is a leg reap, no matter what system it's taught in, then the biggest difference is that a koryu is (should be) taught using a neo-Confucian pedagogical model, whereas a gendai system is invariably taught using a Pragmatic or other modern/post-modern pedagogical model.

I'm guessing both you guys understand perfectly what I just said.

For those of you who don't (this is the generic rather than the personal you), then my belief is that you're not really practicing koryu, even if that's what you are practicing by name. Instead, you're still part of a gendai system (e.g., a pedagogical model that reflects your own post-modern education and training rather a pedagogical model common in East Asia from the sixteenth to the late 19th and/or early 20th centuries).

Nathan Scott
21st January 2006, 06:10
[Post deleted by user]

Joshua Lerner
21st January 2006, 06:24
If for the sake of argument we agree that a punch is a punch, and a leg reap is a leg reap, no matter what system it's taught in, then the biggest difference is that a koryu is (should be) taught using a neo-Confucian pedagogical model, whereas a gendai system is invariably taught using a Pragmatic or other modern/post-modern pedagogical model.

If you don't mind indulging me in a little thread-drift, could you elaborate a little more about what is specifically neo-Confucian about the *pedagogy* of koryu? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Thanks,

Josh

Joseph Svinth
21st January 2006, 07:43
To quote Prof. Bodiford (forthcoming article at EJMAS):

BEGIN QUOTE

Basically, neo-Confucian training emphasizes pattern repetition (rei or etiquette; i.e., kata). The kata actually are metaphysical ideals (or platonic ideals; ri or li) that are given physical form (embodied; ji or shih) by breath (i.e., ki or qi; sometimes translated as "energy," but "breath" gives a better sense of what it involves). One performs breathing exercises while repeating kata to internalize (embody) abstract ideals. These ideals have moral implications, but they are not themselves moral abstractions. In other words, there is little discussion of "good vs. bad", only emphasis on the "good way to do something." Everything is very concrete, very physical, and very repetitious. The kata embody Confucian notions of self-control, social harmony, etiquette, respect for elders, and obedience to the teacher.

END QUOTE

Meanwhile, Pragmatism teaches that experimentation can and should be used as a way of determining what is true and what is not. Thus, Dewey was known for his belief that children should be taught to think their way through problems rather than taught via rote repetition.

Dan Harden
21st January 2006, 14:55
When discussing Koryu..It is worth noting that they hold themselves- to themselves- not to someone's definition of what they should be. They have, can, and will do with themselves what they choose.
There are two extremes; Koryu that teach more openly, and those that are more closed, and everything in between. It is a historical date not a required mindset. Now we are attempting to use it as a verb or adjective ..."oh that? That’s more Koryu like.” While I agree with Nathan-it does a get a bit dicey to describe.

As to teaching styles. In one Koryu of which I am a member-I was told this is not to be shared or you are out. It was known, formalized and witnessed. In another no one ever asked. It was just assumed. In Daito ryu- some in Daito ryu have been asked to keep things to themselves, while with others it was more open. This is not a new problem. This was and has always been a dilemma. I only ask those who like to publicly display the goods ;
“To what end?”
"What are you really accomplishing?"
"What are your goals?"
Those are very clear questions that can galvenize them for themselves and/ or clarify and establish where someone is coming from.

Today, just as always, we have folks who study half their lives who clearly are not good. Their bodies reveal their lack of commitment or understanding. What value is it to teach them more pieces of deeper skills they can fool themselves into thinking they know. I say keep the really good stuff small and to the select few. How do you get there? There has always been a “school within the school” in many arts for that reason. Koryu is alive and well because it has kept things closed or for the few. The school within the school was always work outside of work. You simply had to work.
Ever notice how many shy away from that word?


I had this exchange recently with a friend of mine. He is looking for the real stuff. The high level internal body work that some DR has and “Some” Chinese have. He has finally seen that there were deeper things held within these arts. It is, just more hard work. Kata training is hard enough as it. There are body skills and training that are much more frustrating than Kata training.

I will leave you guys to deabte the Neo-Confucian model to the pragmatic model. I have to go train :smile:
FWIW.I was just rereading Stan’s books and the fighting arts of Japan by Harrison. For quotes for a blog of mine. Funny how many references to internal work there is. It is everywhere. But in and of itself it is “in-your-face” that it was kept out of the teaching syllabus. Held for the few.
I say let everyone else “spread mediocrity.” And "debate the mundane." Punching, kicking and throwing have aways been with us. For most kids today if it doesn’t work in the octagon ..it doesn’t work. I not only do not want to change their minds-I am happy they think that way.

Cheers
Dan

glad2bhere
21st January 2006, 15:03
Dear Nathan:

".....I suppose that is correct to a greater or lesser extent. The Neo-Confucion teachings (of Chu Hsi) was the driving religion/philosophy during the Tokugawa period, and its influence can be clearly seen in all aspects of culture during that time as well as in many of the bushi code's of conduct ("bushido code"). Since most koryu were founded or developed during this time period it would make sense that they would be more heavily influenced than arts developed after the Meiji Restoration (gendai arts). Daito-ryu in particular was "restored" in the Aizu area, which was a major center for the disimination of Shushigaku (Japanese for Neo-Confucianism), and Sokaku's grandfather Soemon was a prominent teacher of Shushigaku....."

This is an extraordinary coincidence as I just recent rediscovered the late Donn Draeger's comments on Takeda and his place as a Neo-Confucian scholar and teacher. Draeger was particularly ardent in relating this belief system to the Aizu clan and their martial ardor. (See: Draeger vol 2 & 3) I think I can be forgiven for wondering if this might not represent the earliest roots of what we now take as the great "ai-ki" dialogue. I mention this because I have long nurtured within the belief that the esoteric study of the "ki" force often heard in late Ueshiba traditions is more a function of his own personal belief system than what was past to him by his studies in Japanese martial tradition.

For myself, I have been seeking to identify the same role of Neo-Confucianism in the development of Korean traditions. The major fly-in-the-ointment seems to be a tendency of the practicianers of KMA to default to Japanese traditions for framing their research rather than investigate Korean traditions in their own right. That issue to one side, I DO find it curious that Takeda Sokaku did not promote, or at least articulate the relationship of his this (Neo Confucian) belief system to his DRAJJ material. This is particularly daunting given Kondo's report in the interview in AJ (See" No. 79", pg 7) that Takeda was responsible for integrating "inner" ("gotenjutsu") and "external" ("oshikiuchi")traditions of the Aizu clan. Do you (or anyone else) have thoughts on these matters?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Joshua Lerner
21st January 2006, 17:40
To quote Prof. Bodiford (forthcoming article at EJMAS):

BEGIN QUOTE

Basically, neo-Confucian training emphasizes pattern repetition (rei or etiquette; i.e., kata). The kata actually are metaphysical ideals (or platonic ideals; ri or li) that are given physical form (embodied; ji or shih) by breath (i.e., ki or qi; sometimes translated as "energy," but "breath" gives a better sense of what it involves). One performs breathing exercises while repeating kata to internalize (embody) abstract ideals. These ideals have moral implications, but they are not themselves moral abstractions. In other words, there is little discussion of "good vs. bad", only emphasis on the "good way to do something." Everything is very concrete, very physical, and very repetitious. The kata embody Confucian notions of self-control, social harmony, etiquette, respect for elders, and obedience to the teacher.

END QUOTE

Meanwhile, Pragmatism teaches that experimentation can and should be used as a way of determining what is true and what is not. Thus, Dewey was known for his belief that children should be taught to think their way through problems rather than taught via rote repetition.

Thanks for clearing that up. Though I still don't see what makes kata practice specifically Neo-Confucian. Confucian, I can see. But the idea that you should rotely repeat patterns that are taken to be ideals has been around in East Asia (and has probably been the primary mode of learning) long before Neo-Confucianism.

But I'll stop whining here and let the thread get back to it's original topic. And let Dan get back to his training. Anything to keep him off internet forums.

Joseph Svinth
21st January 2006, 18:40
Joshua --

The oldest known images of what are recognizably Shaolin forms appear in General Qi's book of the mid-1560s. This is the same era that the oldest extent Japanese MA systems developed; thus, neo-Confucianism rather than Confucianism.

Nathan --

I agree that neo-Confucianism is not the only doctrine. However, it was very popular with the Tokugawa government (and the Korean government, too, for that matter). The influence of Tantric Buddhism particularly needs to be followed, as the Mongols were often Yellow Hats (the big martial art halls associated in literature with Shaolin-ssu really are found in the western monasteries such as Ta-er), and the hand signs (mudra) and such probably show tantric influences.

Ellis Amdur
22nd January 2006, 17:22
Josh -

I think what would make it "neo-Confucianist" would be the integrating of breath-training/ki, etc., which was integrated from Taoism. It is my understanding that classical Confucianism would not include that component.

It's also my understanding that Taoism, itself, was outlawed in Japan, for a long period. Taoist principals were bootlegged into Buddhism and into martial arts through neo-Confucianism.

Best

Joshua Lerner
23rd January 2006, 00:06
Hi Ellis,

I see what you are saying, though I would also argue that most of what is called "Taoist" in the martial arts, whether Chinese or Japanese, is really more generally Chinese and not strictly related to Taoism. Yin and Yang, the Five Elements, Qi/Ki, etc. See the post in the "What is Ki" thread (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32288&page=2&pp=20) where I added more of the quote from Mencius that Joe brought up. Mencius is the most important Confucian after Confucius, and there are a number of sections of his text which sound more mystical and Taoist than some Taoist texts. Hell, there are some sections of the Analects of Confucius that seem almost mystical.

I was getting stuck on Neo-Confucianism as certain specific ideas from the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi, but I suppose that it is accurate enough to call an influence Neo-Confucian if it simply comes from people who consider themselves Neo-Confucian. Like with Taoism - if people learn about Yin and Yang, or Qi excercises or whatever from Taoists, I guess you could say that it is a Taoist influence, even if Yin and Yang, Qi, etc. are not strictly Taoist ideas.

As far as koryu pedagogy being necessarily Neo-Confucian, as Joe asserted, I would say that if people look at Zhu Xi and the Zhong Yong (Doctrine of the Mean), and compare their ideals to the current thinking about the differences between koryu and gendai arts, the Neo-Confucian ideals are actually closer to the rationale of gendai arts than of koryu in some ways. Although part of Neo-Confucianism is based on the idea that you need to read the Classics, I can't think of any ideas of the founding Neo-Confucianists that would support the idea that you come to understand principles by rotely memorizing or copying something. The very Japanese pedagogy of learning from the outside in (start with form, then eventually discover the principle) is actually directly opposite the suggestions of the Zhong Yong and a number of the important Neo-Confucians. But again, if Japanese Neo-Confucianists were promoting that kind of learning, I guess it can be called Neo-Confucian in that sense.

If we look specifically at the foundation stories of some koryu that claim the techniques were handed down by deities, and that the techniques should be practiced as they are because they are divinely inspired, I think it would be even harder to claim that the pedagogy is Neo-Confucian. It may in theory be possible to practice that particular kind of koryu by attempting to discover or embody the li/ri/principle of each technique, but that doesn't make the original pedagogy Neo-Confucian in the sense that Prof. Bodiford was using the word. Of course, some koryu might be very Neo-Confucian in that sense - for example, I'm guessing that Kashima Shin-ryu is, based on the little I've read about it on some of their websites. But to say that it is a defining aspect of koryu in general as Joe did seems too broad a statement to me.

Nathan Scott
23rd January 2006, 00:34
I've split these posts from the Daito-ryu and Secrecy thread to keep both subjects on-topic and searchable.

That's all I've got time for right now!

allan
26th January 2006, 23:52
Hi Dan,

So you have a blog going hey? Is that something you are willing to open up to us or is it private?

Thanks,