Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: On the shoulders of giants

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    256
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default On the shoulders of giants

    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.
    Peter Ross

    Waiter: "Can I tell you about today's specials?"
    Patrick Bateman: "Not if you want to keep your spleen"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    Mr. Ross,

    I'm not sure if I can agree with some of your initial premises.
    Quote Originally Posted by meat View Post
    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.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    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.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    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.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    256
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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?
    Peter Ross

    Waiter: "Can I tell you about today's specials?"
    Patrick Bateman: "Not if you want to keep your spleen"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    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.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    186
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Josh Reyer View Post
    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?
    -John Nguyen

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nii View Post
    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...
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    1,620
    Likes (received)
    108

    Default

    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
    Hyakutake Colin

    All the best techniques are taught by survivors.


    http://www.hyoho.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meat View Post
    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.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    256
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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?
    Peter Ross

    Waiter: "Can I tell you about today's specials?"
    Patrick Bateman: "Not if you want to keep your spleen"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meat View Post
    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.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    320
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    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.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    Hyaku-san:

    Quote Originally Posted by hyaku View Post
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by hyaku View Post
    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?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •