Adapting Koryu

[Hissho]

Chris -

"Elope?" He was taking off the get married??

Other Chris -

Iai has some contextual crossover, not so much in the way of technical crossover (though the discussion of appendix carry does come in, but that would be too much thread drift).

I think we discussed the pedagogy for teaching zanshin up-thread. But we can delve in again more deeply......I think the IHS actually had some really good stuff in terms of theoretics describing the "soft" elements that classical teaching had in terms of mindset and zanshin, but unfortunately the terminology that was chosen ended up being pretty mind boggling complicated for laymen. It tool me several readings of all the articles collected together to really start to get a handle on it. I don't think it needs to be that complex.

Suffice it say, the underlying philosophy and rationale of the warrior would be the fertile ground for the "seeds of zanshin" planted through kata training. You would have to have that as a starting point: this would necessitate the understanding of the practice as a preparation for life and death, and where death was a very real outcome to those people training it, not in training, of course, but in their "field" application.

The idea that one was facing a trained adversary, the whole 1/3 chance of living when trained warriors faced each other, the idea above that it was a professional responsibility to be prepared for and expect surprise attack, situations of disadvantage, unequal initiative, etc. what today we would call "asymmetric encounters;" to whit, the description of that the term "iai" is supposed to mean - preparing for and adapting to (harmonizing with) whatever situation an adversary might impose.... the idea of "certain victory" and "certain death" and that one who embraces the latter and embraces the idea of facing death well will in fact often be the one who survives versus those who fearfully cling to life. The whole embrace of death thing had nothing to do with suicide or throwing life away for early warriors, but rather through embracing death achieving life this instead.

A very difficult thing to practice, something that early bushi no doubt had inculcated in them from childhood. It exists in other cultures, but the West is one in particular that seems to have lost it.

This being the raw material, the seeds get planted through kata not as simple technical exercises (which happens at first, of course, and must) but with an increasing emphasis on the "intent" of the adversary, on challenging the trainee's equanimity through intensifying what is happening, increasing the speed, changing the rythm, breaking the kata, etc. as is described in many traditional ryu....

This is not "real" zanshin, or as IHS called "unlimited zanshin," which is where actual death or serious injury is faced, but "delimited zanshin" which is basically a way to develop stress inoculation in the face of increasingly dynamic practice where pain is a possible outcome.

I'd imagine that back in the days when warriors were a much tougher lot, without the various liability issues with training that we have today, they pushed the envelope quite a bit more.Not trying to hurt each other, mind you, but simply accepting that to train for serious combat, serious training was necessary and a certain level of injury was probably far more acceptable to them than it would be with us today, even in professional circles.


I remember once watching a kata demonstration in which a senior exponent was paired with a clearly more junior one. They were doing some such sword or jo kata, I honestly can't remember as that was not what struck me about their interaction. The senior guy was I think in the receiving role. They engaged, and the normal wood on wood "clack" that we were hearing with the other groups demonstrating at the same time was not heard with these two. Instead, there was a dull thud. We all knew what that meant, somebody got whacked on the hand pretty hard.

The senior had no apparent reaction, and continued with the kata. The junior guy, though not obvious in a physical sense, clearly did have a reaction, and that a "negative" one. Fleetingly, a pained look came across his face and one of apparent concern. This was very slight, but the change in the energy of the kata was palpable. There was an "emptiness" (suki) there in his intent, that one could clearly tell would have been pierced right through with the intent of the senior. The junior did not break the form, did not stop in the technical sense in any way, but there was a change in his "aura" based on the fact that his mind had obviously not "remained" in what he was doing.

Come to find out it was the senior that had taken the hit, and the junior delivered it.

That's what I mean. There is a lot of training relevance to this, especially the higher up in intensity you go.

[Nathan Scott]

From my point of view, koryu arts contain deeper teachings, which require a longer period of time to master. They also don't look as "cool" as modern arts, and the effectiveness of koryu are not as obvious to someone new to martial arts than the modern arts. The typical Koryu method of learning requires patience, persistence, maturity, and mental analysis of the teachings. Most koryu also either do not demonstrate at all, or when demonstrating, don't show their true application, applied application (real fighting), or inner teachings. The etiquette required in Koryu is often more strict than that of gendai arts, as is the student selection criteria. Bottom line, these reasons make it less appealing for younger/newer students of martial arts.

From my point of view, the ideal student is someone who has already studied some form of modern martial art for at least 10 years before taking up koryu. Such a student has already been using their body in a more physical way than most koryu, and have often come to a place where they can appreciate a long term commitment to a non-profit dojo that offers a lifetime of learning opportunity.

For me, I'm in no hurry to be a "teacher". All that means for most people is standing around correcting others who are training. This is a common rut that many get in to in gendai arts, which in many cases begins to feel like a burden with little reward, since you are rarely learning anything new yourself. I already went through that teaching gendai arts. The way I teach now with Koryu arts is non-verbal for the most part, encouraging what I call guided self-discovery. This allows me to continue training and learning in arts that seem to be endless in teachings, while at the same time, providing me with a class full of training partners. For me, this is much more gratifying, and I always look forward to going to the dojo because I know I will be polishing my own skills and learning something too. Some koryu offer a level of advancement that one can still perform effectively at older ages too, which makes them an attractive investment of time.

Koryu arts emphasize mental aspects more (manipulation of distances and timing, tactics, energy connection, mental conditioning, etc.), and consist of increasingly more advanced methods, which in turn increases your odds of success in a real fight.

Personally, I think encouraging most younger students to study gendai arts first before pursuing koryu arts is probably the best way to go. It gives them a place to burn off energy, perform cooler looking and/or more athletic techniques, become familiarized with the idea of culture and etiquette (in some cases), and establish a reasonable physical foundation and perspective for them in other martial arts. Many koryu teachers use a gendai art as a filter for their koryu art anyway, which is also a good idea.

As far as application of koryu arts in real situations, I find that I rely on my experience/skills in swordsmanship prior to making contact with someone, and then convert to my experience/skills in empty-hand (jujutsu, aiki, etc.) once I put hands on. As such, although it seems like a less obvious choice compared to koryu jujutsu, I view koryu kenjutsu as a very valuable art to study in terms of modern day situations.

FWIW,

[Kendoguy9]

Yeah the first time I heard elope in that context I thought the same thing. Besides going away to Las Vegas to get married I think the only other time you hear that word used is in the mental health field.

She did well overall I think; she held the kid back from rolling down a hill, managed to call on the radio for more help and avoided getting a good braining. She was also able to recognize she didn't have all the "soft skills" we've been talking about and wants to train for more of them. I'd call that a win

[johan smits]

Kit,

' Otherwise, I think the "popularity" discussion is a separate one, as mentioned above.

This last is intentionally provocative, intended that is for more discussion rather than as a B.S. electronic tiger way of slamming Kim or anybody else: I am wondering if the whole "geeks and nerds into obscure stuff" is more revealing commentary about resistance or dismissal to the idea of some koryu being relevant in the modern day than anything else. It would be a shock indeed, perhaps, to have an influx of special ops type guys, blooded in actual battles, extremely fit and very aggressive into the koryu. Even one or two in a particular dojo might seriously upset the current order of things...'

Maybe you are right. On the other hand what is happening here is history in reverse so to speak. Koryu were created by and for bushi and were increasingly trained by commoners. This happended over a long period in which there was probably some decline in those (ko)ryu.
Koryu goes West and it is mostly practised by commoners with very little input from ' pro's' .

I think this discussion about adaptation has got a lot of facets which you can separate for the discussion but are actually related and influence each other.

One point is quality of teaching - Nathan mentioned - hence my question way back in this thread if a special koryu teachers course exists? If not why not? Quality of teaching is important. The fact you can kick someone's arse , koryu-wise or else does not mean you can teach it well to another person.
Lack of good teaching will mean the more critical student walks.

I have been training for some thirty-five years and am a teacher myself.
When I ask a teacher of koryu in which I consider training questions (not asking for special treatment or for info from higher levels or anything like that)
and I, for whatever reason, do not get reasonable and clear answers to my questions than I am not going to train under that teacher.


I just found the answer to one of my questions in a post by Nathan:

' . Many koryu teachers use a gendai art as a filter for their koryu art anyway, which is also a good idea.'

That could account for the fact why there are only so few people training in koryu


Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Josh Reyer]

One point is quality of teaching - Nathan mentioned - hence my question way back in this thread if a special koryu teachers course exists? If not why not? Quality of teaching is important. The fact you can kick someone's arse , koryu-wise or else does not mean you can teach it well to another person.
Lack of good teaching will mean the more critical student walks.

I have been training for some thirty-five years and am a teacher myself.
When I ask a teacher of koryu in which I consider training questions (not asking for special treatment or for info from higher levels or anything like that)
and I, for whatever reason, do not get reasonable and clear answers to my questions than I am not going to train under that teacher.

I can only speak for the particular koryu that I do, but the above is the exact opposite of what the procedure is. There is no "teaching" per se. The instructor models what is to be done. The student then practices it. Then the student must find how to do it themselves. There are kuden -- the hints and signposts along the way, but they don't actually tell what to do or how to do it. Really all the teacher can do is tell you what you're doing wrong. They generally can't tell you how to do it right, because it's your body, and only you can figure out the alchemy of sensations and visualizations that lead you to doing the technique naturally an easily: a full, personal understanding of what the teacher has modeled, rather than just a mannered copy.

From my own experience, this has been a frustrating experience for many Westerners. I suspect it's frustrating for Japanese, as well, but they don't tend to share their frustrations with me. Interpreting for the non-Japanese deshi, though, I've found that all too often they will ask the teacher or one of the old men of the ryu a precise technical question; "Should I move my foot first, and then cut?" or "Please teach me correct tenouchi." And the answer will be "Don't worry about things like that, just move with your whole body." Or, "Tightly with the pinky, not at all with the forefinger and thumb, and in between for the other fingers," basically what they were already told the first day of practice, and not the guide-manual answer they were looking for.

To be sure, some students get frustrated and walk away. But what can you do? Only they can figure out how they can do it. I think this is where the phrase, "Welcome any who come, chase after none who leave" comes from. Any and everything that a teacher can explicitly impart to the student generally is imparted to the student. It's all the other important stuff that the student has to figure out for themselves. To an extent, they have to reinvent the wheel, a wheel just perfect for them.

These days, more than in the past I think, there's a bit more explicit explanation, and yet the constant refrain we hear when we start doing uchidachi is "Don't try to explain. Show, and make them do it."

My job is teaching, but more and more I've found that the style above informs my regular job more than my teaching experience avails me on the dojo floor. And also that many of the newer pedagogies are moving closer to the old ways. Provide objectives, provide a structure for students to experiment, and let them figure it out for themselves. The knowledge is more internalized, and knowledge discovered is twice as sweet as knowledge given.

[johan smits]

Hi Josh,

Thanks for a very clear explanation! I do understand what you are saying and I do not think the method in use is not good. On the contrary there is something to say for especially if that which can be explained is explained.
But since this thread is about adaption I think the question about teaching is interesting.
Obviously the classical teaching method in koryu is a Japanese system with it's roots in Japanese society.

In case you transplant koryu to The West is this system still the best to teach koryu, or not? Should koryu adapt it's teaching method? Can this be done without losing essential elements of these arts? Or not?

Kawaishi sensei who brought judo to France and Europe developed another way of teachings the Europeans very different from Kodokan or Butokukai or wherever his roots lay.
Some are pro- some are contra- but it is a well used method especially in the beginning days of European judo.

And further: how are you going to arrange for insurance? Can you do that without a recognized teacher's license? In my country only against considerabel costs.


I am the guy who asks the questions - I don't provide the answers.
I do not have them, I hope to learn something from those giving theirs.



Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Josh

That was great, thanks.

When I think about it, it makes a lot of sense. First, when the ryu were being formed, almost every student would already have a background in a lot of the basics simply from being born into the warrior class. There would be a lot of things that would just be known and not need to be explained.

And some were probably coming in with skill in other ryu, and experience in combat.

Something that confirms this for me was reading about one ryu where the second generation had already devised a new set of forms to teach people the basics of sword handling before they embarked on the more challenging older forms. Why? Because the basic sword skills of students coming in had already deteriorated so much the bulk needed extra training.

That was in the early 1600s, what does that say for us today?

Second - since most of the Sengoku era people would already have some skills, the rest would just be gravy. A teacher would be serving the overall purpose by just making sure they weren't screwing up too badly, exhorting them to practice, and modeling for them.

And it would also identify who potential future menkyo kaiden holders might be: those who just "got it." They would then get more attention.

This is different from "keeping it from people." It is instead making people earn it, naturally separating them out by aptitude and ability, rather than offering "equal opportunity learning experience to match each student's uniqueness, growing the rainbow of diversity that our ryu is supposed to be..."

More and more I think of it like a special unit which entails a selection process, and not just anybody gets to "play," rather than an egalitarian approach where a teacher tries to make everyone succeed. Very Confucian - I give you one corner, you come back with the other three.

Logistically if we think about it, trying to get a group of even five or eight students to full license would be quite an onerous task for a teacher that also still wanted to train. Especially if he had to spoon feed some of them, and hold back others, by keeping things equal and treating everybody the same.

[johan smits]

"More and more I think of it like a special unit which entails a selection process, and not just anybody gets to "play," rather than an egalitarian approach where a teacher tries to make everyone succeed. Very Confucian - I give you one corner, you come back with the other three.

Logistically if we think about it, trying to get a group of even five or eight students to full license would be quite an onerous task for a teacher that also still wanted to train. Especially if he had to spoon feed some of them, and hold back others, by keeping things equal and treating everybody the same. "


I hear what you are saying Kit.

Question : would a koryu have a better chance of survival for a longer period of time if it had two Menkyo Kaiden holders or say ten in one generation?

Just asking.

Happy landings.

Johan Smits

[Maro]

I can only speak for the particular koryu that I do, but the above is the exact opposite of what the procedure is. There is no "teaching" per se. The instructor models what is to be done. The student then practices it. Then the student must find how to do it themselves. There are kuden -- the hints and signposts along the way, but they don't actually tell what to do or how to do it. Really all the teacher can do is tell you what you're doing wrong. They generally can't tell you how to do it right, because it's your body, and only you can figure out the alchemy of sensations and visualizations that lead you to doing the technique naturally an easily: a full, personal understanding of what the teacher has modeled, rather than just a mannered copy.

From my own experience, this has been a frustrating experience for many Westerners. I suspect it's frustrating for Japanese, as well, but they don't tend to share their frustrations with me. Interpreting for the non-Japanese deshi, though, I've found that all too often they will ask the teacher or one of the old men of the ryu a precise technical question; "Should I move my foot first, and then cut?" or "Please teach me correct tenouchi." And the answer will be "Don't worry about things like that, just move with your whole body." Or, "Tightly with the pinky, not at all with the forefinger and thumb, and in between for the other fingers," basically what they were already told the first day of practice, and not the guide-manual answer they were looking for.

To be sure, some students get frustrated and walk away. But what can you do? Only they can figure out how they can do it. I think this is where the phrase, "Welcome any who come, chase after none who leave" comes from. Any and everything that a teacher can explicitly impart to the student generally is imparted to the student. It's all the other important stuff that the student has to figure out for themselves. To an extent, they have to reinvent the wheel, a wheel just perfect for them.

These days, more than in the past I think, there's a bit more explicit explanation, and yet the constant refrain we hear when we start doing uchidachi is "Don't try to explain. Show, and make them do it."

My job is teaching, but more and more I've found that the style above informs my regular job more than my teaching experience avails me on the dojo floor. And also that many of the newer pedagogies are moving closer to the old ways. Provide objectives, provide a structure for students to experiment, and let them figure it out for themselves. The knowledge is more internalized, and knowledge discovered is twice as sweet as knowledge given.

Thank you for that.

As someone who is tentatively assisting others in a study group, that answers a lot of questions and suspicions I've had.

[johan smits]

Just a few words.

Last night, when I was mumbling ' koryu... koryu ' Marishiten appeared to me in the form of a strickingly beautiful brunette. She made a universal mudra by placing her indexfinger vertically before her lips and shaking her head slowly from side to side. With one finger she pointed to me and with her other hand beckoned me to her. The rest is okuden and cannot be told...

Anyway.

Looking back at this thread I see two parts: one about the adaptation of the techniques (and essence of the ryu) into this day and age and another culture and one about the organisational matters amongst others.
The first part is enormously interesting the second part less so but still when taking a larger viewpoint important, I feel.

What connects the two (I feel) is teaching, transferring knowledge and skill.
The traditional way of transmitting koryu, ' do as I do' , so to speak will work up to a certain point I think.
This way of teaching will find it's ' examination ' in real life. You do it as your teacher has shown you and if it's not good enough - bump goes your head.

This leaves the bloodied pro well taken care of.

The geeks so to speak will never have a way to find out if they have learned well what they have learned.
Tenouchi in the dojo is one thing. Tenouchi while making contact with a motorrider's helmet worn by someone who is running at you is something else and normally not experienced by the geekish on a regular basis.

So summing it up for myself it seems to me it's the pro's who are ' adapting ' koryu and the geeks who are ' adopting ' koryu.

Ah well as long as the last group doesn't go pointy-eared w'll be okay.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits ...chasing Marishiten

[Lockfield]

Just a few words.

Last night, when I was mumbling ' koryu... koryu ' Marishiten appeared to me in the form of a strickingly beautiful brunette. She made a universal mudra by placing her indexfinger vertically before her lips and shaking her head slowly from side to side. With one finger she pointed to me and with her other hand beckoned me to her. The rest is okuden and cannot be told...


Happy landings,

Johan Smits ...chasing Marishiten

errr, in some places Marici/Marishiten is a guy...

be careful...

[johan smits]

'errr, in some places Marici/Marishiten is a guy...

be careful... '


Okay, let me explain,

the strickingly tall brunette in question was female - no doubt about it.
She can also take the f orm of a very tall slim blonde with a ponytail and high black ridingboots.
But never - I repeat - NEVER - does Marishiten - in my visions - take the form of anything else than female.
Honest to God.

Sometimes she rides a hog, but as I have already explained that is okuden... and well you know it ,,,


Happy landings

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Been enjoying Chris Li's interesting blog at Aikido Sangenkai.

I daresay that what he is discussing pertains to the discussion here. In a sense, it is revealing what got "stripped out" of a particular modern art (aikido), turning it into a "budo lite" (love that one!) has largely been glossed over in classical arts as well, to make them more understandable and accessible to a wider audience.

Here not speaking of the physical body skills, but rather that the philosophical and psychological training has also been watered down or stripped out, or on the other end perverted (WWII Bushido and other antics of "masters" being a perfect example of the latter.)

Following this line of thinking, touching upon awase/ai, the idea of the Life Giving Sword (also doing some reading elsewhere on this - the "spiritual" community I don't think gets it, either...), "winning with the sword in the scabbard" and so on is applicable in terms of conceptualizing mindset, and proper training in it, and can/should be adapted to modern times.

I've already noted that mindset is typically either a toss-off addendum to an almost entirely physical training program, traditional or modern. Though frequently a mantra in both kinds of training halls, though people talk about "the will to win," it is - literally - almost never trained effectively. It generally manifests as:

a) Empty Talk (a cool name for a martial arts forum, actually ) - in other words the kind of "oh yeah, you have to do it with mindset....like Bruce Lee said, you need 'emotional content'..."

b) Vague and ambiguous philosophical terminology with little concrete experiential understanding or explanation. This is exacerbated by the fact that much traditional Chinese and Japanese "scientific" terminology relative to human performance is couched in magico-religous terms because that was their science....the thing is warriors were talking from common experiences with life and death encounters and shared visceral (literally) understanding of what those terms were referring to, that are lacking in most martial artists today, thus leading to a vaguer expression of what (insert concept) 'is' than someone who would be grounded in that culture and would have psycho-physiologic touchstones to refer to when considering such a concept and relating to the stress they felt in combat.

c) Passive training of mindset. That is, even in the most challenging and active kata, there is little or no direct instruction on "this is what is happening in your mind....this is what should be happening....in order to get this to happen, when you start thinking THAT way, you need to use THESE strategies, and start thinking THIS way...." and so on. Nor is there a "real world" equivalent...."in training we are dealing with this kind of stress, that can cause this kind of thinking, in an actual situation, the stress will have more of this character, and therefore you need to make doubly sure that you do this in order to deal with that..."

I think this is exactly what the mental aspect of kata is supposed to be doing, and why there is so much within kuden and gokui, as they are what makes the experience more 'real.' Though this could also be misconstrued and devolve to "samurai role playing" if taken too far.

Modern force on force suffers from the same thing: "mindset training" occurs passively in the form of "stress inoculation" simply because the training is stressful. There is very little instruction on what and how people are thinking, rather, debriefs are typically "you need to be more aggressive." The upshot is that someone who is not performing well tends to be stuck not performing well, or that people who do well at a certain level tend to fall apart (to use a Boydian term disintegrate i.e. dis-integrate- with the richness that term implies) the higher the stress goes.

My view is that there is a training/teaching model in the classical tradition (with the caveat that we may be dealing with the very same situation aikido is dealing with) that can be drawn from. In other words if that model is presented with a higher fidelity to the actual meaning rather than the budo lite that has been served up.

The whole ethical aspect is a related matter, and incredibly important. I think that it is exactly right that these traditions were about a combative ethos first and foremost. But a "life giving," "sword in the scabbard" ethos that is predicated on greater fighting and psychological skills. I guarantee you that people who have a lot more training, who have trained with more intensity, who have had their minds and bodies tested, tend to keep far more level heads, use more appropriate force, don't panic under violent conditions, and have more "time" to exercise restraint because of that skill level and calm.

I can think of few nobler aims that to have a societies armed professions steeped in a tradition of mindful use of force that does not glorify killing and display and machismo but calm, cool, professionalism and measured use of force. This does not mean hesitation - far from it, hesitation is a hallmark of fear and uncertainty- but rather a knowing when you have to do what you have to do, and doing it decisively.

In a day and age when you have panic-shootings, six year olds with shards of glass being Tased, and either over-reaction or under-reaction to force incidents, I think there something here is needed.

[johan smits]

Please note before:
This post is written while in a lighthearted mood.

“ I can think of few nobler aims that to have a societies armed professions steeped in a tradition of mindful use of force that does not glorify killing and display and machismo but calm, cool, professionalism and measured use of force. “



“ I daresay that what he is discussing pertains to the discussion here. In a sense, it is revealing what got "stripped out" of a particular modern art (aikido), turning it into a "budo lite" (love that one!) has largely been glossed over in classical arts as well, to make them more understandable and accessible to a wider audience. “

So what is said here is that if an art attracts more people, when it becomes available to a wider audience it automatically turns into a “ budo lite “ i.e. something that is not the “genuine “ thing but good enough for them?

Maybe the average Joe and John don’t need the ‘ real ‘ material for the ‘ real ‘ men but they do have the need for some form of self-protection. ( Which in other words has been the subject of one of my previous posts.)

But why not buy a gun? Have ten (or twenty) lessons and there you go. That seems to me to be the ultimate form of ‘ budolite’ .

On the other hand one could also take the fact that John and Joe and their family do need some form of self-protection seriously and formulate a system or let’s say adapt a system to cater to their needs (unworthy as they are though). So that they can leave their guns at home – make the world a better place. Wear flowers in your hair.

" I've already noted that mindset is typically either a toss-off addendum to an almost entirely physical training program, traditional or modern. Though frequently a mantra in both kinds of training halls, though people talk about "the will to win," it is - literally - almost never trained effectively. "

Explain please how this can be trained.


“ I think this is exactly what the mental aspect of kata is supposed to be doing, and why there is so much within kuden and gokui, as they are what makes the experience more 'real.' Though this could also be misconstrued and devolve to "samurai role playing" if taken too far. “

Making experiences more real? This bothers me.

On gokui and kuden.
It could very well be that gokui and kuden are not so much different from the advice fighting men have passed along though the ages.
I knew a man who has seen his share of nasty jungle warfare in some remnants of our Glorious Dutch Colonial past. The things he told me were nothing profound but just practical advice and that from someone who had been there and who had experienced these things for real.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

[Hissho]

Not meant to be snarky, but it is meant to be challenging - in the way that the following is meant to challenge your own thinking on this. If only because it appears the circle of this discussion has become a spiral....

But why not buy a gun? Have ten (or twenty) lessons and there you go. That seems to me to be the ultimate form of ‘ budolite’ .

Not if done properly. The use of firearms is just as much of a martial art as what we are talking about here. The fact that this is so little understood and so blithely talked about says much about why discussions like this go round and round.

Explain please how this can be trained.

I have. I think it is something you need to experience directly. I REALLY hate to say this, but apparently "It Has To Be Felt"

Making experiences more real? This bothers me.

Confirming for me that we are on different wavelengths.

The things he told me were nothing profound but just practical advice and that from someone who had been there and who had experienced these things for real.

Exactly!