Bunkai genuine?

[elder999]

Er… this might not be one of my short posts…

You do "short" posts?

yeah, it's not really a particularly simple thing to describe… but, in essence, a kan refers to a "hall", or, in a larger sense, an organisation. A ryu, on the other hand, is a coherent body of knowledge, self-referencing and self-reinforcing, structured from the ground up with a single ideal. Of course, the question there is "how does that not describe Shotokan?" And the answer, honestly, is because it doesn't. That's not the way Shotokan was designed, set up, structured, or anything else. It was, really, designed as a generic expression of what was known as karate (or to-te, or simply te… or, in Okinawa's dialect, to-ti or ti), rather than it's own version (specific)., exactly?
ore.

How does this distinction appply to shito-ryu or shorin-ryu?

 

[TSDTexan]

Thank you Chris, to be honest I tend only to be interested in training the techniques, kata and Bunkai rather than any history beyond who the founder is and how he came to 'invent/found' Wado Ryu. The history of martial arts in detail doesn't interest me as much as learning techniques. I know many are really bothered and worry about lineage but in the UK at least it tends not to be such a big part of martial arts. I think if the techniques work and do what they're supposed to we are happy, as to whether martial arts comes from India, China or Okinawa/Japan I'm not sure we are that bothered other than it makes a nice story. This is why I suppose the idea of secret techniques only told to the 'faithful' or lost in the mists of time are fairly amusing when many of us are pragmatic karateka who work on kata and bunkai ourselves and with others like Iain Abernethy.
This isn't to dismiss those who are interested in the history though, each to their own. but really the country martial arts 'originated in' pales into insignificance compared to the excitement of making a technique work for you.

As my master taught me, all this is for after class.

 

[Tez3]

As my master taught me, all this is for after class.

After class is for going to the pub!

 

[hoshin1600]

Thank you Chris, to be honest I tend only to be interested in training the techniques, kata and Bunkai rather than any history beyond who the founder is and how he came to 'invent/found' Wado Ryu. The history of martial arts in detail doesn't interest me as much as learning techniques. I know many are really bothered and worry about lineage but in the UK at least it tends not to be such a big part of martial arts. I think if the techniques work and do what they're supposed to we are happy, as to whether martial arts comes from India, China or Okinawa/Japan I'm not sure we are that bothered other than it makes a nice story. This is why I suppose the idea of secret techniques only told to the 'faithful' or lost in the mists of time are fairly amusing when many of us are pragmatic karateka who work on kata and bunkai ourselves and with others like Iain Abernethy.
This isn't to dismiss those who are interested in the history though, each to their own. but really the country martial arts 'originated in' pales into insignificance compared to the excitement of making a technique work for you.

i agree with this sentiment...but.....
i am a traditionally trained MA but my focus is more reality based self defense. i really find the history interesting and it should not over shadow the day to day training but from my own experience working with some of the "old school" masters i find that looking back can sometimes lead to forward thinking ideas about how to train and what we do as martial artists. i found it really amusing when i was at a seminar with Tomoyose sensei (who is basicly a national living treasure of Okinawa) that all these american "masters" who are at the 6th and 7th degree level would ask detailed questions about kata bunkai and he would look at them like they have 3 heads. and say "no, no we never did that" or its not like that. we tend to put our own interpretations on things and the details become very important to us and we pass these on to the next generation. we create our own narrative on what the kata is all about then to have someone like Tomoyose come around and burst your bubble and say you got it all wrong is very eye opening. moves that seemed very complex become very simple and simple becomes complex. i feel the study of any history can greatly expand our current knowledge on what the original intent was of the kata. most times its not what we think. often the original intent is of no practical use in todays world. in that instance we can stop looking for "hidden meanings" and replace it with whatever we find applicable to todays needs. this may have drastic implications on the way we actually preform the kata so it may not be the correct path for everyone but historical knowledge allows us and opens us up to make the choice of practicing an art for preservation or for practicality.

 

[Tez3]

Perhaps it's because my style is Wado Ryu ( with TSD on the side) I don't have those issues, our founder was alive until the 1980s passing on knowledge so the 'history' is clearer less 'hidden' because he'd put everything out there already. He was filmed doing all his katas, which are now on video so we have a very clear way of doing them. Perhaps Wado is a very modern style compared to others.

 

[TSDTexan]

After class is for going to the pub!

A beer, and discusdion of philosophy or history of martial arts can walk harmoniously together.

 

[TSDTexan]

i agree with this sentiment...but.....
i am a traditionally trained MA but my focus is more reality based self defense. i really find the history interesting and it should not over shadow the day to day training but from my own experience working with some of the "old school" masters i find that looking back can sometimes lead to forward thinking ideas about how to train and what we do as martial artists. i found it really amusing when i was at a seminar with Tomoyose sensei (who is basicly a national living treasure of Okinawa) that all these american "masters" who are at the 6th and 7th degree level would ask detailed questions about kata bunkai and he would look at them like they have 3 heads. and say "no, no we never did that" or its not like that. we tend to put our own interpretations on things and the details become very important to us and we pass these on to the next generation. we create our own narrative on what the kata is all about then to have someone like Tomoyose come around and burst your bubble and say you got it all wrong is very eye opening. moves that seemed very complex become very simple and simple becomes complex. i feel the study of any history can greatly expand our current knowledge on what the original intent was of the kata. most times its not what we think. often the original intent is of no practical use in todays world. in that instance we can stop looking for "hidden meanings" and replace it with whatever we find applicable to todays needs. this may have drastic implications on the way we actually preform the kata so it may not be the correct path for everyone but historical knowledge allows us and opens us up to make the choice of practicing an art for preservation or for practicality.

I have found in my encounters with very old Japanese men, they usually do not answer direct questions directly.
Their answers were enigmatic and almost poetic.


In my personal experience it was very rare. The younger "baby boomer aged" Japanese men I know have been very American in their frank and direct answers.

This not just within the JMA group of Men I have encountered, but others, salarymen, noodle shop owners, horticultural engineers.

 

[hoshin1600]

it wasnt about his answers. it was the illumination that many of the strongly held truths that we all were trying so hard to do correctly, preserve and pass on to the next generation never really existed. it was a creation of our own incorrect perception.
Tomoyose sensei is too much of a gentleman to say anyones method or ideas were wrong. maybe i over stated the point. the question would be asked and he would shake his head smile and say that he didnt know the answer because "we" never did that or didnt do it like that.

 

[elder999]

Wado Ryu, on the other hand, is a Ryu (for the first clue in both cases, look to the name…). Wado Ryu was a synthesised and specific approach to karate developed by Otsuka Sensei, based on his training under a couple of karate teachers (including Funakoshi) and his training in Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu. By using the principles and structure of Shindo Yoshin Ryu, as well as the lessons of karate, as well as his own understanding, Otsuka formulated a single approach to combative arts, structured and self-reinforcing (in other words, none of it is simply "tacked on" from other areas/systems). ore.

@Chris Parker :Or Isshin-ryu?

 

[TimoS]

Er… no. Until 1935, Funakoshi's books and texts used the kanji 唐手… meaning "China (T'ang Dynasty) Hand". This is seen on Karate Jutsu (1925), as well as the earlier To-de Ryukyu Kenpo. In 1935, Karate-Do Kyohan was his first book to use the kanji 空手, meaning "Empty Hand".

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, but on this you're actually wrong. The first written use of 空手 was in a book published in 1905 called "karate shoshu hen" by Hanashiro Chomo (sorry, don't have the kanji for the book title).

 

[Dirty Dog]

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, but on this you're actually wrong. The first written use of 空手 was in a book published in 1905 called "karate shoshu hen" by Hanashiro Chomo (sorry, don't have the kanji for the book title).

Maybe you should have read the post before you replied.
Because the post was about G Funakoshi. Nobody else.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[TimoS]

Maybe you should have read the post before you replied.
Because the post was about G Funakoshi. Nobody else.

So? Does that make the fact somehow less valid?

 

[Dirty Dog]

So? Does that make the fact somehow less valid?

Well yes, it does. It makes it completely irrelevant.
Chris says "Funakoshi didn't say THIS until THEN."
You say "You're wrong! Because this other guy said it THEN!"
What and when some other guy said something has absolute nothing whatsoever to do with what Chris said. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.

Unless you're claiming that they're Secretly the Same Person?




Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[TimoS]

Bugrit! I skipped the "his" word from Chris's reply and my brain just automatically filled it with "the"

 

[Dirty Dog]

Bugrit! I skipped the "his" word from Chris's reply and my brain just automatically filled it with "the"

Details... they matter, eh?

 

[TSDTexan]

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, but on this you're actually wrong. The first written use of 空手 was in a book published in 1905 called "karate shoshu hen" by Hanashiro Chomo (sorry, don't have the kanji for the book title).

Thank you, I think? I dont think I was refering to the catagory
"First written use ever".

I suspect Empty Hand or unarmed hand (with regard to fighting) may have been written even earlier then 1905.

Consider The Sword Abolishment Edict (廃刀令 Haitōrei) which was an edict issued by the Meiji government of Japan on March 28, 1876


Takeda Sōkaku 武田 惣角 and
空手
With the outlawing of the samurai class and the prohibition against carrying swords apparentally Sokaku decided to emphasize the empty handed, jujutsu oriented, techniques of his ancestor's art. These apparently were 'oshiki-uchi', or secret teachings of the Aizu clan, up to that point. These, along with other skills he had acquired, were combined to create an art which he christened first 'Daitō-ryū jūjutsu' and later 'Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu'.

It is of extremely high probability that Sokaku wrote the phrase 空手 at a point prior to 1905, the question is whether or not such a written thing was published for others, or kept to himself.

 

[TimoS]

It is of extremely high probability that Sokaku wrote the phrase 空手 at a point prior to 1905, the question is whether or not such a written thing was published for others, or kept to himself.

Is it possible? Sure, I guess, but since Daito ryu has nothing to do with Okinawan martial arts, I don't see how that could be relevant.

 

[TSDTexan]

Is it possible? Sure, I guess, but since Daito ryu has nothing to do with Okinawan martial arts, I don't see how that could be relevant.

Well the comment was made towards the point that was raised about first use of a phrase, that another person made. His comment went outside of the intended scope of what i had said. What he was making a comment, was not relevant, since He was there, I joined him.

The whole line of conversation is off the topic of the OP.
But it us germane to the general subject of asian Chinese and Okinawan martial arts. The Okinawan MA didn't remain in Okinawa, nor did Okinawa remain a sovereign nation. For the present time Okinawa is a prefecture of Japan.

 

[MatsumuraKarate]

From my experience I have found the Japanese have tried to systemize the bunkai, the Okinawans don't. The true essence of bunkai is that one mans bunkai is not the same as another. This is where the art comes to play. This is where our karate becomes our own. Principles and technique are taught by your teacher, you must discover how they work together most efficiently for you. So to answer the OP. No there is no such as thing as predetermined bunkai. Bunkai is unique to the individual teaching and sharing it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey, Tez…

Thank you Chris, to be honest I tend only to be interested in training the techniques, kata and Bunkai rather than any history beyond who the founder is and how he came to 'invent/found' Wado Ryu. The history of martial arts in detail doesn't interest me as much as learning techniques.

That's a pity, to my mind… after all, without that history, there are no techniques for you to train…

I know many are really bothered and worry about lineage but in the UK at least it tends not to be such a big part of martial arts. I think if the techniques work and do what they're supposed to we are happy, as to whether martial arts comes from India, China or Okinawa/Japan I'm not sure we are that bothered other than it makes a nice story.

Where the art comes from dictates the cultural influences on the techniques… it shapes the how of the art. It's never just a "nice story". To ignore it is, frankly, to miss much of the techniques themselves.

This is why I suppose the idea of secret techniques only told to the 'faithful' or lost in the mists of time are fairly amusing when many of us are pragmatic karateka who work on kata and bunkai ourselves and with others like Iain Abernethy.

Hmm… I'd caution to be careful of making a reducto ad absurdum argument in your head there… there are genuinely "secret" techniques/methods/teachings held back… maybe not so much in modern arts, but they're certainly there in older arts… and for very good reasons, which are eminently pragmatic. Just from a different perspective.

This isn't to dismiss those who are interested in the history though, each to their own. but really the country martial arts 'originated in' pales into insignificance compared to the excitement of making a technique work for you.

The country of origin is a large part of the technique itself, though… among other things.

And yeah, I get the point you're making… I get the mentality. On the other hand, from my perspective, it's missing a fair bit. And really, that's fine. Because, as I said, I get it.

You do "short" posts?

Er… sometimes? Maybe?

How does this distinction appply to shito-ryu or shorin-ryu?

@Chris Parker :Or Isshin-ryu?

It's an interesting question… and one that gets into a lot of highly subjective ideas. I mean, the histories of many systems of karate are so intertwined that they often share the same kata… something that is incredibly far from the norm in traditional Japanese arts (where the ryu-ha concept comes from). In a way, each of these can be seen as branches, or at the least, bunpa-ryu of each other (and ancestor schools, such as they were).

I suppose, of course, that the question is what makes them ryu-ha, but not Shotokan, yeah? The biggest distinction is in the drive and purpose of the development. In each of the cases you cite, it was a particular teacher creating their own form of the art, based on the material they had been taught, as their own personal highest level expression. Shotokan, on the other hand, was designed not as Funakoshi's ultimate form of karate, but as an almost "standardised", in ways simplified form of karate, a generic study of the myriad methods of Okinawan arts, primarily as a way of introducing Okinawan arts (as a whole) to the Japanese populace.

It's the same way that the Kodokan isn't a new ryu of jujutsu… it was designed as a method that multiple forms of jujutsu could come together and train under a common methodology. Kendo isn't a new ryu of kenjutsu… it was a way for differing kenjutsuka to compete. Shotokan wasn't a new form of karate… it was a way to express all karate so that it could be seen, felt, and understood by the Japanese people (and beyond).

As my master taught me, all this is for after class.

After class is for going to the pub!

Those are the same things in koryu circles…

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, but on this you're actually wrong. The first written use of 空手 was in a book published in 1905 called "karate shoshu hen" by Hanashiro Chomo (sorry, don't have the kanji for the book title).

Yeah… not arguing that, as DD said… for the record, there's apparently a document written by (or attributed to) Momochi Sandayu that mentions the term as well… from the 17th Century. So long as we're comparing dates…

Thank you, I think? I dont think I was refering to the catagory
"First written use ever".

I suspect Empty Hand or unarmed hand (with regard to fighting) may have been written even earlier then 1905.

Er… and?

Consider The Sword Abolishment Edict (廃刀令 Haitōrei) which was an edict issued by the Meiji government of Japan on March 28, 1876

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

Takeda Sōkaku 武田 惣角 and
空手
With the outlawing of the samurai class and the prohibition against carrying swords apparentally Sokaku decided to emphasize the empty handed, jujutsu oriented, techniques of his ancestor's art. These apparently were 'oshiki-uchi', or secret teachings of the Aizu clan, up to that point. These, along with other skills he had acquired, were combined to create an art which he christened first 'Daitō-ryū jūjutsu' and later 'Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu'.

It is of extremely high probability that Sokaku wrote the phrase 空手 at a point prior to 1905, the question is whether or not such a written thing was published for others, or kept to himself.

Why is it probable? I mean… you have listed in your mined quote the terms he used… jujutsu and aikijujutsu… why do you think it'd be probable that he'd use a completely different term? And, even if he did, what would such a meaningless co-incidence of terminology mean? Are we meant to think that that means Takeda was really teaching karate (Okinawan arts) before Funakoshi came to Japan?

Look, to be frank, reading through your posts, it seems you are big on getting what you think are facts and evidence, but are struggling a bit in grasping relevance and connections. I'd suggest trying to express things in your own words… hopefully we can get some more clarity then.

Is it possible? Sure, I guess, but since Daito ryu has nothing to do with Okinawan martial arts, I don't see how that could be relevant.

Agreed.

Well the comment was made towards the point that was raised about first use of a phrase, that another person made. His comment went outside of the intended scope of what i had said. What he was making a comment, was not relevant, since He was there, I joined him.

The whole line of conversation is off the topic of the OP.
But it us germane to the general subject of asian Chinese and Okinawan martial arts. The Okinawan MA didn't remain in Okinawa, nor did Okinawa remain a sovereign nation. For the present time Okinawa is a prefecture of Japan.

What? Honestly, that makes little to no sense to me…