TimoS
Master of Arts
Ok, that's Shaolin temple alright, or Shorinji in japanese.So Rim Sa translates as "Young Forest Temple"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok, that's Shaolin temple alright, or Shorinji in japanese.So Rim Sa translates as "Young Forest Temple"
Thank you for taking the time to share this. Funakoshi has a good description of this is his text Karate-Do Kyohan. Right at the beginning of the text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara from "Chinese" to "empty".The question becomes, what came first? My feeling would be the answer is contained in the name. Kare (empty) te (hand) is relatively recent. Prior to this it was simply te and linked to its region of origin, hence Naha-te Shuri-te and Tomari-te. If the karate we know had developed with a weapon, such as the spear, why would it regress to open hand? I do not doubt there are many links to military training in the MAs but I feel that karate was designed to use when there was no weapon available.
Please note that the time of Funakoshi's writing, 1942, the Japanese had been at war with China, and to appreciate the magnitude of the hostility the Japanese military rulers viewed the Chinese, just five years earlier the Japanese massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in what is known as the Rape of Nanking.Karate-do is a martial art peculiar to Okinawa in its origins. Although it has in the past tended to be confused with Chinese boxing because of the use of "China" (I will use "China" for the character for Tang/China/Chinese.), in its earlier name, in fact, for the past thousand years, the study and practice of masters and experts, through which it was nurtured and perfected and formed into the unified martial art that it is today, took place in Okinawa. It is therefore, not a distortion to represent it as an Okinawan martial art.
One may ask why the "China" has been retained for so long. As I discuss in the section, "The Development of Karate-do", I believe that at the time the influence of Chinese culture was at its peak in Japan, many experts in the martial arts traveled to China to practice Chinese boxing. With their new knowledge, they altered the existing martial art, called Okinawa-te, weeding out its bad points and adding good points to it, thus working it into an elegant art. It may be speculated that they considered "china" an appropriate new name. Since even in contemporary Japan, there are many people who are impressed by anything that is foreign, it is not difficult to imagine the high regard for anything Chinese that prevailed during that period in Okinawa. Even at the time of the present writer's youth, lack of a full set of Chinese furniture and furnishings in one's home was a serious impediment to the social influence of any leading family. With this background, the reason for the choice of the "China" character meaning "Chinese" as a simple case of exoticism is apparent.
Following tradition, the writer has in the past continued to use the character "China". However, because of the frequent confusion with Chinese boxing, and the fact that Okinawan martial art may now be considered a Japanese martial art, it is inappropriate, and in a sense, degrading, to continue to use "China" in the name. For this reason, in spite of many protests, we have abandoned the use of "China" to replace it with "empty."
Funakoshi had no role whatsoever in the changing of those characters! He was probably one of the most influential in popularizing it, if not the most influential, but he did not make the change. The first time those characters were used was already back in 1905, nearly 40 years before Karate do Kyohan, which means that the meaning was most likely known and widely used even before that. Also, the "official" decision to switch to kanji was done in 1936, at a meeting where Funakoshi most certainly was not present.Right at the beginning of the text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara from "Chinese" to "empty".
SahBumNimRush wrote:
My good doctor:
These are two of my favorites. Are you talking about what in Shito Ryu are practiced as Bassai Dai and Chinto? (Shotokan Bassai Dai and Gunkaku)
Do you practice these? You might be curious to see how well they can propel a spear.
-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA
I have a hard time believing that. The applications I'm familiar with all point to close-in fighting and many of the moves, at least in the Shorin ryu Seibukan version that I'm practising, are just about impossible to perform correctly with a long(ish) piece of wood stuck in your hands. To do that, you would have to change the moves and, well, then it's not the same kata anymore.I was told once that Bassai was originally used as a bo form. I cannot say one way or the other for certain, but I see some practical applications with a bo in it.
I am not sure the historical documentation would support your statement. I would be interested if you could provide any references in support of your equating acts of piracy today with acts of piracy against tribute ships in feudal times.Not necessarily. Let's take a look at modern piracy. Most of the vessels that have been pirated in e.g. near Somalia have had no defences whatsoever against the pirates. I don't see why this couldn't be true back then also.
I am certainly not alone in my reference to long bladed weapons (spears and swords) as military weapons. The Japanese used the similar criteria in their weapons bans. In contrast other weapons that were not long and bladed were not considered by the Japanese to be military weapons and therefore did not fall under the decree. I refer to bo, tonfa, nunchaku, sai, tonfa, timbe as non-military weapons.Oh please don't tell me you believe that the weapons used in kobudo were all some sort of farming tools? Most of them were weapons to begin with!
I will reiterate what I wrote. "since no common Okinawan arts are practiced with spear today." [emphasis]There are Okinawan spear kata in existense, so that theory doesn't hold much water.
For this, I have some questions I hope you can provide some insight on. Can you validate an original source of any bunkai application you have learned. Most of your kata comes from Kyan. Can you validate whether applications were of his design, his teachers design, or do they go further back?because in okinawan karate, there's no need for reverse engineering. The applications are taught with the kata.
I have a hard time believing that. The applications I'm familiar with all point to close-in fighting and many of the moves, at least in the Shorin ryu Seibukan version that I'm practising, are just about impossible to perform correctly with a long(ish) piece of wood stuck in your hands. To do that, you would have to change the moves and, well, then it's not the same kata anymore.
Because okinawan kobudo weapons never were battlefield weapons, that would be impossible to provide. They were weapons of law enforcement, bodyguards, aristocrats etc.Swords, spears, bows and arrows have a long history as military weapons. Would you be willing to share any documentation you have regarding the regular military use of the common Okinawan kobudo weapons for military purposes? By military, I mean groups of armed men (often very large groups) fighting with weapons on behalf of larger communities, usually governments.
Of course it is not common, because a) even in modern kobudo styles, nunti is an advanced weapon and (more importantly) b) before the advent of kobudo as a separate style, the masters knew maybe one or two weapons kata. Then later Taira Shinken and Matayoshi Shinko went to all these masters, learned the kata and put them together into kobudo systems.Of course you may claim that the spear is indeed common
Yes, I can, based on what I've seen with my own eyes last summer in Okinawa. Joen Nakazato's students were demonstrating Passai and although the moves looked a bit different, the applications were the same. As to where they originated from, nobody knows. However, the content remains the same. Even in Goju Seisan, many of the applications are exactly the same as in Shorin Seisan.Can anyone validate whether Shoshin Nagamine, Joen Nakazato, Zenryo Shimabukuro, Tatsu Shimabuku and Eizo Shimabukuro were all taught the same applications by Kyan, for all the movements in all the Kyan kata?
Do you know how the kata was (most likely) taught when Kyan sensei was still teaching? Because your question, to me, shows that you think they were taught in the modern way, i.e. the kata as a whole and then maybe some applications here and there and that quite simply is not the case. The way those students were taught was they would be shown a move and then shown the application to the move. Next time they might be shown the next move in kata or they would drill the ones learned. So, using this method there wasn't much need for leaving things to students' imagination. Of course how they applied the kata in a real-live situation is something that couldn't be taught, they were shown principles and they drilled those with a partner.Or in general, did Kyan teach a bit of bunkai to some students and a bit of bunkai to others, leaving large section of kata up to the imagination of his students?
I wouldn't know. We are not in Itosu's lineage.Were the students of Itosu all taught the same applications for all the kata they learned from him.
Why wouldn't they?Does anyone believe that all these applications flowed without interruption from the originators of the kata.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is, those who taught him the kata surely would've known the applications. Whether Mabuni passed those on, I don't know.Could Mabuni even teach the applications found in all these kata in any way that would be useful for his students?
Chinto isn't a Matsumura kata, it is a Matsumora kata. Two totally different persons.Following is a clip of bunkai practiced by the students of Seikichi Iha, a student of Shinpan Gusukuma, and Katsuya Miyahira, two mainstream Okinawan teachers. Would anyone argue that this bunkai goes back to Itosu, Matsumura or further. Chinto is a very old kata.
Fundamentally? Not even close.The actual application begins at 2:00. At 2:20 the sensei shows the application of the cross strike found in Naihanchi, which ends just past the torso in the kata. In the application, he fundamentally modifies the movement by extending it fully.
BTW, I am very familiar with those videos and all the persons on the video I shot those videos and I train as often as I can with all the persons on the clips. They are all from various cities here in Finland, so I don't get to meet them too often.Here are a couple of clips of Seibukan movements that I would like to comment on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBo5wcAzwo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vAnhxndLLw&feature=related
Did our guys at any stage imply that these were realistic self-defence combinations? What you've looked at are for example our formal ippon kumite drills and while they teach us some of the tools in kata, that's not the most important lesson to learned from those. Those would be timing, stepping out of the line of attack, etc.But the majority of counters were a single strike response.
Among those that train in fighting-oriented arts, I am certainly not alone in the opinion that many of the concepts I have pointed out just don't model the way empty-hand fighting works. In general, a very common attack from fighter with just basic training would involve the attacker shuffling in, not stepping forward, withdrawing his punches immediately, and using punch combinations. Also even a beginner fighter learns not to leave his jaw exposed by keeping one hand on his hip.
Like I said, ippon kumite and other more of less formal exercises meant to teach you some of the basic tools and how to apply them. When we practise kata in a more free-form way, we are taught to continue with something. E.g. the opening moves on Naifanchi. First you block a punch and then you strike with your elbow. If the first strike isn't successful, you continue with a second, third, fourth etc. or you switch to something else.Regarding defenses, it is well known that against larger attackers, a person usually needs more than one counter to stop them. Yet, as noted, many of these defense sequences shown demonstrate a single counter.
Those aren't the basic bunkai we're taught. Jani, the guy in the middle defending, is using more "free-form" applications.Another observation is that it appears to me that the kata combinations at the end of the second clip, don't always correlate all that well to the sequences kata sequences shown just before the applications. Starting at 3:24 in the kata sequence of Passai, the student begins with a shuto technique, takes one step forward with a second shuto, and continues advancing with three distinct shuffles forward. The kata has the two arms raising on the first shuffle, falling on the second sequence, and finishing with a lunge punch on the final shuffle.
If they were demonstrating the basic bunkai, then yes. In this case, they weren't.It would seem to me that if the kata student demonstrates a sequence with four movements forward, that the student showing the bunkai should show those movements.
Oh that one. That's supposed to simulate groping in darkness and when you finally find your opponent, you strike. Whether that's a realistic scenario or not, I cannot comment.I saw another concept I found a bit odd. In the Passai sequence beginning at 3:15 in the 2nd clip the student shows three repetitive movements coming forward, right, then left, then right. In the application coming forward, the defender comes forward to the attacker with the first movement in the air, then the 2nd movement in the air, then the third is used to grab. Over the years, I have seen a lot of bunkai from a lot of systems. This was the first where I saw that sequential set of kata movements used to wave the hands in the air while one walks towards the attacker.
Could be. I am not familiar with Chinto myself, as it is taught to us only after reaching 2. dan. Also, there was talk on this forum previously that in the Itosu lineage there is much wider dispersion in the applications.I showed the Chinto application above, because of the concepts I see in common with the Seibukan clips. That is the movements, while very good karate applications, in general have a quite a bit that does not map to the kata. Despite the mainline heritage of this Itosu/Chibana system, these bunkai sets were not developed by either Itosu or Chibana, but by a senior student of Miyahira. But that is what is practiced for Chinto bunkai in this Chibana system.
We are, but those are considered additional kata, so many of the people here don't know them too well, myself included. I've been taught Pinan 1-3, but I can't remember how those go, as I don't usually practise them.I would imagine that Seibukan Finland teaches the Pinans. I would appreciate the opportunity to compare my reverse-engineered empty hand and spear applications with some of the traditional applications that may have come out of Okinawa as part of the Seibukan system. I am hopeful that Timo would like to participate in such a comparison?
Chinto isn't a Matsumura kata, it is a Matsumora kata. Two totally different persons.
To which you replied:Funakoshi has a good description of this is his text Karate-Do Kyohan. Right at the beginning of the text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara from "Chinese" to "empty" . Funakoshi clearly was under pressure to sanitize the Okinawan art of Karate, to make it not so overtly Chinese and more Japanese. In that effort, he not only changed the name from Chinese hand to empty hand, (which had occurred earlier that the writing of this text,) but changed a number of names of kata away from Chinese names to Japanese names. Pinan became Heian, Naihanchi became Tekki, Seisan became Hangetsu, Chinto became Gunkaku, Wansu became Empi, Kusanku became Kanku.
I find this an odd point you make. On what historical evidence do you make this claim that Funakoshi had no role whatsoever? It seems that you imply that Funakoshi had to have been at the 1936 meeting for him to have had any influence. It seems that the name change took place only at the 1936 meeting. On what evidence do you make such a statement? First, regarding Funakoshis lack of attendance, even as early as 1936, there was such a thing as mail.Funakoshi had no role whatsoever in the changing of those characters! He was probably one of the most influential in popularizing it, if not the most influential, but he did not make the change. The first time those characters were used was already back in 1905, nearly 40 years before Karate do Kyohan, which means that the meaning was most likely known and widely used even before that. Also, the "official" decision to switch to kanji was done in 1936, at a meeting where Funakoshi most certainly was not present.
Kita Ezio: Before I came to Okinawa, I, too, believed that the pronunciation of kara meant empty.
Furukuma Gisaburo: For people from other prefectures (outside Okinawa), the term karate-do is appealing and has a definite ring of martial arts to it. Moreover, it appears that Toudi has lost its appeal.
Ota Chofu: I dont think that anybody dislikes the term kara; however, there are those who resent the term tou [China].
Funakoshi was clearly not the first to use the "empty hand" (kanji) meaning for karate. He was, however, influential in popularizing this meaning by calling on his colleagues to abandon the "Chinese Hand" meaning of karate in favor of "empty hand." The change from "China hand" to "empty hand" gained immediate popularity on the main islands of Japan once it was introduced. But back on Okinawa the change seems to have taken some Japanese mainland influence to effect widespread Okinawan acceptance of the new name.
I must admit I was a bit surprised by this statement
Nope. Trust me on this one. I've been practising two Kyan lineage styles and I can tell you that my facts are correct.. You have made claims regarding the general nature of karate instruction in Okinawa. It appears that your knowledge may be somewhat limited to Kyan-based systems.
No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho.For what it is worth, Chinto is a kata found in systems that descend from Sokon Matsumura
You mean you would be surprised. Look e.g. hereI think most would be very surprised to find that Itosu learned Chinto from Kosaku Matsumora.
Itosu continued his training in the martial arts with Matsumora Kosaku and allegedly the cave dwelling "ANAN" in 1873 (Sakagami)
Which should give you a clue as to whether they were used at all.On another topic, while Nunti is a pointed spear, I have written here that when I refer to the term spear, I refer to a bladed spear, rather than use the awkward, little-known term halberd. Bladed spear forms are not found in common Okinawan karate systems.
Your claim that my hypothesis cannot be correct seems to be based, in large part, on the argument that the applications you have learned for kata are really good fighting applications, and therefore the kata movements could not possibly have been designed for a spear. Perhaps you would be willing to provide evidence in support of that claim by posting video of these applications.
I have an even better idea: why don't you go over to e.g. Karate Underground forum and try how they like your ideas over there? Or e-budo?I am hopeful that you will be willing to provide evidence of the great fighting applications of a Seibukan kata, since this would let the readers of Martial Talk be the judge of the relative effectiveness of the empty hand kata movements in versus spear movements in combat applications.
There are three distinct "families" of Chinto in modern Okinawan karate: (1) Matsumura/Itosu lineage (performed front to back), (2) Kosaku Matsumora lineage (performed side to side), and (3) the Chotoku Kyan lineage (performed on a 45 degree angle). The version practiced by Funakoshi is clearly from the Matsumura/Itosu lineage.
No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho.
No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho.
Maybe, and this really is speculation, bushi Matsumura died before he could pass that one on to Kyan. After all, when Kyan went to Matsumura's dojo, Matsumura was already quite old. Kyan wasn't that long with Matsumura before he went with his father to Tokyo. As for the sailor Chinto, I don't know. It might very well be a story.What about the apocryphal story regarding Matsumura and the Sailor Chinto? Perhaps Kyan only learned those two kata from Matsumura because that was all he taught him? This may be an unanswerable question, but I've always wondered why Kyan never learned Kusanku?
It is quite easy for westerners to confuse Matsumura with Matsumora.Many martial historians refer to Itosu as having been a disciple of the Great Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura. He was most influential martial artist of his time who helped bring karate into the modern era as exponent of Shuri-te (meaning Shuri hands or art). It was Matsumura who was a student of Tode Sakagawa (1733-1815) who in turn studied under Kusanku -- after which the famous kata is named (Konku). Was Itosu the link to this heritage, an interpreter of Matsumura's karate? Upon closer examination this appears to be incorrect, or at least overstated.
The question then becomes how do we ascertain the truth when so much of martial history is based on oral accounts and opinions? While we may never know the truth for sure, we should look to accounts of those who actually trained under Itosu for significant periods of time.
One such account comes from Choki Motobu (one of Okinawa's greatest early twentieth century karate masters) who spent eight to nine years under Itosu. In his 1932 book, "Watashi no Tode Jutsu," Motobu is quoted as saying: "Sensei Itosu was a pupil of Sensei Matsumura, but he was disliked by his teacher for he was very slow (speed of movement). There (in the dojo) for although Itosu sensei was diligent in his practice his teacher did not care about him so he (Itsou) left and went to sensei Nagahama."