View Full Version : Zen and the martial arts
Charlie Kondek
4th May 2001, 20:25
Hi, people. I didn't want to hijack anyone else's thread, so if what I am asking here seems redundant to what's being discussed elsewhere, please forgive me.
A lot of people take it for granted that Zen is an intrinsic part of martial arts. In many dojos, it's even taught that way. Yet in the Herrigel thread and others, I've read posts by people eager to divorce the two. Why is that? Why would someone make a statement such as "Zen has nothing to do with archery" or "Zen has nothing to do with swordsmanship?"
Not inviting flames, just an honest question. I myself have only a layperson's understanding of (and appreciation of) Zen.
Earl Hartman
4th May 2001, 22:06
It depends on how you define "Zen". If you are talking about the religious discipline of Zen Buddhism, then there is little necessary or organic relationship bewtween budo and Zen so far as I know. One does not need to be a monk or sit zazen in order to practice budo (or vice versa). I lived in Japan for more than 10 years and practiced martial arts during all that time, and none of my teachers ever once told me I needed to meditate in order to improve in my budo practice. Without exception, they encouraged me to practice my budo harder. Also, while it was common for members of the bushi class to take the tonsure when they retired, they did not necessarily become Zen monks, although some of them might have, nor were martial traditions normally founded by Zen monks as specifically Zen practices, as many seem to think.
However, if one says that the kind of mindset (often described variously as "mushin" or the "mind of no-mind" "munen muso", "no thought, no intention","muga", "without ego" etc.) , that can be reached through Zen meditation (and which is, according to some, the goal of such meditation) is also required to achieve skill in budo, and that, therefore, budo and Zen are the same thing, then I think that one is treading on very soft ground. When something is this nebulous, it easy to make all sorts of assumptions and generalizations which really don't serve much of a purpose other than to muddy the waters.
The point is not that the "ideal" state of mind in both budo and Zen meditation may or may not be the same. It may very well be. The point is whether or not this state of mind, and the words used to describe it, are evidence of a specifically Zen influence on budo, and whether budo is therefore just a vehicle, as is Zen meditation, for achieving this state of mind.
I am not a scholar of religion, so I cannot make any authoritative statement about the degree to which Zen Buddhism, as a religion, influenced the development of budo. My experience and my instinct tells me probably not much, at least institutionally. The acquisition of real skill in fighting was of paramount importance to the bushi. My feeling is that through their practice, they came to realize that the kind of mindset, which people today indentify with Zen, was a vital element in the successful exercise of their martial arts. That is, if this sort of mindset allows one to see things "as they really are", then surely it must be a necessary component of anything you could name, martial arts included. I see no reason why the founders of martial traditions could not have discovered this independently of the Zen monks.
My main objection to the "Zen and martial arts are the same" approach, at least as it is commonly understood by those Westerners who normally seem to talk about it, is that they take it to mean that since one of the supposed goals of Zen practice is to cultivate a spirit of not striving for anything and of being satisfied with "where you are in the here and now", this means that the acquisition of practical skill in the martial arts is not necessary and is, indeed, antithetical to the "true" spirit of budo.
Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Is it not shameful and disrespectful to practice an art and not be dedicated to trying to achieve the highest possible level of accomplishment of which one is capable? This does not mean ceasing to desire to penetrate to the essence of the art with all of the means at one's disposal. It does mean, however, that one must stop desiring the supposed wordly benefits, such as prestiege and social station, to name a few, that one might derive from aquiring skill in the martial arts. These are two very different things, it seems to me.
Charlie Kondek
7th May 2001, 18:48
Thank you. Interesting to hear that while you were in Japan none of your instructors ever encouraged zazen. Tell me, what arts were you studying? I have come across an interest in zen in gendai arts - particularly kendo, judo and karate. Perhaps the koryu are different.
As to the historicity of zen and the MA: well, I'd have to double-check my sources, but I'm pretty sure I've read, over and over again, that the samurai were greatly impacted by zen. Someone here at the forums, I think, said this was more in reaction to what the shogunate saw as the encroachment of Christianity than an interest in zen itself, but I know it's often taught in school that in zen the samurai found a strong religious expression of their ideals and so merged zen with shinto to sort of reform Japanese folk religion and impact the Japanese arts and culture. A quick search under "zen" and "samurai" yields this text, for example:
"The most important influence on the code of the samurai was the introduction of Zen Buddhism during the Kamakura period (1192-1333 AD), which became the philosophical basis of bushido. Bushido demands, above all else, the willingness to face death - and facing death willingly means conquering fear. According to Zen principles, fear can only be truly conquered by eliminating the notion of self. By the period of the Warring States (late 15th -16th centuries), the most colourful period of the samurai chronicles, Zen and bushido had taken deep root among the samurai, and had penetrated into the culture and values of the Japanese people as a whole."
This from an intro to books at KeganPaul.com (which publishes, apparently, many related texts). So your statement that zen probably had not much impact on budo would contradict the above. (Not that it isn't true - I really cannot say with any authority. Perhaps they are both true.)
(You wrote, "I am not a scholar of religion, so I cannot make any authoritative statement about the degree to which Zen Buddhism, as a religion, influenced the development of budo. My experience and my instinct tells me probably not much, at least institutionally.")
You also wrote:
"My main objection to the 'Zen and martial arts are the same' approach, at least as it is commonly understood by those Westerners who normally seem to talk about it, is that they take it to mean that since one of the supposed goals of Zen practice is to cultivate a spirit of not striving for anything and of being satisfied with 'where you are in the here and now,' this means that the acquisition of practical skill in the martial arts is not necessary and is, indeed, antithetical to the 'true' spirit of budo."
I've never really encountered this, but I agree that kind of conclusion would be pretty stale. Maybe what these people mean to say is that they realize martial mastery is a looonnng journey and are content to take it at their own pace?
Where I come across zen most in my study of the arts is in the pursuit of mushin through moving meditation and zazen. But many people - particularly in the zen community - seem to dislike zen and budo boiling in the same pot.
Sorry this was so long! And probably more appropriate in the philosophy section!
Joseph Svinth
8th May 2001, 13:55
Charlie --
There is a discussion on this topic up in Koryu that might interest you. ("Zen and Koryu," or some such.)
Earl's chief MA is kyudo.
Karl Friday
8th May 2001, 16:30
Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
As to the historicity of zen and the MA: well, I'd have to double-check my sources, but I'm pretty sure I've read, over and over again, that the samurai were greatly impacted by zen. . . . A quick search under "zen" and "samurai" yields this text, for example:
"The most important influence on the code of the samurai was the introduction of Zen Buddhism during the Kamakura period (1192-1333 AD), which became the philosophical basis of bushido. Bushido demands, above all else, the willingness to face death - and facing death willingly means conquering fear. According to Zen principles, fear can only be truly conquered by eliminating the notion of self. By the period of the Warring States (late 15th -16th centuries), the most colourful period of the samurai chronicles, Zen and bushido had taken deep root among the samurai, and had penetrated into the culture and values of the Japanese people as a whole."
This from an intro to books at KeganPaul.com
I don't know what particular book this passage comes from, but in a word, it's twaddle (ok, so that's a very un-samurai-like word, what can I say?). It's an excellent example, though, of the sort of thing I was talking about the other day in a post to the "Zen and Koryu" thread under the Koryu forum. The reasoning connecting Zen and bushi values is logical, but there's no foundation for it in historical evidence, and much evidence that contradicts the notion that large numbers of samurai ever thought along similar lines.
Charlie Kondek
9th May 2001, 14:37
I'm gonna check that thread out, it's spot on with what I'm thinking.
Whether or not zen principles enhances your MA, well, that's a whole 'nother dialogue, eh? And I must reiterate I have encountered a great deal of zen in gendai arts, esp. judo and kendo.
The idea that zen influences one's budo, or that one's budo influences his zen is not entirely out of line; it does have some merit. However, it could also be said that work influences one's budo; or, Christianity influences one's budo; or the spouse influences one's budo. Anything you choose to use to influence your budo will influence your budo. Heck, I'll bet my golden retriever could influence my budo!
But, that is not to say that they are the same; or that they are inextricibly woven together; they are not. The "mnemonic of choice" is merely a training aid to one's budo.
As was clearly and more eloquently said on both this and the Herringel thread, one does not need zen to improve one's budo. That concept is manufactured reasoning. It is an artifice.
I have studied Soto Zen only very briefly -- a couple of sesshin at Shasta Abbey back in 1987, a few retreats on other occasions, etc. The goal at that time was to influence my religious beliefs -- and the rules of the Abbey were clear: "No Martial Arts Practice Allowed." Why? Because we were there to learn religion (not "just" zazen -- anybody can do zazen; one needn't be a Buddhist). They didn't want a bunch of pseudo "Grasshoppers" running around disrupting the harmony within the walls. There was too much to learn, no imported distractions were needed!
I can understand how "esoteric" concepts in Zen might be appropriated and used for budo. In budo one must practice essential skills -- kihon -- over and over and over. "Sesshin Tanren" and "shugyo" (dare any of us even use the term "shugyo" nowadays?). The one teaching that I came away with from the Abbey was "do one thing at a time" ... when in zazen, just sit; when inhaling, just inhale -- when exhaling, just exhale (you may not know how difficult it is!). When working in the garden, just work; when drinking tea, just drink tea; ... yes, even when in the lavatory... just "sit" on the toilet. It is this singular attention to detail that is probably the most beneficial teaching "zen" can lend to budo.
Be that as it may, Zen is Zen, budo is budo. Both can be a lifestyle -- ways of living -- or be good templates to emulate. Each can influence the other -- but when used as an influencer, they become an artifice -- a fabrication. We are to not be disillusioned by artifices! Artifices creat chaos, confuse the mind, and impede progress. Grasp the Buddha! Grasp the sword! Two different concepts of "grasp"-- both valid. Zen is Zen, budo is budo.
Saying that Zen is intrinsic to budo -- or implying incorrectly that there is an actual link between the two -- exacerbates the confusion and is a disservice to both Zen and budo.
John Steven's book about Yamaoka Tesshu possibly adds to the zen/budo confusion. Impressionable readers might regard Tesshu as the epitome of the "zen sword master" and infer they must study zen in order to become a skilled kendoist -- "in order to know the sword I must know zen" -- a patently false idea. Need we be reminded that Tesshu was a swordsman first? -- he studied zen to improve himself, not his waza. If zen were so important to keiko, wouldn't he have insisted his students train as rigorously in zen? Wouldn't he have incorporated zen into the curriculm of his Muto Ryu? Instead, he incorporated physically severe requirements before he would award menkyo -- it had nothing to do about Zen. Perhaps through these 100-man (and more!) jiegieko the "survivor" attained a sense of fulfillment, intuition, satori, kensho, or you name it -- but that result differs from "Zen." Yes, it might be kensho -- and it might be authenticated later by a Roshi; but the act of achieving kensho comes often during the execution of everyday activities. Tesshu and his students became better budoka because of keiko, not zen.
Studying zen might indeed help Michael Barishnikov's concentration, and he might dance better or jump higher -- are we then to say that zen and ballet are inseperable? No. He hits his mark because of relentless training. Why then are budo students so apt to say that zen and budo are one ... that you must study zen in order to grasp budo?
Heck, I'm going to bed! Who needs a zaffu when you've a full-sized bed? And who needs my disjointed ramblings when you have the clarity and effective compositions of Dr. Bodiford, Earl (who knows more than he says!) Hartman, and Ellis Amdur?
Ineloquently yours,
Guy (who dribbles out of the corner of his mouth)
Earl Hartman
10th May 2001, 20:24
You go, Guy.
(Always wanted to say that.)
Charlie Kondek
10th May 2001, 21:04
My scattered thoughts:
1) Dr. Friday, I believe the quote in my last post was publishing-house ad copy describing a Trevor Leggett book or series.
2) The thread in the koryu section on the actual historical significance of zen on budo was very, very useful, and dispels a lot of notions for me. Let me remind you guys, it's taught from the pulpit - i.e., Asian studies classes and books at major American universities - that zen impacted the samurai philosophy. And now I've learned it ain't necessarily so!
3) Many things influence one's budo. For me, I've often felt budo influenced my many things. I feel I'm more of a "budo-ish Christian" and more "budo-ish" about my work. Stuff like that.
4) Agreed on ghp's points above, which I think, if you'll pardon me for summarizing, say basically (among other things): You don't have to study zen to study MA. But if you want to appropriate zen concepts for your MA, hey, that's your bag.
5) My original question is, Why are people so eager to divorce zen study from MA study? I think this has been at least partially answered.
a) Koryu practitioners want to dispel the inaccuracy that Zen and the samurai's budo were the same.
b) MA students are tired of the notion that they must study zen to study MA.
6) I've also heard a lot of discord from students of zen who *don't* like to be associated with war and warlike ways, as this violates their view of Buddhism as a way of compassion and peace.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.