On the shoulders of giants

[meat]

I have recently read "Lone Samurai - The Life of Miyamoto Musashi" and got to thinking on several different things.*

Firstly, I have learned through my unfortunately brief experience in Buko ryu that full intent is what brings a kata to life so to speak, and it is that intent that forges ones mind to be ready for combat. Interestingly many of the great
bugeisha of the feudal period in Japan, such as Yagyu Munenori, Yamaoka Tesshu, and obviously Musashi believed that training of intent and the spirit was the highest goal in swordsmanship. Interestingly, Musashi criticises other
schools for having too much material in their syllabus', and from what I have read of HNIR its curriculum is surprisingly small (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong Mr Watkin). He obviously differs greatly from the Yagyu school, which to my understanding places a great deal of importance on the spirit but also has a very developed technical curriculum.

So why the difference? How did one such as Musashi attain such mastery by not relying on technique? Surely to become so
skilled one must have technical proficiency (and it is obvious Musashi did), but how to attain it in the manner Musashi did
without formal instruction? What reasonable ratio of intent and spiritual maturity balances out actual technical mastery?

To go onto another tangent, and to quote Mr Watkin's website, Musashi "realised that he had won up to that point by chance".
If we look at some of the great men of the time, such as Tsukahara Bokuden, the Yagyu clan, Itto Ittosai, and Musashi, all survived multiple battles without harm (as far as we know). How is this possible? War is incredibly chaotic, particularly a melee battlefield with arrows flying around, and blades going everywhere. The chance of getting hit by anything while fighting
someone would have been extremely high, yet these men came out unscathed. Even the most skilled man in combat can be taken down by an arrow not seen, and no doubt many were. So what is it that allows such men to stay alive and cheat death many times over? Is it the luck of surviving that first battle, which gives one enough experience that the next time around
staying alive is that much easier (and so on for each battle), or is it the hard training in the dojo beforehand that brings one to a keen point of awareness? It seems to me that perhaps it is a combination of the two. The only other theory I can come up with is that it is somehow tied to one's fate. In the same way that a man like Albert Einstein comes into the world and changes it
so radically, maybe these men were simply brought into this world and that time to do great things.

What are your thoughts on these matters?


*Just a note I am aware that a fair amount of the book is speculation, and that is really all we have on alot of his life.

[Josh Reyer]

Mr. Ross,

I'm not sure if I can agree with some of your initial premises.
He obviously differs greatly from the Yagyu school, which to my understanding places a great deal of importance on the spirit but also has a very developed technical curriculum.

The technical curriculum of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu is just variations on a few simple themes.

So why the difference? How did one such as Musashi attain such mastery by not relying on technique? Surely to become so skilled one must have technical proficiency (and it is obvious Musashi did), but how to attain it in the manner Musashi did without formal instruction?
Musashi did have formal instruction. His father was an exponent of Tori-ryu. He certainly learned the necessary technical know-how with which he could engage in duels. The difference between Musashi and other ryu founders is that he rooted his authority in his personal combat experience, whereas, say, Iizasa Choisai based his on divine inspiration, and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna based his on the depth of his study of various ryuha.

Musashi's ideas of moving *beyond* technique are in fact echoed in many contemporary ryuha -- Shinkage ryu for sure being one. I think it's a virtual commonplace in martial arts that you start out learning a basic framework, but the end goal is to move freely and naturally and using the exactly necessary movement to defeat the enemy.

To go onto another tangent, and to quote Mr Watkin's website, Musashi "realised that he had won up to that point by chance".
If we look at some of the great men of the time, such as Tsukahara Bokuden, the Yagyu clan, Itto Ittosai, and Musashi, all survived multiple battles without harm (as far as we know). How is this possible?

As Musashi noted, "by chance". Think of all the thousands, even hundreds of thousands of men who fought in the Sengoku period. Among them must have been countless swordmasters that didn't make it. The ones that have survived are, predictably a very small number. In Yagyu history in particular one can see the effects of war. Yes, Munetoshi survived his various battles (and then retired in his forties), and Munenori survived Sekigahara and the siege of Osaka castle. Hyogonosuke survived one known battle. But then there's Toshikatsu - Munetoshi's eldest son. Shot in two different battles, eventually crippled. Another son, Muneaki, was shot and killed in battle. According to family legend, he cut down 18 men before being gunned down. Toshikatsu's son (and eventual heir to Shinkage ryu) Hyogonosuke survived the one rebellion he was involved in, but his eldest son, Kiyotoshi, was not so lucky, and died fighting in the Shimabara Rebellion. Who knows how great any of those men may have been, had they survived to further refine their skills?

So what you have is basic selection bias. Bokuden, Matsumoto, Kamiizumi, Musashi, Yagyus Munetoshi, Munenori, and Hyogonosuke; they didn't survive because they were special. They were special because they survived.

[cxt]

Meat

I agree with Josh.

Sounds to me like your overthinking things a just a bit.

Not sure that you can accuratly put a "ratio" to a proper mix of "spititual maturity" and "technical mastery".......at least a few people would argue that they are one and the same.
Certainly any number of highly skilled warriors became very contemplative later in their lives and put energy and time on what could be seen as the "spiritual" aspects of their schools.

Mushashi was of the opinion that if one could master the sword one could also excell at all sorts of things--including fine arts.
The Yagyu's seem to have been deeply philosophical as a group---but they were also deadly warriors--and that is just to name 2.
I'm not sure that period swordsmen really viewed the sublime and the practical as being 2 mutually exclusive realms---they might well have argued that they were BOTH needed.

[Trevor Johnson]

I seem to recall that, at least in modern wars, the newbies are the ones who die most often, because they're not as good at things like ducking. The ones who become veterans have a much lower chance of dying than the complete newbies.

[meat]

Thanks for the responses guys, there's a number of good things there I'd like to discuss. If I have made any wrong assumptions, as I said, please correct me. Obviously I'm not an encyclopedia of knowledge in certain ryu.

Firstly Josh, you answered my question regarding one's fortune in war with what you said. "So what you have is basic selection bias. Bokuden, Matsumoto, Kamiizumi, Musashi, Yagyus Munetoshi, Munenori, and Hyogonosuke; they didn't survive because they were special. They were special because they survived."
It is difficult, at least for me, to decide which comes first in this case - mastery before luck on the battlefield, or luck which becomes mastery. Very much a case of the chicken and the egg. Surviving meant they could become great later on, sure, I am referring specifically to battle itself.

As to Musashi, I am aware that he was taught as a child. He set out for the big wide world at a very young age, and according to him, he gained mastery through the many duels and battles he engaged in. I find this a far cry from your typical modern day master who at 70 years old says that "mastery is impossible, I still haven't mastered <insert simple technique here>". So, is that the master merely being modest? Trying to sound esoteric perhaps? If you have spent countless hours in a dojo, possibly far more than Musashi did, at what exact point is mastery possible?

To try my earlier point from a different angle, regarding Musashi's assertion he was his own teacher, what I am interested in was how did he actually train? Surely he didn't show up at duels and that was it. We seem to have no record of him going to any dojo simply to practice technique, and until he took apprentices later in life we know of no one he trained with. Does that make my question a bit clearer?

[cxt]

meat

I think your just a bit off on how the word "mastery" is being used by the folks in the two examples you give.

I don't think the 2 masters are using the term in quite the same was as the other----as evidenced by the fact that Musahi didn't stop his practice and training and deep thinking about his art at any point in his life---if memory serves he did not even write his opus until shortly before his death.

Your also seemingly using the term "mastery" as a stand in for "perfect."
The second master might be able to easily kill you---and just about anybody else--but by HIS standards his technique still needs polish as he feels that its not "perfect" in the litteral meaning of the term.

As far as "on the job training" ie fighting duels goes---that would work really welll....provided you actually survived the duels. ;)
Besides, we know he was trained from a really early age---what your seeing in his duels is the result of his training---he lived--it worked---pretty much period.

(As is often told to people that use Musashi as an excuse to "self train" unless and until you plan on putting yourself on line the for serious injury and death---your "results' will always be highly suspect.)

There is always a danger of talking about training instead of actually training----"more mat less chat" is how its often put. Its ALWaYS fun to talk about--but at the end of the day, its the training that counts. :)

[Nii]

The difference between Musashi and other ryu founders is that he rooted his authority in his personal combat experience, whereas, say, Iizasa Choisai based his on divine inspiration, and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna based his on the depth of his study of various ryuha.


Would this perhaps suggest that HNIR is the most combat effective ryu? Tried, developed with maximum efficiency then tested by one of the best?

[Josh Reyer]

Would this perhaps suggest that HNIR is the most combat effective ryu? Tried, developed with maximum efficiency then tested by one of the best?

Not at all. The ryu is only as good as the person using it. As the sum of his hyoho knowledge and experience, HNIR in Musashi's hands was certainly effective. But, well, the ryu can't do the work for you. It's one thing to learn the theory, or even the movements of a system. It's entirely another to make them part of you.

Really, though, the only real difference between Musashi, Iizasa, Kamiizumi, etc., is in how they presented their enlightenment to their students. All of them tried and proved their systems, inasmuch as they themselves could express it. Kamiizumi gained his large number of disciples by taking on all comers, using his fukuro-shinai, and giving his opponents as many chances to try him as they liked, until they were convinced of his skill and system. And when they were convinced, instead of lying dead on the ground, his defeated opponents became his students. I'd like to say Kamiizumi was special because of this, but really it's a common trope in ryu histories...

[hyaku]

Combat effective?

I think we might be on a different wavelength here. In HNIR the premise of avoiding conflict stands strong and only deals with an initiated attack to be effective.

I was watching TV last night and saw "sport" being advertized as being so popular as "it" like life showed both begining and end.

I don't think this is what Budo is about. Its about living together in peace and harmony and conflicts with sport in many ways with exception to fact that if a situation of conflict arises one must deal with it decisively.

Its 2008 and I don't look at Budo as combat effective. If anyone breaks into my place I will shoot them rather than pick up my Bokuto.

On a lighter note I just cleared 6000 square meters of jungle on the land in the Philippines. I have never done so much cutting practice in my life. Thing is news stations are reporting Africans "carrying machete" But there and in Asia kids even take them to school. Its a way of life and I think thats how we have to view Japanese weapon systems that have now been turned into and education tool

[Josh Reyer]

Firstly Josh, you answered my question regarding one's fortune in war with what you said. "So what you have is basic selection bias. Bokuden, Matsumoto, Kamiizumi, Musashi, Yagyus Munetoshi, Munenori, and Hyogonosuke; they didn't survive because they were special. They were special because they survived."
It is difficult, at least for me, to decide which comes first in this case - mastery before luck on the battlefield, or luck which becomes mastery. Very much a case of the chicken and the egg. Surviving meant they could become great later on, sure, I am referring specifically to battle itself.

I don't quite see things in such a cause-and-effect manner. Whether one has mastery before or after a battle is, to my thinking, immaterial. Let's take the story of Muneaki at face value (since it's about as reliable as Musashi's claim of being undefeated in 60 duels). In that battle, there were certainly men of no or low skill at arms who by chance survived. And then there was Muneaki, who cut down 18 men. I would certainly say someone who cut down 18 in a single battle was highly skilled -- even a master. But in the end he was shot and killed. And that's the way it goes in battle. Some survived by fortune, some survived by being "rear-echelon motherbleepers", some survived because they were better than the guys they faced that day. By the same token, some died by fortune, some died because they were "too" brave, and some died because they guys they faced that day were just better than them.

So the fact itself that the great ryu founders survived can't really be ascribed as something special about them, IMO. They were special for what they created, and they were lucky enough to live long enough to do so.

[meat]

This thread is really going as well as I had hoped, thanks for the input guys.
Chris: with regards to mastery, my thinking of the term "mastery" is actually opposite to what you said. I don't think it means perfection, this is why I don't understand it when people that have trained their entire life say they haven't mastered <technique/style>. To make a comparison, no one could ever be the "perfect" climber, but if you have scaled every peak above 28,000 feet and completed the hardest known climbs to man, can you honestly not say you have a mastery of climbing?

[Josh Reyer]

Chris: with regards to mastery, my thinking of the term "mastery" is actually opposite to what you said. I don't think it means perfection, this is why I don't understand it when people that have trained their entire life say they haven't mastered <technique/style>. To make a comparison, no one could ever be the "perfect" climber, but if you have scaled every peak above 28,000 feet and completed the hardest known climbs to man, can you honestly not say you have a mastery of climbing?
But, if you are not the perfect climber, don't you always have room for improvement? That's all these old masters are saying. Not that they don't have a mastery of the techniques/style, but that they are still working at it, still polishing/refining.

The Yagyu family have a saying: 昨日の我、今日は勝つべし. "Surpass today the person you were yesterday." It's basically in that vein.

[K. Cantwell]

The Yagyu family have a saying: 昨日の我、今日は勝つべし. "Surpass today the person you were yesterday." It's basically in that vein.


One of the things my teacher says sometimes is, "That is yesterday's technique you are doing. Do today's."

As long as there is a today, you should stive to be better than yesterday. Pretty simple and pretty difficult.

Kevin Cantwell

[cxt]

Meat

I don't think were really understanding one another here---AGAIN, your really talking about different uses/meanings/interpretations of the same terms.

"Mastery" might very well mean "better than just about everyone" and NOT mean "perfect."

AGAIN, by the standards of a really high end expert--weither were are talking climbing or sword---they might judge THEMSELVES in need of more practice.
From the perspective of a newbie/novice--they might be as close to perfect as one can get.

Its really a matter of perspective.

Even among "master" climbers there are levels of skills.

Even among "master" craftsmen there are levels of skill.

There are levels to even the folks with the highest skills.......people looking "up" so speak may not be able to see them----folks that are skilled enough to look "peer to peer" might see something else entirley.

More to the point--say you HAVE climbed every peak above 28,000---what does calling yourself a "master" do for you??????????

I don't know, you seem really hung up on what are essentially just words.

As I said, Musashi kept training and and thinking deeply about his art until the end of his life---clearly he felt there was more he could accomplish.

So if I have to choose between Musashi interpretation and say yours---I'm going with Musashi. :)

[Hissho]

Hyaku-san:

Its 2008 and I don't look at Budo as combat effective.

But can it be, when placed in proper context? Not the kind usually discussed on forums, but it can be effective.




If anyone breaks into my place I will shoot them rather than pick up my Bokuto..

In so doing, would you not be doing Budo?

Probably a topic better suited for Combatives. I think I get where you are coming from, but perhaps others may have a different take on it?

[gendzwil]

Interestingly, Musashi criticises other schools for having too much material in their syllabus', and from what I have read of HNIR its curriculum is surprisingly small (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong Mr Watkin).[snip]
How did one such as Musashi attain such mastery by not relying on technique?Assuming for argument's sake your statements are accurate, what makes you think that a small curriculum size relates to low technical skill? I play both kendo and judo, and one of the big differences between the two is that kendo is a small curriculum and judo is huge. What I find with kendo is that I am much, much more technically proficient with the limited curriculum than I am with the bigger judo curriculum. Furthermore, almost everybody who plays judo develops a small set of favourite techniques (tokui-waza) because it is just impossible to learn the whole thing well, and of course many of the waza are better suited to one body type or another. However judo class is structured to teach the whole curriculum, so even though I have my tokui waza I don't get to practice them nearly as thoroughly as I'd like.

As far as the issue of mastery is concerned, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a master. However after 25 years of kendo, my own distinctions of mastery are pretty academic to anyone who's new to kendo - they get crushed, even though I might be personally critical of the technique I'm using to crush them. Mastery is relative.

[Nii]

As far as the issue of mastery is concerned, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a master. However after 25 years of kendo, my own distinctions of mastery are pretty academic to anyone who's new to kendo - they get crushed, even though I might be personally critical of the technique I'm using to crush them. Mastery is relative.


I really like this quote. Just thought I'd say that :)

[meat]

Assuming for argument's sake your statements are accurate, what makes you think that a small curriculum size relates to low technical skill? I play both kendo and judo, and one of the big differences between the two is that kendo is a small curriculum and judo is huge. What I find with kendo is that I am much, much more technically proficient with the limited curriculum than I am with the bigger judo curriculum. Furthermore, almost everybody who plays judo develops a small set of favourite techniques (tokui-waza) because it is just impossible to learn the whole thing well, and of course many of the waza are better suited to one body type or another. However judo class is structured to teach the whole curriculum, so even though I have my tokui waza I don't get to practice them nearly as thoroughly as I'd like.

As far as the issue of mastery is concerned, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a master. However after 25 years of kendo, my own distinctions of mastery are pretty academic to anyone who's new to kendo - they get crushed, even though I might be personally critical of the technique I'm using to crush them. Mastery is relative.

I'm glad you brought that up! I think the opposite. My background is in judo and jujutsu, and you know what? When I sit down and really think about everything I've learned, I wonder why the hell I even needed to learn half of it. Alot of throws in judo are simply variations on a "main" throw, so by the time one reaches shodan, they know a virtual encyclopedia of throws. As you said, everyone has their tokui waza, and a large amount of throws are virtually forgotten. So why then are so many styles jam packed with such vast curricula?

[gendzwil]

I'm glad you brought that up! I think the opposite. Really? Sounds like you agree with me.
So why then are so many styles jam packed with such vast curricula?A lot of sword styles have expanded curriculum basically due to marketing concerns. In times of peace sword instructors looking for students would tend to flower up their styles. There's lots of stuff that got added because of this, or so I am told. I'm just a dumb shinai-swinger.

[meat]

Sorry for the confusion, I meant I think the opposite of what you thought I meant. Which means I agree. Does that make sense? LoL.

[cxt]

Meat

Because pretty much everyone "pet" throws are different---chances are that I won;t have the same set of favorite techiniqes as you do---and in addition the chances are that we are going to be of different body types--so even what we might have in common will probabaly done in different ways.

Think of it like this----I design a system that works for me--palys to my specific strenghts and addresses my specific weakness.

I teach this to you--now your working with MY strengths and weaknesses instead of your own---so you make changes and additions for your OWN needs...in some cases you end up cross-training to address probelsm that "I" didn't have so "I" didn't teach you how to addresses them.

Now you teach this to a 3td person--only now--since the cirruculem has grown--this person can more easily pick the stuff that works for them since they have more "tools" at it were, to chose from contained in the system from the get-go.

Its like my old football coach used to say:

"your job is learn the playbook-----if the QB calls Black 22 right I don't want anyone standing around with their dick in their hands wondering what is going on."

You may never need to know 80% of what you were taught--the "playbook" of judo/jujutsu---then again it might very well be the techniques that you DON'T know that could have saved you.

Even more important----"you" may not need that technique at all--but someone ELSE might--and if you don't know it---you can't teach it.

[bushikan]

Really? Sounds like you agree with me.
A lot of sword styles have expanded curriculum basically due to marketing concerns. In times of peace sword instructors looking for students would tend to flower up their styles. There's lots of stuff that got added because of this, or so I am told.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. I believe reputation was what was crucial. In the edo-jidai you had two different types of Ryu-ha classifications:
1) Ryu which were employed by a particular han (藩)

2) Independent school which rely on student patronage

The first type of school had a type of security like how a teacher has tenure. Their main concern like most ryu-ha was preserving their reputation. Loosing to an outsider is the only thing that could change that. An example might be Togo Chuii who after studding Taisha Ryu (a Hosokawa Han Ryu-ha) and Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu (天眞正自源流 not 天真正自顕流) returned to Hosokawa han to challenge his master and defeated him (I believe that is the story it have been a while since I read the material). There is another account that Togo Chuii was summoned to Edo to face off against two of Edo Yagyu swordsmen (Edo YSR severed the Tokugawa). He defeated both of them, killing one, and presently crippling the other. Both of these duels (despite the enormous skill that Togo Chuii had) must have caused great embarrassment for these ryu-ha, leaving a huge scar in the ryu-ha's reputation.

Independent schools thrived on maintaining their reputation (should they want to keep their students), they maintained this reputation by defending their schools from challengers and winning in matches arranged the Bakafu and various han. The result of this could either lead to employment by a han or possibly receiving retainers from various han. In the 18th century certain han favored certain independent schools and would retainers to study under the school's master. Example of Ryu which enjoyed this type of patronage Kyoshin Meichi Ryu which was favored by the Yamauchi han and Sakura han, Shindo Munen Ryu favored by Choshu han, and Hokushin Itto Ryu which was Mito han if I’m not wrong (again its been a while).

The three schools were called "The three big schools of the Bakamatsu" (幕末江戸三大道場), and were prone to being challenged by outsiders. It can be said though that these schools did not become famous because their expanded their curriculum but because they maintained their schools reputation though duels. If one should look throughout ryu-ha history one might notice that schools actually discarded curriculum they perceived as obsolete or unnecessary. Takenouchi Ryu (Takeuchi Ryu) had something like 600 or more techniques in their curriculum which has not been reduced to something around 300 or more (I have a feeling that the numbers may be wrong but this is meant to emphisize the size great size of the curriculum), and Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu once supposedly had Bajutsu and Hojutsu which are no longer practiced (again correct me if I'm wrong).

So I guess what I am trying to get at is that a schools reputation and patronage is what makes it valuable in the eyes of a prospective student. The question is (from the perspetive of a 16th-17th-18th century warrior) would you like to study in which the instructor or school with no reputation or study under a instructor who linage connects to Miyamoto Musashi, Togo Chuii, Marume Kurando, Saito Yakuro, or Hikita Bungoro. This type of story continues today by individuals who hear about Miyamoto Musashi or the Shinsengumi. They are attracted to the style these men practiced. Curriculim is not what comes to mind.

As for the question of why of why to learn a style or curriculim. A style teaches you a past master's ideas of how a fight occus and how to end it (their are other studdies included). Technique and method build into muscle memory and subconcious, and while a particular technique may not be something you might use today, it does not mean you will not use it tomarrow. Ono ha Itto Ryu contains some 120 technique on long and short sword, That progresses from simple confrontations to more complex confrontations and priciples of engagement. One can argue that if the situation you practiced for should come to light you might have an idea of how to use of defend against it. That is why one studdies katate, gun-fu, or boxing, instead of self training. It helps to have a clear cut method to follow rather than to go it alone.

Sorry for the long post

Hope this helps

[Kim Taylor]

I don't know about you guys but on June 23, 2004 I obtained mastery and now no longer have to practice at all.

It takes 24 years, three months and six days to achieve technical mastery.

Kim Taylor

[kenkyusha]

I don't know about you guys but on June 23, 2004 I obtained mastery and now no longer have to practice at all.

It takes 24 years, three months and six days to achieve technical mastery.

Kim Taylor
Will merely standing close to one who has completed the TIME IN TO UTTER TECHNICAL MASTERY (TM) requirement suffice? :laugh:

Be well,
Jigme

[Trevor Johnson]

I don't know about you guys but on June 23, 2004 I obtained mastery and now no longer have to practice at all.

It takes 24 years, three months and six days to achieve technical mastery.

Kim Taylor

What's the time to total enlightenment?

[gendzwil]

What's the time to total enlightenment?Usually a few milliseconds after I flip the switch, unless it's those damn fluorescents.

[carl mcclafferty]

Kim
You're a hoot!

I think the biggest comment was "he was shot down"! When Sekiguchi and Muzashi fought they retired after 30 minutes and it was called a draw. Not sure they would be around if 500 guys were shooting at them at the same time. Being an old Vietnam Vet, 31 years (now retired) Border Patrol and a contractor in Afghanistan, I think those bullets marked "to whom it might concern" play a big part in life. Just my thoughts!


Carl McClafferty

[Nii]

But luck would play a massive part in avoiding these bullets addressed "to whom it may concern' wouldn't it? I'd assume you take measures to reduce the chance of getting hit (going prone perhaps?) but you'd mostly just have to hope you will be safe.

Sorry if I'm wrong, I don't have military training or experience like yourself.

Anyway I'm of the opinion that Musashi and other famous swordsmen who survived on the battlefield merely did so because of luck!

[Hissho]

I would disagree.

Not at all saying that luck doesn't play a major part. But taking advantage of what luck sends your way is often the result of training.

If one of those To Whom It May Concern rounds happens to actually be delivered to you - the quality of your training, in other words the quality of mindset that you may have gained from it - does indeed make a big difference.

I wouldn't question someone like Hyakutake's take on budo. I would point out that in the right context, in 2008, for me Budo and what it teaches are effective and its teachings have help to clarify experience, learn from it, and even live to walk away from some things.

I'd love to here McLafferty sensei's take on that. While I would never deign to speak for him, I know what my training has done for me. I'd find it hard to believe that he didn't believe his budo had anything to do with how his experience of the combative situations he's been involved in.

[hyaku]

Hyaku-san:

In so doing, would you not be doing Budo?

Probably a topic better suited for Combatives. I think I get where you are coming from, but perhaps others may have a different take on it?

What I mean is I would not view much Budo using swords or Bokuto as combat effective in this day and age. Its the educational and spiritual value we can gain from it.

[hyaku]

I would disagree.

I wouldn't question someone like Hyakutake's take on budo. I would point out that in the right context, in 2008, for me Budo and what it teaches are effective and its teachings have help to clarify experience, learn from it, and even live to walk away from some things.

Wow, you must be living in a bad environment.

You are more than welcome to question my take on Budo. Its only from grabbing a few dan grades at jujitsu, karate, kendo, iaido, etc and couple of Kenjutsu menkyo and around forty years of budo, 24 of that in Japan. I need to master it as yet (ROFL)

When I see my neighborhood kids in the Philippines going to school carrying machete/bolo and know that any serious altercation would bring around about fifty family members I am perhaps living closer to an edged weapon environment that ever before.

[Hissho]

Then that makes sense. Certainly there is crossover but some folks get a little melodramatic when juxtaposing "the sword and the gun" for the modern combative context.

The "spiritual" element you note is probably where the most valuable manifestation lies. At least in my limited view.

[Hissho]

Wow, you must be living in a bad environment.

You are more than welcome to question my take on Budo. Its only from grabbing a few dan grades at jujitsu, karate, kendo, iaido, etc and couple of Kenjutsu menkyo and around forty years of budo, 24 of that in Japan. I need to master it as yet (ROFL)

When I see my neighborhood kids in the Philippines going to school carrying machete/bolo and know that any serious altercation would bring around about fifty family members I am perhaps living closer to an edged weapon environment that ever before.

Internet misunderstanding. I have a great deal of respect for you, and don't at all question you. I am testing some of my own thoughts and experiences against yours to see if I am off base.

And I believe I said I wouldn't question your take on budo! :smilejapa

[carl mcclafferty]

KIT:

Yeah it has helped my reflexes to respond and even recognize something about to happen by the way someone was positioning themselves. Which I think helps all us in life and take better advantage of luck when it falls our way and maybe overcome some else's luck.

I thought the question was based on Japanese battles where katana were used. It would my thought that if you were in a fight, with a sword against another competent swordsman in a major battle and went prone to avoid a "to whom it may concern", you'd be hacked to death. I'd take the chance on the bullet myself. But maybe being my late 50s and I have a different perspective on things.

Carl McClafferty

[Hissho]

That makes sense, Chief. Given the sword/bullet choice I'd take my chances with the bullet too.

Reading Dr. Friday's recent writing(check out "the First Samurai"), even on the Japanese battlefield it would more likely be arrows (and later by extension, wouldn't it be bullets?) than swords, so in some ways the more things change the more they stay the same.


I guess I was thinking, and articulating poorly, is what about beyond the technical curriculum? What about the mental teachings that budo practice has to offer those trained and duty bound to face potential death in a combative sense?

I think Hyakutake is touching at some things here that are of deep interest, but at the same time seems to be dismissing budo in 2008 at "combat effective."


Combat effective?

I think we might be on a different wavelength here. In HNIR the premise of avoiding conflict stands strong and only deals with an initiated attack to be effective.

I was watching TV last night and saw "sport" being advertized as being so popular as "it" like life showed both begining and end.

I don't think this is what Budo is about. Its about living together in peace and harmony and conflicts with sport in many ways with exception to fact that if a situation of conflict arises one must deal with it decisively.

Its 2008 and I don't look at Budo as combat effective. If anyone breaks into my place I will shoot them rather than pick up my Bokuto.

edit and emphasis mine




Coming from so deep a place in Budo, far beyond what I will ever reach, it made me wonder if that really is the case, if the lessons that might be valid for dealing with situations of conflict decisively - specifically in a combative situation - might not have "left the building" long ago?

What is there for those seeking, as Draeger would say "combat, discipline, morals?" Or has the end result of centuries of peace and the majority of practitioners not actually being fighting men meant that the actual essence of even the most "martial" teachings has changed so much that it no longer can offer those things?

Or am I reading too much into it?

:smilejapa

[Chidokan]

I think practising MA gives you an 'attitude' you can use that keeps you out of trouble if you choose to use it, as well as something Carl mentions, which is you see someone thinking about making trouble. It takes something to just kill another person and not a lot of people can do this. Hence the mental hammering the army guys get when they join up...

You may be interested in a quote from a 'masters certificate' ie menkyo kaiden I was shown.... it basically translates as: "now you know what its all about, go and start practising properly". My own sensei once told me he did an embu at 84 yrs old (11 years ago), and decided he had finally got somewhere near doing mae correctly. Given he got his two menkyos 30 years ago I guess his practise is getting close to what he wants by now.:D

[allan]

it made me wonder if that really is the case, if the lessons that might be valid for dealing with situations of conflict decisively - specifically in a combative situation - might not have "left the building" long ago?

What is there for those seeking, as Draeger would say "combat, discipline, morals?" Or has the end result of centuries of peace and the majority of practitioners not actually being fighting men meant that the actual essence of even the most "martial" teachings has changed so much that it no longer can offer those things?

Or am I reading too much into it?

:smilejapa

I always enjoy what you bring to the (discussion) table Kit.

And to your point, I believe that, unless one is privy to something truly outstanding, then one has to do the work (as you've been doing) in teasing out what is useful and relevant, in delving deeply into the old knowledge for what doesn't come up during 'dojo time,' and eventually looking outside the curriculum and written texts to really examine how others are addressing modern conditions (through 'combatives' or whatever other venues).

I agree that what is termed "spiritual" (in the sense of 'of the spirit') in the koryu is quite wonderful and personally highly worthwhile.

Also, I admire your efforts at not allowing potentially fertile discussions to be pigeonholed into koryu and combatives camps. I, for one, am also drawn to both streams.

Best,