Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Thoughts on Koryu and Stagnancy

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Kit,
    I'm not sure why you feel the need to split hairs over the ability to kill out of need. I can tell you that I have been in situations where someone was forcefully attempting to take my life or "worse." Obviously, I survived, and you know I was lucky to escape with my life. In one case, I was in a good position to kill my attacker if he had regained his feet and continued the attack, and at the time, I was fully prepared to do so to save my own life. Fortunately, I didn't have to. But at that very moment, and now, years later in retrospect, I felt and feel no aversion to doing what I had to do if it came to that.

    I'm not sure what more do you need than that, or what you find troublesome or take as an issue? The practice I speak of is *only* that of an old combat art/ As practitioners and artists we seek to cultivate the mindset that went with it. It is a tool that is a crucial part of the practice.
    Cady Goldfield

  2. #32
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default

    Cady,

    I am splitting hairs because though you may have experienced what you say, you have no idea whether the others in your dojo can or would kill, no matter how much you may think they "understand" the "killing mindset" through your combative training.

    Frankly, neither do you. You did not make that step from "could have killed the guy" to actually "dropping the hammer" so to speak, the culmination of the act, which is really what we are talking about.

    I say this because this discussion is not really objectively discussing killing, or does budo training/should budo training prepare us for killing, or should we confront the fact that aspects of our budo might cause/are designed to cause death to another, or even that we can tell by someone's art of choice (a "sport" budo over a "killing" budo) whether they are able to do what we think they are/should be able to do. These are all very valuable topics of discussing for someone to truly understand combative budo. You seem to be talking more about your dojo, how the people in your dojo train with the killing mindset, how you consider most of them capable of killing, who you think/what arts you think train so that they are capable of killing, that you think you are capable of killing, etc. It seems like you are trying to prove something to yourself.

    I personally feel that you are overstepping your bounds in this. You can in no way judge another persons "killing capacity" based on a few self defense encounters you have had, no matter how serious those encounters were, or how serious and deadly you feel your training is, let alone what prejudices you have about what type of training they do. No one can judge another person's killing capability without knowing that they have in fact killed. You can only guess. It is incredibly presumptuous to make statements to the effect that you can. You have some idea maybe of what you are capable of, and that is all.

    In my biz, we call people who have pulled the trigger "proven shooters," because we know they will do so if they have to, AS THEY ALREADY HAVE. Everyone else can just wonder. Most pray they never find out. You seem to have it all figured out.

    This topic, and a few others, do get my goat. Armchair theory and dojo "should-could-would" on combative/tactical aspects gets a little tiresome when presented as fact with little practical understanding or application. From what you have written you have been most of the way "there." If you really want to go further, to find out the deepest levels of your own combative/killing mindset, take a job where you have to live this way eight to ten hours a day, where you work around weapons and use weapons as part of that job, where you have to make that decision, "do I dump this guy" more than a few times and find out.


    Kit

    I will be away from E-Budo access for the rest of the holiday after today, so unable to respond to follow up any replies. Which is good. Maybe this one night of the year we shouldn't be talking about killing people.

    [Edited by Kit LeBlanc on 12-25-2000 at 12:18 AM]

  3. #33
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Perhaps the discussion has become too polarized. Based on what I have read so far, it appears to be a dead end discussion in the making. It is a vastly difficult topic to explore, with much nuance and detail outside the realm of most people’s experiences. Having any sort of legitimate discussion of how "effective a koryu is" is like discussing which rifle or which battlefield atillery piece was more effective in the U.S. civil war. Who knows? who cares?

    While I cannot speak of others opinions I can address my own outlook and teaching method.

    I don't know who first mentioned it, but this talk of the killing mindset is over the top. And I don't know who, or why, anyone thinks they could teach it to a civilian populace, on a part time basis, in the first place ?
    I'm not sure I even know what a killing mindset is or how to train someone to “ attain it.” Further, I do not think the civilian police forces including the special units, or even the highest levels of military training can guarantee success in inculcating a so-called killing mindset response in a human being. Although effective training under a stress environment and live fire exercises seem to have a reasonably high success rate “in the field” don’t they? Citing Kits examples, as well as looking at other military training methods, it does appear that ramped up training in a stressed environment does afford a higher probability of success once the trainee is exposed to a confrontational environment. In fairness I do not believe that much of what we call “martial art training” comes anywhere near that level of training.
    This is one of the reasons Kit spoke of the subject being outside of the experience of most martial artists. His discussion of the “experienced shooter” has merit and is worthwhile to consider. While it remains that the experienced shooter did indeed prove himself and perform under fire, thus increasing the odds that he will do so again, I would question the validity of the experienced shooter being a “sure shooter” every time. No one knows what a human being will do with a given set of circumstances every time. Stress, and the reaction to stress, is highly individualized.

    While I agree with most of what the detractors to Cady's hypothetical scenarios have submitted, It doesn’t cover the validity of, nor the methods that may be used, to “ramp up” an exponents training in hopes of making them behave automatically in a stress environment.And no, I do not mean making killers out of school teachers and accountants :-) Since various methods ARE used in civilian and military training with high levels of success, no contest should be offered that similar results could and should be sought after in civilian martial arts training courses. Particularly if one has the temerity to claim training in a “martial” art for twenty years. Sooner or later we should be able to make an accounting of ourselves and our efforts.

    That said, I do believe the rest of the conversation can be a productive one geared toward discussing the response levels of various types of training. Whether it be a casually pursued non-confrontational art or a casually pursued hyper-confrontational art, the potential training goals and sought after results can be discussed, albeit theoretically, and comparisons made between the various methods.

    I think it goes without contest that there are various levels of intensity in training out there. The idea of Koryu or Gendai arts being able to be pigeonholed and discussed as definitive things is without merit. There are just as many weak and eviscerated Koryu arts being practiced as there are Gendai. Further, there are even various levels of intensity within any given singular art form, from school to school. Trying to be definitive about what school or art may prove more effective will forever remain inconclusive, for the simple reason that we have no standard by which to judge. It is all conjecture.

    Some personal thoughts on “effectiveness”
    Effectiveness and the discussion of its merits is most often laughed off or summarily dismissed. There are many valid reason for this, not the least of which is that it is a nebulous path to pursue and ridiculously difficult to prove. What should not be dismissed so carelessly however, is that effectiveness is the underpinning of the very thing most of us pursued in the first place. I am not speaking to those who have openly chosen a peaceful art or a meditative “moving Zen” sort of goal. Their goals are their own. For all others, a reasoned discussion of effectiveness, or at least the simple requirement of it, has merits on every level.

    Using an analogy: I find it highly doubtful that anyone would return to a mechanic who; with great flourish and attitude, and the ownership and wielding of beautiful tools of the trade……could not make your car work (effectively). His methods, his tools, his rei (there is garage rei you know), would all be questioned and ultimately considered useless, if he could not make your car run.
    So it is, and rightfully should be, with these arts. It is a sad thing to see someone spend twenty years in a “martial” pursuit and be unable to make a showing of himself. Further still, to be unable to make a showing that transcends your average roughian, street fight “free for all” and exhibited anything resembling control.

    Some people regardless of their pedigree and years, simply cannot make technique work. Others can make reasonable technique work regardless of the environment. They breathe life into the arts.

    There are people who are earnestly trying to be “effective” in their training, but their training does not afford them the tools to be so. I have personally seen the surprised look on people’s faces as they watched their training fall apart before their eyes. Sadder still, are those who cannot resolve the conflict within themselves as to whether “they failed their art” or “their art failed them.” In other words I do believe there are arts that simply will not stand up to severe scrutiny. Others will, and most of us simply do not care either way.

    So, while its amusing to consider and play with the thought,nothing can come of it
    Dan



    [Edited by Dan Harden on 12-27-2000 at 07:48 AM]

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Kit and all,
    I'm afraid that his discussion has diverted away from my original academic point, which was *only* that there is a kind of intensity that must be included in a so-called combat art in order for it to be effective. Furthermore, those who attempt to practice such arts "authentically" are only trying to replicate that intensity of mindset to respect the purpose of the original art.

    I in no way was trying to create some fiction of a "killer mind" or whatever term was used. Nor do I have any interest in killing, only in studying some fascinating old war arts that have no logical place in my daily life.

    So please, don't read things into this that aren't there.

    I'm afraid you and others are entirely misinterpreting what I've been trying to say. My error in communication, I guess.

    So long, happy holidays.

    cg

    cg
    Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
    Cady,

    I am splitting hairs because though you may have experienced what you say, you have no idea whether the others in your dojo can or would kill, no matter how much you may think they "understand" the "killing mindset" through your combative training.

    Frankly, neither do you. You did not make that step from "could have killed the guy" to actually "dropping the hammer" so to speak, the culmination of the act, which is really what we are talking about.

    I say this because this discussion is not really objectively discussing killing, or does budo training/should budo training prepare us for killing, or should we confront the fact that aspects of our budo might cause/are designed to cause death to another, or even that we can tell by someone's art of choice (a "sport" budo over a "killing" budo) whether they are able to do what we think they are/should be able to do. These are all very valuable topics of discussing for someone to truly understand combative budo. You seem to be talking more about your dojo, how the people in your dojo train with the killing mindset, how you consider most of them capable of killing, who you think/what arts you think train so that they are capable of killing, that you think you are capable of killing, etc. It seems like you are trying to prove something to yourself.

    I personally feel that you are overstepping your bounds in this. You can in no way judge another persons "killing capacity" based on a few self defense encounters you have had, no matter how serious those encounters were, or how serious and deadly you feel your training is, let alone what prejudices you have about what type of training they do. No one can judge another person's killing capability without knowing that they have in fact killed. You can only guess. It is incredibly presumptuous to make statements to the effect that you can. You have some idea maybe of what you are capable of, and that is all.

    In my biz, we call people who have pulled the trigger "proven shooters," because we know they will do so if they have to, AS THEY ALREADY HAVE. Everyone else can just wonder. Most pray they never find out. You seem to have it all figured out.

    This topic, and a few others, do get my goat. Armchair theory and dojo "should-could-would" on combative/tactical aspects gets a little tiresome when presented as fact with little practical understanding or application. From what you have written you have been most of the way "there." If you really want to go further, to find out the deepest levels of your own combative/killing mindset, take a job where you have to live this way eight to ten hours a day, where you work around weapons and use weapons as part of that job, where you have to make that decision, "do I dump this guy" more than a few times and find out.


    Kit

    I will be away from E-Budo access for the rest of the holiday after today, so unable to respond to follow up any replies. Which is good. Maybe this one night of the year we shouldn't be talking about killing people.

    [Edited by Kit LeBlanc on 12-25-2000 at 12:18 AM]
    Cady Goldfield

  5. #35
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Guys'

    Interesting discussion as always with the personalties here.

    I offer my two cents worth here because this very subject was the heart and soul of my sensei, Takamura Yukiyoshi's motivation to teach and his methodology for teaching.

    In my experience it is a two tiered challenge to keep an old samurai art in our modern society "alive" without changing it into something different altogether, something essentially unrecognizable from it's root art. This is because the environment of violence, the realities of combat, essentially "The battlefield" has changed. Without the acknowledgement and response to this reality the art will stagnate technically (although not necessarily psychologically) because the environment it was designed to operate in is no longer existent. But is this really bad?

    In my opinion it depends....

    First Tier

    Often it's considered okay for the techniques of an art to stagnate because the techniques/forms are not the focus of the art. They are just tools or devices to teach universal concepts that transcend specific techniques. I believe this is the operational mentality in many arts labeled as "koryu"
    There is nothing necessarily wrong with this line of thinking as long as it's weaknessses for modern practical application are recognized. Some koryu evidently maintain superior psychological training despite the fact that the technical practicality of the art has been compromised by time and changing realities.

    Other's however believe that if the underlying concepts are truly the heart and soul of the art" then specific forms/techniques should be free for modification or complete abandonment. The rational for this is so that time is not wasted pursuing outdated forms. Of course this would imply that another form must be created to teach the same core concept as effectively as the form just discarded. This pursuit is understandable but frequently changes the art into something unrecognizable from its roots. If applied without restraint this would mean that kenjutsu should most effectively morph into gunjutsu based on the applicable truths originally learned in the sword art. Man, what would you call that? Gendai Shinbudo hojutsu.... LOL Sheesh

    People like Takamura Yukiyoshi sought a technical balance between these two positions. A traditional bujutsu with one foot in the past and one in the present. It is my understanding that Araki ryu is similar in philosophy to the Takamura ryuha in this pursuit. ( How about a comment from Ellis Amdur here? ) I admit it is walking a fine line to keep ones balance in this pursuit from a technical standpoint. Without realizing it I ocassionally find myself emphasing either the old or the new to the detriment of the other. Tough stuff keeping ones balance here.

    Second Tier

    This is where there can be no compromise and is the most common failing of all martial arts. Psychology & stress!

    In Takamura Sensei's opinion, where most koryu fail and some really excel is in manifesting the psychology of conflict. This requires dojo training to a level of so much perceived danger that the chemical stress response is slammed into by the student on a consistent basis. Most often in gendai traditions Takamura Sensei felt that this level of psychological training is never even approached... even by those claiming their teaching to be "realistic". This position is well imagined when you consider most common karate or aikido adherents compared with western boxers. You want to see a McDojo black belt karate fighter scared out of his wits just send him in to play around with a good boxer. Worse. imagine the average aikidoka trying a kotegaeshi against an average boxer. After the first blow lands you're going to see a demonstration of chemical stress response bigtime.... if it isn't already a demonstration of involuntary meditation.

    Remember that this level of training is just not desired by the average modern MA student whether from here or especially Japan. Broken bones and bruises are not evidence of what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about real unadulterated fear. The more impersonal the better. You don't necessarily ever even recieve an injury to experience this level of fear... you just think you will.

    The psychology of conflict (notice, I did not say combat) and the psychochemical stress associated with genuine fear are the most ignored aspects of training in all martial arts whether gendai or koryu. Some koryu never lost it while some gendai have found it. Stagnation exists in both camps and is not necessarily bad depending on what you intend to achieve in your training. Most aikidoka don't intend to train to deal with a boxer. It's not part of their paradigm. Karateka.... well... maybe they do and if so, they should turn up the volumn knob to experience what I'm talking about otherwise they're just "playing" at karate aren't they.

    Conclusion


    Many can pontificate or spout eloquently about death, dying and combat but a vast majority of these have never stared the grim reaper in the face at all. (I hear this bravado all the time.) The reality is that you don't have to face death to be a well trained martial artist and those that have faced death may never be properly trainable despite the mortality reinforcing experience. Real "combat" and the associated stress are impossible the experience in a dojo environment. Thats just the way it is. With proper guidence and a good teacher you can however experience genuine psychochemical stress and this is what I call the second tier of training.

    Although abandon by many koryu, the psychology of conflict has not been abandon by them all. Those that have stagnated in psychology are truly dead arts but those who maintain a stagnant or antiquated curriculum are not necessarily dead. There may be much life below the surface, in the mind and heart where it is not easily visible.

    A great karate kata performer may look impressive to the uninitiated when compared to a koryu practitioner demonstrating a simple sword draw but the karateka in his heart & mind may be a martial phamtom because the psychology of conflict was never taught or embraced by him when compared to the swordsman.

    So who is the stagnant martial artist? It sort of depends on what you mean by martial and what you desire from your training doesn't it. Omote and ura.

    Sorry this rambles so much,

    Toby Threadgill

  6. #36
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Excellent response Tobs. I just hope that a balanced discussion can continue without it de-evolving into a "death match" discussion

    You're mentioning the reality of conflict and the facing of it are spot on. further still, is the fact that most people have not been there. I suspect that many people would be rather surprised at their own responses and actions or inactions (good or bad) should a violent encounter happen to them.

    So, Without getting too over the top.........

    I think your tiered examples are probably a good way to add definition to the arguement. However, while WE may be discussing the validity of tiered training and induced stress, so is billy's "speed koratee class."
    I have personally seen what some people "deeply" feel is adaquate response training to make people into "fighters." While the intent was valid and admirable, the results were laughable.
    Futher, I have seen it and heard it discussed in two gendai arts where one method(an admitedly modified, yet recognized sport form) was trully gettin rather edgy and the other (with the famous one liner "One strike can kill") was looking rather silly. Yet both sensei were convinced of the cogency of their method and the results being "oooh" deadly. All you had to do was ask em.

    I have said repeatedly that when I witness arts I seldom spend much time looking at the defense, rather I look at the level of attack offered. The level of attack offered is frequently telling.......
    Who among us has the ability to lead someone through various levels of attack/defense training with any measure of consistant attack offered so as to induce stress? What about attack training while we're at it. What I mean by that is, the other side of the coin is almost NEVER discussed. How do you sieze and attack a human. What openings do you look for, how do you set up and read responses? Diversions? Timing?

    Ok, all that said. Who is the arbiter of what is, or is not, proper effectiveness training?
    You?
    Me?
    A particular koryu /gendai (fill in blank here_______)sensei based on his "supposed" history. Whether true or imaginary is of little consequance. Even proven methods or teachers may be ill equiped to effectively pass on what they know. Even when they are able to, some students never "get it" anyway.

    Then...
    Effective training in what? weapons?
    free style sparring in a ring on spring loaded floors?
    What?


    Remember that many people out there think they can fit the bill. Look at all the Aikido guys who have added atemi to their techniques, did them "harder" instead of softer and then started selling themselves as Aki-jujutsu masters. Have you seen Combat-Judo yet? How about all the neet new joint locks and throws re-discovered in TKD-jutsu?
    what if the TKD system has an occasional guy who can simply "fight well", and the Aikijujutsu guy is an aiki-bunny? does either example validate or in-validate the whole art?

    I meant what I said when I said it is a rather deep discussion if taken seriously. One with much nuance, and detail that can be easily misunderstood.
    It becomes highly subjective.

    Chemical stress response:
    This is something that I believe can be attained in a dojo environment and done so repeatedly. However it must be a tailored exercise with varying levels of control on the antogonists side. Once an adept is brought through stages or tiers, the response needs to be altered. Ultimately the aim will be to ramp up the response and this requires experience to do.

    Fear, and the resultant adrenellin dump:
    This can and will produce interesting responses in a person; interupted breathing, profuse sweating, narrowing of vision, slow motor response, loss of fine motor movement,the otherworldy "I didn't think I just acted" (which, in realtiy, can be both good and bad). These join together to produce the "runners wall" (if you will) to an artist.

    It is my opinion (just an opinion mind you)that proper training should include facing "the wall" and doing so until you can function through it.
    If you are about the business you will hear students talk of it. "The buzz" the "narrow vision" "automatic response"
    the head spinning ride home.....

    A small but beautiful and comical example of it, is something I just saw recently in an otake training video at his Dojo. He was in Kata with a student, The student was hyper intense with *sweat pouring out* profusely. Otake was cool and calm. Both were moving at an accelerated yet managable metered pace in Kata. When it stopped, suddenly you saw the students posture and zanshin collapse! He broke into a wide grin, a sort of, "I did it" IT's over" and the whole room gave a knowing laugh.

    I agree that this type of training can be had without excessive danger to the opponents life or limbs. But! Randori, done without voluntary throwing yourself as uke, and actually offering centered attacks to a shite who uses very soft techniques not designed to throw people gently rolling away but to break joints and drop vertically, as well as choke do sometimes result in injuries.

    All THAT said, chemically induced stress isn't hard to do to my mother, aks her to drive in 2" of snow. Chemically inducing stress in me may be a whole other topic.....
    Like asking me to DRIVE my mother somewhere in 2" of snow.

    Koryu and its modern relavancy
    I think many elements in Koryu may be highly relavant in todays world. INCLUDING modified techniques.

    As a side note it is rare to hear anyone talk about Koryu weapons training and any correlation to modern combatives. There are various methods of dealing with multiple armed opponets that have a correlation to modern hand gun combatives. as a small example; The Vectoring and attack methods for startling and upsettting one opponent to another, then re-aquiring for a kill, have direct correlation to modern room sweep techniques. I seriously doubt any sixteen century Bushi had to think about target aquisition and offline handgun firing, but the body mechanics are all relavant from sword to hand gun.
    Moreover, the psychology of combat, I would suppose, transcends time and circumstance.


    Dan
    Look at that Kit! Not one mention of killers and "killing mindset," And not one drop of saliva on the keyboard.





    [Edited by Dan Harden on 12-31-2000 at 12:16 AM]

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    moving to Westerly R.I.
    Posts
    230
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Thank you Dan

    You (and Toby to some extent) struck at the heart of what I was trying to get. Stress is a chemical function/malfunction. I have been scared in the Dojo I have been scared in car accidents hell I've even been scared in fights but the most scared I've ever been was "WORKING" on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrier. How one deals with stress is trained not natural in my opinion. If your Dojo trains in a manner as Dan describes then stress just becomes something else you deal with if you don't well then you freeze in a bad situation and if your lucky you live and learn. I'll not stand here and say that Combat is easy (that would be stupid) but I will say that I've lived though working in the worlds most dangerous job bar none. the skills I learned on the mat made a big difference to my survival.
    As for Koryu weapons, in class last sunday I notice the truely deceptive way some techniques are performed. This is not to say that my sempai was tricking me rather that his proper execution of of a simple Hontai uchi was such that I couldn't see how long the stick was or exactly where he was in the swing. I really had to rely on other cues to maitain proper ma-ai (and not get brained). I've seem security forces on base and police officers training with both battons and drawing techniques that acheive this same result. From an observers POV this isn't something you can see easily but from the business end of the weapon it proved to be down right spooky. I fell it a very defencive position that my sensei immediatly saw and commented on when we were finished. My comments about it were met with some amusement and then agreement. Now I just have to figure out how to do it myself.
    Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow...
    ...that's what makes my thumper go

  8. #38
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default

    Thanks Dan!

    You and Toby have taken this discussion in the right direction. Perhaps the whole "killing mind" and killing in the dojo thing won't surface again either, and I won't feel I should respond to it again!



    Kit

    [Edited by Kit LeBlanc on 12-31-2000 at 02:23 AM]

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Thumbs up

    Fellow e-Budo correspondents,

    I have been a member of this message board for about 3 days now and I am in heaven!! I have never had the opportunity to correspond with so many thoughtful reasoned people about subjects that are important to me.
    Let me say that I have found everyone’s perspectives to be interesting and thought provoking. One of the concerns I have found mentioned on many of the e-Budo threads is the fact that the discussions seem to get off the original topic. I personally welcome the differing directions that individuals take and the themes that each individual is passionate about. Remember that this is the first BB I have participated in since I have been on the net (approx. 5 years now). I am still not sure if getting off topic is considered bad form or if it is just a slight irritation for some.

    At any rate, what I would like to address is the topic of kata and/or training loosing the “passion or purpose-- as though they had forgotten the reason why their art was developed to begin with,” that Cady mentioned in the initial post on this thread.

    I have been reading a very interesting book written by D. T. Suzuki entitled, “Zen and Japanese Culture”. Even though Japanese culture is mentioned in the title it is primarily concerned with Zen’s relationship to swordsmanship in the Japanese culture. In section 3 of the chapter entitled “Zen and Swordsmanship”, D. T. writes:

    “When the sword is in the hands of a technician-swordsman skilled in its use, it is no more than an instrument with no mind of its own. What it does is done mechanically, and there is no myoyu discernible in it. But when the sword is held by the swordsman whose spiritual attainment is such that he holds it as though not holding it, it is identified with the man himself, it acquires a soul, it moves with all the subtleties that have been imbedded in him as a swordsman. The man emptied of all thoughts, all emotions originating from fear, all sense of insecurity, all desire to win, is not conscious of using the sword; both man and sword turn into instruments in the hands, as it were, of the unconscious, and it is this unconscious that achieves wonders of creativity. It is here that swordplay becomes an art. …The swordsman calls this unconscious “the mind that is no-mind” (mushin no shin).”

    I know that to many of you the information in this passage is not news, but read the definition of myoyu that D. T. provides. I think it addresses Cady’s concerns aptly. At least I think it identifies what Cady perceives is missing.

    “ Myoyu…or simply myo is quite a difficult word for English-speaking people to grasp. It is a certain artistic quality perceivable not only in works of art but in anything in Nature or life. The sword in the hands of the swordsman attains this quality when it is not a mere display of technical skill patiently learned under the tutorship of a good master, for myo is something original and creative growing out of one’s own unconscious. The hands may move according to the technique given to every student, but there is a certain spontaneity and personal creativity when the technique, conceptualized and universalized, is handled by the master hand.”

    Later he paraphrases Yagu Tajima no kami Munenori:

    “He says that the mind that is no mind is the last stage in the art of swordplay. “To be of no-mind” (mushin) means the “everyday mind” (heijo-shin), and when this is attained, everything goes well. In the beginning, one naturally endeavors to do his best in handling the sword, as learning any other art. The technique has to be mastered. But as soon as his mind is fixed on anything, for instance if he desires to do well, or display his skill, or to excel others, or if he is too anxiously bent on mastering his art, he is sure to commit more mistakes than are actually necessary. Why? Because his self-consciousness or ego-consciousness is too conspicuously present over the entire range of his attention—which fact interferes with a free display of whatever proficiency he has so far acquired or is going to acquire. He must rid himself of this obtruding self- or ego-consciousness and apply himself to the work to be done as if nothing particular were taking place at the moment. When things are performed in a state of no-mind (mushin) or no-thought (munen) which means the absence of all modes of self- or ego-consciousness, the actor is perfectly free from inhibitions and feels nothing thwarting his line of behavior.”

    Tell me what you think.


    Sincerely,
    Scott R. Brown
    Scott R. Brown

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
    Thanks Dan!

    You and Toby have taken this discussion in the right direction. Perhaps the whole "killing mind" and killing in the dojo thing won't surface again either, and I won't feel I should respond to it again!



    Kit

    [Edited by Kit LeBlanc on 12-31-2000 at 02:23 AM]
    Gimme a break, Kit.
    Cady Goldfield

  11. #41
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default

    Cady,

    Please. You posted some things, your opinions, where I felt you were off base. I posted and called you on things that I disagreed with. Isn't that what E-Budo is all about?

    There was no "saliva" on the keyboard when I posted. You started talking about killing, killing mind, and your opinion of people in your dojo and their capacity in this area, and it is not appropriate to state my opinion on this? Why? Because I don't agree with what you are saying?

    Perhaps I misunderstood your postings, as you previously stated. Maybe I am being misunderstood as well.

    Kit LeBlanc

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    David F. Craik

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Didn't anyone read my post.
    Cady, does it or does it not address your original question?

    Sincerely,
    Scott R. Brown
    Scott R. Brown

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Kit,
    You are still commenting based on what I believe are misinterpretations of what I was trying to say. However, Dan and Toby have far more experience than I, and did a much better job expressing completely what I intended. Thus, I shall leave any future opining on these and all other related subjects to them. But, I'll sing it one more time, then give it a permanent rest: If one is going to practice a combat system, the sole intent of which was to kill an opponent, then to try to perpetuate its existance and practice without fully committing oneself to the intent and intensity -- both physically and psychologically -- reduces the method to dancing in the air with a pointed stick. Without ever wanting to actually kill a person, we strive to put full intent, focus and purpose into each stroke in order to approximate the authenticity of the art. That's all. 'K?
    I'm going over to GardenWeb.com now to have pleasant discussions on transplanting ornamental bamboos and forcing amaryllis bulbs indoors.

    Scott,
    Interesting post and insights.
    What you are suggesting is perhaps more elaborate and more philosophical was than my original intent, which was more simplistic and basic. The approach set forth in "The Sword and the Mind" (the work of Munenori Yagyu) is more in keeping, philosophically. IOW, a pragmatic assessment of sword combat method and strategies, and their accompanying logic.

    Happy New Year/Century/Millennium all. Yes, I mean you too, Kit!
    Cady Goldfield

  15. #45
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default

    Cady,

    I guess the above was just my own reaction, based on my personal experiences with so many budo folks who claim deep romantic warrior and/or killer elite notions yet are really pretty clueless about real conflict where their personal safety is truly in jeopardy, let alone doing it professionally. And what such a life does to people.

    This is something which most do not want to face for themselves, yet seem to think they HAVE faced through virtue of their dojo training, and that such training is really the "field of conflict," and that they are thus qualified to comment on their combative experience. So yeah, maybe I unloaded a little.

    At least you are dealing with these questions in your training. So many don't even think about what the subject really means.

    And Happy New Year to you too.

    Kit LeBlanc

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •