PDA

View Full Version : Tradition :cling To The Rock Or Letting Go?



Jerry Johnson
27th January 2002, 22:22
This is where I am at. I started out non-traditional and continued to be non-traditional for many years. Now I am considering a traditional style and environment. I see a lot of ideological conflict ( not always bad or good) between the traditional and non-traditional. Through the years I have shifted from the end seat in one wing to the middle seat between wings where I sit now. I am wonder what direction I will shift to next and is there any value in it.

Tradition, I think, is important. But there are some who think it is very important to maintain. The feel tradition is the essences, the core, and the spirit of the martial arts. Without it the arts are an empty shell. To other they would like to drop tradition and start new. They see tradition as out dated and not applicable to the times. So for most of us seated some where in the middle of the two wings, the average Joe and Jane, does it matter? I think so because in time we make shifts and take risks. And those who sit in either wing beside us how much influence do they have if any on how we make choices to accept or reject tradition.

Does the sensei down the street who throws out tradition for a new approach and thus embraces a new paradigm ( starting at zero) bound to just rehash what as already been discovered and already preserved in tradition? Or the sensei that throws out tradition (for what ever reason) is bound to repeat the same mistakes that those 100s of years ago have already made? In other words, can the new be trusted?

On the other hand, being stagnant in tradition, following blindly and or ignorantly ( not in insult), being out dated can be any better? That is, way stick to punch cards for data processing when you have super computers. Why use out-dated non-applicable techniques in a modern world? Why not make the change and adapt to the times you live in and the current society and push for new horizons. Get rid of the old and unnecessary and create the new that is more applicable today. Can tradition be trusted?


Now, being in the middle seat, edging toward change and feeling uncomfortable moving in either direction, but knowing a move will need to be made-i.e. taking a risk. How do I know which model can be trusted. Understand this is not a metaphysical/self-improvement venue ( which I am not against) and i have set aside "it's a personal choice" for a moment.


But rather a rational perspective that is more inclined toward the philosophy of commerce (channel /operations flow and alike), then spiritual self-realization. And I am not saying which approach will make more money. Though that is interesting. Rather which approach / model can be trusted to deliver the most value overall?

* THE SUBJECT FIELD: YES I DID STEAL FROM JONATHAN LIVING SEAGULL AND I AM ONLY PARTLY ASHAMED. :D

charlesl
28th January 2002, 01:06
JJ wrote:
Tradition, I think, is important. But there are some who think it is very important to maintain. The feel tradition is the essences, the core, and the spirit of the martial arts. Without it the arts are an empty shell. To other they would like to drop tradition and start new. They see tradition as out dated and not applicable to the times. So for most of us seated some where in the middle of the two wings, the average Joe and Jane, does it matter? I think so because in time we make shifts and take risks. And those who sit in either wing beside us how much influence do they have if any on how we make choices to accept or reject tradition.

I'm really kind of shaky on what you mean by tradition. Are you talking about reishiki? If so, I've never seen it as a primary focus of any group, or even given much emphasis as compared to the combative training.

JJ wrote:
Does the sensei down the street who throws out tradition for a new approach and thus embraces a new paradigm ( starting at zero) bound to just rehash what as already been discovered and already preserved in tradition? Or the sensei that throws out tradition (for what ever reason) is bound to repeat the same mistakes that those 100s of years ago have already made? In other words, can the new be trusted?

Who does this? I'm not saying that a group of people couldn't sit down and create their own system from scratch, just working things out, but I don't know of any that've taken this route. Even people who branch away to start their own thing take what they know and either adapt it to their own taste or add something they feel is necesary to it.

As for the new being trusted, hard to say. If you're talking new but tested and proven vs. new but never been used, uh, I'll stick with the old standby, thank you.

JJ wrote:
On the other hand, being stagnant in tradition, following blindly and or ignorantly ( not in insult), being out dated can be any better? That is, way stick to punch cards for data processing when you have super computers. Why use out-dated non-applicable techniques in a modern world? Why not make the change and adapt to the times you live in and the current society and push for new horizons. Get rid of the old and unnecessary and create the new that is more applicable today. Can tradition be trusted?

Again, I don't know what you mean by tradition. But there are definitely elements of traditional combative systems that will always apply, and while the techniques used in these systems training methodologies may seem outdated, their focus is to teach these elements. Also, many koryu systems focus on a particular weapon set, but often incorporate other weapons as well. My opinion is that you learn the techniques and principles of one weapon set, then learn to extend those techniques to other weapons, and even weaponless combat. This seems like a fairly good system to me.

I've heard people give the opinion that traditional systems were to teach combative skills and make you a stronger person, versus modern budo systems which were meant to make you a more enlightened person. I only have a few years of experience with modern systems (aikido, judo, karate), and the training I experienced pretty much jived with this. When comparing the two, I feel that the modern budo had taken out most of the "really good stuff," the combative stuff, because that quit being their focus. I think some groups have tried to add that back in, but I don't know if that's a realistic expectation.

Personally Jerry, I think you should stick to the modern stuff. I don't think you'll get much out of the more traditional stuff. But that's just the sense I get from reading your description of the traditional stuff.

disclaimer: my opinions and ideas prolly aren't unique or novel, and a lot of them are just other peoples ideas and opinions that I agree with and can regurgitate. I'm no expert or significant authority, just a guy who reads a lot.

-Charles

Jeff Hamacher
28th January 2002, 02:14
Jerry,

i'm going to assume you speak of the decision related to becoming a student of a given martial art, and that you feel the need to choose between a "modern" school or a "traditional" school. like Charles, i won't claim to be any authority on the matter, just a guy with some experiences to relate.

i've played cello for the last 23 years, more than two thirds of my life. now, there's a fair bit of music composed in more recent times for my instrument, but when comes down to it the beast is old. the cello or stringed instruments like it have a history of some 450 years. what's stranger still is that i've also dabbled with viola da gamba, another stringed instrument that completely fell out of use around 200 years ago. why learn to play such hopeless anachronisms?

and what about this "tea ceremony" business i'm studying? like my dad says, "boil some water, dump it into a pot with a couple of scoops of tea, wait 5 minutes and pour it into a mug. what more ceremony do you need?" indeed, why kneel for a half an hour or more just for the chance to drink a bowl of bright green sludge?

and then there's this jojutsu that i do twice a week. learning to defend oneself with a stick (of the non-pointed variety) seems a pretty sensible option, all things considered, but when your training partner is attacking you with a wooden sword, what does that really have to do with the modern world? in short, why bother with these "traditions"?

the short answer is that only you can say for yourself, Jerry. i play the cello, study tea, and train in jo because i enjoy the experience. i can't really say why, exactly, i just get a good kick out of it. the experience gives me access to emotions and enlightenments that i would not otherwise have.

be honest with yourself about what you want from your martial arts training. spend some time doing research on various dojos where you would consider training, and be sure to get permission to watch classes and ask questions of the instructor. i think that if you keep your training goals firmly in mind and follow your intuition regarding the atmosphere of the dojo that you like best, you won't go too far wrong.

Neil Hawkins
28th January 2002, 02:19
I think this is one of those topics that is hard to qualify, there will always be differing opinions on what the terms mean. I prefer to start with the accepted dictionary definition and then expand upon that:


Tra·di·tion (tr-dshn)n.
The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

1. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
2. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See Synonyms at heritage.
3. A body of unwritten religious precepts.
4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices.
5. Law. Transfer of property to another.

This gives us a lot of scope for discussion.

I don't believe that you can discard tradition, it is how you got to where you are. As Charles says, most of the un-traditional schools are full of tradition, they just don't have the outward trappings. Those traditions maybe diverse, but they are there in what they do.

I believe that the distinction is in how the traditions are presented, Koryu schools place their tradition in the fore, right down to a ritualised way of practicing, dressing and behaving. More modern schools have this as well, many karate schools still wear the uniform and practice in a manner that copies their predecessors and origins. Truly modern styles have discarded the uniform and the formalised training, but they still use techniques that were learnt from traditional schools, be they western or oriental. So my definition is: Traditional - full of the rituals of tradition; and modern - concentrate on the realities of fighting.

So the question should be how much benefit is there in following the rituals of tradition over purely practicing the mechanics of combat?

To me there is a danger in discarding the rituals of tradition, all of the truly good martial artists (IMHO) that I have met, have been good people first and foremost, their martial ability is something that is, if not hidden, certainly not advertised. All these people had a strong grounding in traditional arts, even if they then went on to create their own systems later.

I hate to generalise but many of the people I have met that do not have that grounding in the traditional have been arrogant, rude and overly aggressive.

Now we come to the next problem, what is it that you want out of your training? The newer systems often do (but not always) teach an extremely practical method of fighting, they do not spend time on the trappings of tradition and so people tend to learn more quickly, they also have less techniques to teach having discarded the ones they don't feel are applicable.

I firmly believe that the traditional systems offer more to the student, the range of techniques and philosophies that are taught ensure that there is always more to learn, their is often never an end in sight. The practicality is their as well, although you often have to look for it yourself as it is not a primary objective in the training.

The trap is that there are students and teachers that try to read extra things into an art or style that aren't there. Many are deceiving themselves and others into a belief that certain techniques will always work, or that attackers will behave in a certain way. Unfortunately these people exist in both traditional and modern styles and only experience will expose them to you.

So if you want good fighting skills in a short period of time, but with little benefit to you as a human being (aside from the survival aspect), go modern. If you want to improve yourself firstly and see combat skills as a by-product of that then go traditional.

Regards

Neil

Soulend
31st January 2002, 11:46
A lot of good points in here, and I suppose the decision would depend on what one wants to achieve. I tend toward the traditional, because that was how my sensei were, and well, I like clinging to that rock. I cannot see releasing my hold on something known, and something which I value, in order to grasp an unknown thing of unknown value.


On the other hand, being stagnant in tradition, following blindly and or ignorantly ( not in insult), being out dated can be any better? That is, way stick to punch cards for data processing when you have super computers. Why use out-dated non-applicable techniques in a modern world? Why not make the change and adapt to the times you live in and the current society and push for new horizons.

If one is talking about an unarmed style, I don't think the metaphor of the punch-cards vs. super computers quite fits. There is only a limited number of ways a person can be attacked. An effective counter to a punch thrown in 1800 will be just as effective today. I don't see that the attacks have changed all that much. Now, if you're dealing with an art that teaches only attacks aimed at chinks in feudal-era armor, perhaps some of that would not be practical. But a lot can be slightly modified to a specific attack, just as an aikidoka modifies his technique slightly to different sizes and weights of opponent.


Get rid of the old and unnecessary and create the new that is more applicable today. Can tradition be trusted?

Also, from Mr. Hawkins' post:


they also have less techniques to teach having discarded the ones they don't feel are applicable

I think the discarding of technique is a bit of a dangerous thing. Who is qualified to determine what is unneccesary and what is not? I'm quite certain I'm not, anyway. Each technique removed from a tradition is something a future student won't learn, and I feel that he will be the poorer for it.

I trained at a karate-do dojo that had a very traditional atmosphere. Now, not traditional as a koryu would be, but still pretty formal. I liked the traditional aspect, the feeling of belonging. And we learned techniques that were proven effective- as effective today as they were in Funikoshi's time. So, one can have his cake and eat it too.

Although I can play neither the cello nor the viola da gamba, I'm 'on the same sheet of music' as Mr. Hamacher. Only you can decide for yourself.

Jerry Johnson
31st January 2002, 15:38
That you everyone who responded.

I have had discussion via email and face to face and here are some of the major points anyone may find interesting or wish to debate. Please note I have paraphrased.

Traditional:
1. Tradition is important if it is a good authentic tradition. Not one that is only popped out of a can or getting it's legs. Tradition is the ground which you stand one. If you don't see value in what seems out dated then your missing the point.

2. A real tradition is hard to find. There is a lot of people out their claiming tradition that isn't really traditional.

3. Tradition isn't a quick fix. It is a hard and long discipline which most people can't or will not endure. It takes a disciplined and experienced person to appreciated tradition. It's not for those who drive race cars.

Modern:
1. Modern will become tradition overtime. Adjusting to the new isn't a bad thing. Taking from all the best and combining them isn't a bad perspective because you can become more effective. You are opening up to new possibilities and discoveries.


2. Modern approach allows for freedom and experimentation. Sure there are risks, but that is what is intriguing. Embarking on new horizons, experimenting, and being creative is what can give an edge. People have a hard time expecting the unexpected.

3. The modern approach being more creative gives rise to new ideas, and new ideas lead to new ways and approaches, which lead to new arts. This is how new arts are created.



For me at this point I have a chance to go traditional, for some time now I have been a “ronin” of sorts. I have no martial art discipline to serve under in the last couple of years. I have looked at BJJ to Aikido. But now I have a chance to train in a traditional art, which by the way is asking for a heck of a commitment. But I guess this is par for the course. I have read and studied a great deal on tradition as it is an intresting read. Therefore, I appreciate everyone's imput. Again, I would like to thank everyone.

ben johanson
2nd February 2002, 10:59
Neil,

I certainly do not intend to be antagonistic, but I'm afraid I must disagree with almost everything you said in your last post regarding the distinctions between modern and traditional martial arts. I of course don't know what kind of art you study, but your impressions of koryu seem to be a bit off. I personally have experience, although limited, with both a "modern" art and a koryu. I studied aikido for almost two years until about a month ago, when I gave it up to move down to Georgia to begin studying Kashima Shinryu under Karl Friday.

In comparing the two arts, I have found that it is the modern art, not Kashima Shinryu, which is more concerned with formality and 'rituals.' KSR practice is very informal and relaxed. We do not call Dr. Friday 'sensei,' we do not bow to him incessantly; we bow in and out at the beginning and end of class, and that is pretty much the only 'traditional' or 'ritualistic' activity we engage in. That is not to say we don't take our training very seriously, for we certainly do, but in between time is spent joking and talking very informally, often with language that many modern martial arts practioners would probably consider very inappropriate for the dojo (and Dr. Friday remarked just last week I think that this is not at all unusual for a koryu dojo).

The atmosphere in KSR class contrasts sharply with that of my previous aikido dojos. There seemed to be a considerably greater concern for 'properness' and respect in the latter, what with the constant bowing to my teachers and fellow students and the shomen and so on. Ironically, I believe many modern martial arts engage in such formal practices, thinking that they are being very traditional and Japanese, when in fact the truly traditional schools never do such things. There is no historical or traditional basis for these ritualistic practices whatsoever-they are entirely a product of the 20th century.

The other things in your post I take issue with are the following:

"The newer systems often do (but not always) teach an extremely practical method of fighting, they do not spend time on the trappings of tradition and so people tend to learn more quickly..."

"The practicality (of traditional systems) is their as well, although you often have to look for it yourself as it is not a primary objective in the training."

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, in the koryu, bujutsu (practical fighting techniques) leads to budo (personal/spiritual improvement), so every koryu student's training begins with learning combat techniques. No searching for practicality by the student is necessary. Of course how effective a ryuha's principles are in the modern era is up to debate, but the point is the focus of the koryu cannot simply be boiled down to personal improvement (budo). At the beginning of his training, a koryu student is focused on fighting techniques (bujutsu); as he advances, his focus shifts more and more towards personal discovery(budo).

Secondly, I think it is an exercise in extreme generalization to state that modern arts are more practical than their traditional predecessors. In fact, in terms of practical combative application, I would argue that Kashima Shinryu is vastly superior to aikido, or judo, or BJJ, and most likely many others (I personally do not believe aikido teaches one anything about combative awareness, for instance). Yes, it could be said that these are simply my opinions, except that they are backed up by the extensive real world experience of many KSR practitioners (not my own of course), especially that of the previous and current headmasters of the school, Kunii Zen'ya and Seki Humitake, respectively (see Karl Friday's Legacies of the Sword). These two men and others have demonstrated conclusively the possible combative applicability of Kashima Shinryu principles in dozens of duels, matches and other tests of skill.

And I personally do not believe that KSR is totally unique with respect to real world effectiveness. Certainly many ryuha have degenerated into such a state where their combative effectiveness (if it ever existed) is all but gone, and where the only goal in training is to master kata that have become little more than mere dance-like forms of artistic expression. But surely there are other ryuha that, like KSR, have retained their vitality and continue onward in their roles as vehicles for the transmission of practical combative principles, the mastery of which leads to a path of personal discovery and improvement.

As I stated before, I have no desire to offend or provoke you. I just think your post contains some misinformation regarding koryu that I wanted to address.

Regards,
Ben Johanson

rsamurai2
3rd February 2002, 05:55
what is KSR? is it a jujutsu system, karate or something modern like krav magda (sp)

charlesl
3rd February 2002, 07:43
rsamurai2 wrote:
what is KSR? is it a jujutsu system, karate or something modern like krav magda (sp)

Uh, think Kashima Shin Ryu, subtract ashima hin yu, and then stick the remaing letters together real close.

The infinite danger of acronym usage.

-Charles

ben johanson
3rd February 2002, 09:28
Richard,

Kashima Shinryu (KSR)is one of the oldest traditional Japanese martial arts schools still extant. Its inception dates back to over 500 years ago and it was created and studied by some of the most illustrious and skilled (not to mention famous) swordsmen in Japanese history. Its curriculum includes kenjutsu, batto-jutsu, jujutsu, kenpo, naginata-jutsu, sojutsu (spear), bo and jojutsu, shurikenjutsu (throwing darts), tanto-jutsu (knives and shorswords), and hobaku-jutsu (tying and binding an opponent). I certainly can't do the topic any justice here, but for a full treatment of the school's history, lineage, methodology, philosophy and more see Karl Friday's Legacies of the Sword (University of Hawaii, 1997). It's a great book and a must read for anyone interested in koryu.

Regards,
Ben Johanson

Neil Hawkins
3rd February 2002, 10:48
Ben,

I can accept all your comments, unfortunately, within the context of the discussion, generalisations are inevitable. There will always be exceptions, however the trappings of tradition to me are inherent in the respect of the dojo and the kata style format. And yes, the concept of practicality is as it applies today, practical defenses against a sword are not strictly practical today, but there are definitely aspects of the training that can be applied today in a very practical manner.

The modern that I was discussing was aimed at arts created in the last few years, many of which are combatives or self defense oriented. I did make the distinction that many modern schools (especially karate, but aikido is another one) that have strong traditional backgrounds, but I don't consider those truly modern because they are often tens of years old.

Tradional doesn't just relate to the bowing and formality of the class, it is in the method of instruction (primarily kata), the respect held within the school (regardless of the terms used) and the esteem that the school (through its instructor) is held in. The signing of a keppan is still common in many koryu, you cannot get more traditional than that.

Regards

Neil