How Pure Are The Arts?

[clfsean]

Depending on your view of things...

Cain v Abel = Pure martial art

Monkey man with a stick v monkey man without a stick in front of the black obelisk = Pure martial art

Anything else since then... a variation.

YMMV

 

[shihansmurf]

Take issue with anything you want.

First off, anyone who makes the following statements is in no position to question me in reference to any "ego" issues. Generally, its bad form to make sweeping statement like this, but I guess I don't have enough ego to assume that I know more than many of the other posters here.

Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!

Okay, I'll clarify a bit.

Everyone who has said that there are no "pure" martial arts, that every art borrows from other arts, that every martial artist looks to other systems to augment, add, or influence and in other ways alter what they do, is wrong. Completely.

Next. Should you take any art that you have studied and alter it, irrespective of the amount, then you are no longer pure. Assuming, that is, that you were ever that way to begin with. For all the yelping that I have heard over the years from the more traditional camp I have yet to see anything that would convince me that how you are punching and kicking and swiping a sword is the way that they did so in Japan in the 1600-s. Even if you were able to show that your methods were identical, the fact remains that the Japanese didn't invent swords nor hacking people to bits with them, therefore any of the Koryu arts are a logical extension of modifications that their founders learned before they founded their Arts. Someone taught Mushashi, after all. Unless, of course, the Art that you study was magicaly created and transmitted to the first generation of its students by the karate fairies.

Point is, purity is a myth. Iwill stand by that assertion untill I can see the solid proof of the very first martial art being transmitted intact and unchanged to a current generation of its students. Once you can provide that, I'll happily concede the point.

Next. My comment about "getting past our egos enough" is pretty simple. We train in an Art for several years and become emotionaly invested in it. We put it on a pedastal. The one day we run into someone from another system who shows you a way to perfom a technique in a way that is mechanically better than what you learned. Do you push aside your ego and vanity enough to embrace the more effective way or do you doggedly stick to what you have been taught? The reason I ask is because the founders of all those traditional arts certainly thought that their method was better than what they had been trained in or they wouldn't have went out on their own. I have to ask, though, does this qualify them for the following comdemnation?

And how is it not a much bigger ego which has someone thinking they know better than an art which has existed longer than they have in most cases? That, to me, is a much more severe case of "ego" coming into play here.

Didn't Hatsumi Masaaki do much the same, or did he inherit the system from the Karate fairies? How about Stephen Hayes? Any of the other folks running around pretending to be ninja assassins?

Itosu?

Hell, anyone after the mythical Bhoddidarma?

The martial arts is not superior to the person learning it. Everyone of the systems out there are nothing more than a set of instructions that are meaningless without someone actually performing them. Kenpo doesn't exist with out people performing it, neither does TKD, Aikido, or boxing for that matter. The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them. Alone, they are non-existant. Therefore there isn't a martial art that knows more than any human being. You are anthropormorphizing an intellectual construct.

Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself.

On that same note. Age, in and of itself, doesn't make a thing superior to another thing. People that are older than I am are demonstrateably incorrect on a lot of topics, as am I. I, for example, don't know how to change the transmission in my car. The mechanic that I take my car to is about ten years younger than I. By your reasoning, my opinion on how to perform the task at hand should be weighted more heavily as I am older, and obviously more knowledgable that he.

Next, I feel that Ed Parker was looking for a soundbite, something that simplified things in an easily digestible mouthful. Cause, you see, he's wrong. Pure knuckles meeting pure flesh is nothing to do with Karate, pure or otherwise. It's just knuckles meeting flesh. Don't get me wrong, I get where he was going with it, the idea that the concrete reality of physical experience is required for your study of Karate to be considered "real" in any way, but the infinite number of ways knuckles can meet flesh which has nothing to do with Karate negates his statement to begin with, and the idea that that is the extent of what Karate is teaching in dealing with conflict/violence is to completely understate what Karate offers and is to the point of negating what Karate is at all.

You could interpret it that way. I don't, but I see why you think that. I disagree, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss your position in a broad pronouncement from on high.

I think that Parker meant that due to a few milenia of experimentation on the battlefield, competition ring, self devense scenarios, and in training ALL of the Arts have changed from their "original" forms. Due to this, the only test of purity that counts is efficacy. I tend to agree.

Karate, in and of itself, offers nothing at all. The teacher, training enviornment, and process of learning is what assists the student in gaining anything from training. This include, but isn't limited to, being able to fight.

Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way).

Every teacher is re-packaging things. Except, of course, for that first caveman that figured out how to whack someone with a stick then taught his buddy. After that, though, all are imitators and repackagers to various degrees.

There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years

Like whom?

Kano? Is Judo as practiced today the same as when he "originated" the art?

Chow? Kara Ho is certainly not the same today as the material he taught Emperado and Parker.

Anko Itosu? No, as he created the Pinans out of Kanku, obviously not.

I wonder who could possibly meet your criteria.


Understand, though, that all of the above is simply my view on things. Insert IMO as needed. See, I fully realize that I could be wrong. I am very solidly convinced of my positions in this matter, though.

Just a thought,

Mark

 

[shihansmurf]

Chris,

I suck at the quote thing.

I accidentaly deleted the opening quote.

Apologies.

Mark

 

[shihansmurf]

I would think that there are a lot of JKD schools and practitioners out there that would disagree with the notion that JKD hasn't flourished.

In all fairness though, JKD is a broad spectrum ranging from those that think that only what Lee taught while he is really JKD to the other end that feels that following the traininng concepts laid out by Lee are JKD as well.

I tend to agree with the latter camp so my perception of how well the JKD movement has thrived could be a bit skewed.

Mark

 

[Buka]

"Pure" is an interesting term. It probably means different things to different people. If "pure" means the way an art was originally put together.....then does that mean that hundreds of years of practice and combat can't offer some improvement in that original art by the very practitioners who spent their lives studying it? I don't mean wide, sweeping changes, I mean small subtle ones. I'm not sure that any traditional art is done exactly the way it was done hundreds of years ago. I really have no way of knowing that. I'd like to think that the famous Masters taught their students with all their heart and soul. And I'd like to think that a great deal of the art dealt with self defense. IF that is so -

Times have changed. As have societies and people. I'd like to think that if the Masters of the past were suddenly transported to the "here and now" and they had at their disposal all the knowledge that we have at our disposal today, they would create, or recreate, their original art in slightly different ways.

 

[Chris Parker]

In regards to Chris Parker's statements, I find it very interesting. The examples mostly given are from Japanese Koryu arts when it comes to "pure" etc. I would agree with that, they did a very good job of not changing anything and passing on a historic system as it was originally practiced. Now, let's apply that to the empty hand arts which is what the OP started with.

Hmm, I'm not sure you read it properly. I don't use Koryu until the 11th paragraph, and even then, only as an example of what would be considered "stealing" in martial arts. Then I don't discuss them again. Yes, the videos were Koryu (well, no, they weren't, they were thefts from Koryu), but that was to make that point. The main arts I dealt with were TKD, Aikido etc, sticking with Mike's original post.

Almost every empty handed art I can think of, had it's founder cross training with other instructors or systems. Even many of the chinese systems either took parts of a parent system and then refined it down for use (Wing Chun) or combined aspects of differing arts to form the current style (Several Preying Mantis styles). Even the history of karate is mixed with the Okinawans taking their indiginous stuff (Te) and combining it with Chinese martial arts to form kara-te. I don't think that the spiritual philosophy is at the core of all arts either, this was mainly added after in most except for a twisted version in Japan to get ultimate obedience from it's soliders/warriors.

Again, I don't think you've read it properly. There was no mention of a "spiritual philosophy" being at the core of all arts, but there was mention of a base philosophy being the core of all arts (a different one for each art, obviously), as that is the reality. A philosophy is by no means necessarily "spiritual", it's simply a coherent and congruent collection of beliefs and values, which might be based around a series of beliefs about methods of training to generate success in MMA competition, and values that state that success in MMA competition is the aim. And there's no problem with the idea of founders of systems cross-training first, that's pretty much to be expected. But it in no way makes the resultant system "less pure", if the new art has it's own congruent and coherent philosophy, which distinguishes it from other arts, and the source arts themselves.

In your example, Ueshiba studied spear and swords arts along with Sumo and Daito-Ryu.

Yep, including Yagyu Shinkage and Kukishin Ryu.

He combined these techniques to form his own martial art, it wasn't until later that he added in alot of the religious aspects from his own religious conversion.

The religious aspect wasn't what made it a separate martial art, it was the base philosophies that separated it from Daito Ryu. That was to do with the structure and methodology that Ueshiba employed, which itself developed as time went on, including the later addition of the Buddhism (Omoto Kyo sect) aspects. Although I might add that the Kukishin Ryu, who Ueshiba was associated with, already had their religious aspects very well integrated into their teachings, including the martial ones, and Ueshiba had already been exploring such a melding, including entering into such an idea with the Kuki family. They were instrumental in the formation of Takemusu Aikido (the organisation).

So you have again, one person's personal journey and then looking at the final product and saying that it's the philosophy that sets it apart when it was seperate before that occured.

No, I'm looking at what martial arts are, and recognizing that. You missed what I said, so I'd suggest going back and re-reading it. I never said that philosophies are static either, I must say. Particularly in their early development, such things tend to change, however they change in a natural fashion, organically, not by just lumping techniques from different incongruent systems, which would not be following the philosophy.

Same thing with Judo, that wasn't the full intention when Kano set out to create it. Kano Jujitsu was seperate before he added in alot of the moral stuff and then renamed his own style Judo.

We could have a long discussion as to what Kano was doing when he developed what would later be known as Kodokan Judo, but again you've missed the point. He was developing his own expression and take on what he thought was the most important, for a range of reasons, which reflected his beliefs and values.... you know, his philosophy.

Take issue with anything you want.

Ha, nothing to take issue with, Mark. I do love a good informed argument.

First off, anyone who makes the following statements is in no position to question me in reference to any "ego" issues. Generally, its bad form to make sweeping statement like this, but I guess I don't have enough ego to assume that I know more than many of the other posters here.

Yeah, I saw how that could read, and, honestly, kept it in that way deliberately. Mainly because I enjoyed the contrast. Then again, I still feel that everyone is wrong in that regard, and it's continued since. And, for the record, I wasn't wanting to infer anything about your particular ego, more about your comment about ego stopping people from cross-training, as that can be far from the reality in a large number of situations.

Next. Should you take any art that you have studied and alter it, irrespective of the amount, then you are no longer pure. Assuming, that is, that you were ever that way to begin with. For all the yelping that I have heard over the years from the more traditional camp I have yet to see anything that would convince me that how you are punching and kicking and swiping a sword is the way that they did so in Japan in the 1600-s. Even if you were able to show that your methods were identical, the fact remains that the Japanese didn't invent swords nor hacking people to bits with them, therefore any of the Koryu arts are a logical extension of modifications that their founders learned before they founded their Arts. Someone taught Mushashi, after all. Unless, of course, the Art that you study was magicaly created and transmitted to the first generation of its students by the karate fairies.

Right. Lots of misunderstandings and errors in this, as well as completely irrefutable statements. Let's start, shall we?

A martial art is it's philosophy. That philosophy forms the approach of the art, including it's techniques and training methods. Provided an art stays within that philosophy, it remains pure. Some philosophies will include the idea of not changing things at all, others will have a philosophy of constant adaptation and evolution. Seriously, I said that already, you guys did read before arguing, didn't you? The point is that altering it doesn't stop it being "pure", if that's what the art has as part of it's entire concept in the first place.

Next, the "yelping". Hate to tell you, but there's quite a lot of evidence that classical Ryu are still using the exact same training methods and kata that they were in the beginning. It's an unavoidable part of the teachings of a number of them, including Musashi's Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, by the way. So yes, the way a sword is swung in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, or Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, is the same way that it was done hundreds of years ago. All this is very well documented within the Ryu themselves.

When it comes to the idea that "the Japanese didn't invent swords", who on earth said they did?!? And that's completely irrelevant as well, frankly. We're not talking about who invented a sword, we're talking about purity in martial systems, which in swordsmanship would refer to approaches of using the sword, not who used it first. As I said, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing.

When it comes to your comments about "Someone taught Musashi, after all" and "unless the art was magically created and transmitted to the first generation".... uh, Musashi was well known to have minimalist training, and quite a number of systems do claim to be divinely given to the founders. So you're out on both counts, there.

Point is, purity is a myth. Iwill stand by that assertion untill I can see the solid proof of the very first martial art being transmitted intact and unchanged to a current generation of its students. Once you can provide that, I'll happily concede the point.

To be frank here, Mark, you seem to have a rather odd idea of what "purity" means. Again, I suggest reading through my post a little more closely. When discussing "purity" in the martial arts "pure" doesn't mean that it is the original, first martial art, and nothing else fits the description. It means that the art remains true to what the art is, so the first thing to realize is what makes a martial art, then look at what it would mean to be true to that.

But in terms of an art being transmitted intact and unchanged from it's founding to a current generation? The two I just mentioned would pass muster there, I feel. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was passed on on the condition that it remain unchanged. Part of the philosophy of Katori Shinto Ryu includes the belief that it was divinely transmitted from the Deity of Katori Shrine, so to change it would be considered sacriligeous, and is not done. Those arts date from the early 17th Century and mid 15th Century respectively.

Next. My comment about "getting past our egos enough" is pretty simple. We train in an Art for several years and become emotionaly invested in it. We put it on a pedastal. The one day we run into someone from another system who shows you a way to perfom a technique in a way that is mechanically better than what you learned. Do you push aside your ego and vanity enough to embrace the more effective way or do you doggedly stick to what you have been taught? The reason I ask is because the founders of all those traditional arts certainly thought that their method was better than what they had been trained in or they wouldn't have went out on their own. I have to ask, though, does this qualify them for the following comdemnation?

Your take on the traditional arts founders is a fair bit off for the most part, by the way, especially where Japanese systems are concerned (Koryu etc).

Honestly Mark, I understood that. The issue, though, is that if the other method is mechanically better, then the mechanics are different to your art. If you honestly feel that the new method is better, stop training your art and pick up the other one. There are reasons your original art does things the way they do, so you either embrace that, or you don't. There are reasons the other system does things the way it does. There are reasons they're different. Taking a different mechanical approach (for a similar technique) is honestly just going to weaken both your original art and your new expression of the technique, and the reason is to feel that you're better at it. That's an ego issue, frankly. Far more than staying true to your system and trusting what it teaches is.

If you have a complete understanding of your system (and I do mean a complete understanding here.. you'd need to be able to look at the other approach and say why your system does it the way it does, why it doesn't do it the apparently "more effective" way, and understand the implications that that has), then you might be able to look at, say, a different arts way of doing a side kick, and incorporate it, or change the way you do it, but odds are, you wouldn't. You would be able to see why it doesn't work in your system. And if it doesn't work in your system, adding it won't do a thing, as you need the entire system to be congruent, and a mechanically different approach to a single kick won't be. You'd find yourself doing it the way your original system says, or, even worse, half way between the two. Thinking you know better than the art before getting that complete understanding is absolutely ego.

If you're training in a martial art to learn that martial art, other approaches are of no real consequence, so you wouldn't be bringing them in. If you're training in a martial art to be a "fighter", and are just concerned with what you think works, that's nothing to do with being a martial artist, or even learning martial arts, but you'd also be concerned with finding a congruent training approach, so outside methods would be eschewed. They could lead to adaptation within your own art, but then again, looking for "how to fight" approaches (which are always contextually driven, by the way, what is "effective" in one area isn't necessarily in another) will include such adaptation in it's philosophy and training methodology, hence it being part of the art already, and not something that would engender such emotional investment to single ideas.

Didn't Hatsumi Masaaki do much the same, or did he inherit the system from the Karate fairies? How about Stephen Hayes? Any of the other folks running around pretending to be ninja assassins?

Please. Hatsumi still states that he is teaching what he learnt from his instructor, Takamatsu, and when it comes to the traditional material, he is. But based on his understanding of each of those systems, knowing why it does what it does, he has also developed his own approach to martial arts, known as Budo Taijutsu. Steve Hayes has developed a modern approach to combat and self defence he calls Toshindo based in the strategies and some mechanical aspects of the traditional material as well, but he has not decided that the traditional systems need spinning hook kicks, or anything similar, because "they're effective". Why? Because he has enough understanding of the art in the first place.

Itosu?

Itosu was looking to popularise the art in Japan, and didn't add anything that went against the art he was teaching. One of his major contributions was to create a new series of kata (based on existing kata, so not drawing from anything outside of the art) specifically to increase their popularity by providing methods for kids to train in, and offering it to the Japanese government.

Hell, anyone after the mythical Bhoddidarma?

Seriously? I really don't think you get what I said. What I said was it was a major case of ego if you decide that you know better than the system you're training in as to what that system should do, and how it should do it. I don't even know what Bhoddidarma is doing in this conversation....

The martial arts is not superior to the person learning it. Everyone of the systems out there are nothing more than a set of instructions that are meaningless without someone actually performing them. Kenpo doesn't exist with out people performing it, neither does TKD, Aikido, or boxing for that matter. The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them. Alone, they are non-existant. Therefore there isn't a martial art that knows more than any human being. You are anthropormorphizing an intellectual construct.

And you're missing the point again. Tell you what, re-read your own words there, and you may see what I'm actually saying....

Did you spot it? It was when you said "The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them"... There was no attempt to anthropomorphize the martial arts, what I was saying was that the arts have been passed down based on the experience, knowledge, time, effort, and, in some cases, deaths and blood of those who have come before you. By saying "hey, you're doing it wrong, this other art does a different thing with their kicks", you're basically saying that the experience, knowledge, and understanding of those before you doesn't come into it. You know better, because you've come across something different. Well, who says you weren't just doing the kicks wrong in your own system first, and that's why the other one seems more effective? Who says that you haven't just met an insanely talented person who could make Ashida Kim's "system" work? Who says you understand the kicks in your system, and why they're done the way they are enough to say that another approach is better? Who says you have that kind of experience and understanding?

That's what I was getting at.

Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself.

Not in the slightest. It's like saying that the guys who have been making and bottling that scotch for the last 250 years are going to know more than the guy who's taking a tour of the distillery.

On that same note. Age, in and of itself, doesn't make a thing superior to another thing. People that are older than I am are demonstrateably incorrect on a lot of topics, as am I. I, for example, don't know how to change the transmission in my car. The mechanic that I take my car to is about ten years younger than I. By your reasoning, my opinion on how to perform the task at hand should be weighted more heavily as I am older, and obviously more knowledgable that he.

Age? No. Experience? Yep. You may be older than the mechanic, but I'm willing to be he's got far more experience at changing transmissions than you. Now, are you going to go up to him and tell him you came across a better way to do it? No, because you respect that he knows what he's doing, based on his experience. Why wouldn't you think this is the same?

You could interpret it that way. I don't, but I see why you think that. I disagree, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss your position in a broad pronouncement from on high.

What I was saying was that I feel that Ed Parker had a much deeper understanding of karate than that limited and, honestly, very lacking platitude showed.

I think that Parker meant that due to a few milenia of experimentation on the battlefield, competition ring, self devense scenarios, and in training ALL of the Arts have changed from their "original" forms. Due to this, the only test of purity that counts is efficacy. I tend to agree.

When dealing in the details of martial arts, I tend not to. I actually put that on the backseat, in terms of relevance. If that was all that was important, I might as well go around hitting people in the head with a sack full of bricks, and claiming mastery of karate. Efficacy in context, however, and I'd start to agree. But that context needs to be understood first.

Karate, in and of itself, offers nothing at all. The teacher, training enviornment, and process of learning is what assists the student in gaining anything from training. This include, but isn't limited to, being able to fight.

Now this I'd have a large disagreement with. Mainly as I consider the teacher, the material, the training methods and environment, the learning process etc a large part of what Karate offers (or any art, really).

Every teacher is re-packaging things. Except, of course, for that first caveman that figured out how to whack someone with a stick then taught his buddy. After that, though, all are imitators and repackagers to various degrees.

I feel you rather missed what I was saying there, as, honestly, no. There's a world of difference between copying an idea (hitting another caveman with a stick), and repackaging (coming up with a new presentation) of a systematic approach.

Like whom?

Kano? Is Judo as practiced today the same as when he "originated" the art?

Chow? Kara Ho is certainly not the same today as the material he taught Emperado and Parker.

Anko Itosu? No, as he created the Pinans out of Kanku, obviously not.

I wonder who could possibly meet your criteria.

You're still thinking too "young"...

Musashi Miyamoto Shinmen no Fujiwara.

Iizasa Choisai Ienao.

Takenouchi Hisamori.

Takagi Oriuemon.

Takagi Ummanosuke.

Bokuden Tsukahara.

Muso Gonnosuke.

But that's my background, and, believe it or not, I haven't wanted to turn this into a Koryu discussion.

Understand, though, that all of the above is simply my view on things. Insert IMO as needed. See, I fully realize that I could be wrong. I am very solidly convinced of my positions in this matter, though.

Just a thought,

Mark

Understood, and I'm rather convinced of mine as well. The above is more based on observation than opinion, though (except, obviously, where I'm saying who I would look to for impressive founders).

Chris,

I suck at the quote thing.

I accidentaly deleted the opening quote.

Apologies.

Mark

Ha, no problem, I could follow along fine.

 

[kbarrett]

I think all the MA are prue to their nature, the comcept borrowing something from another style and adding to your own style has been around ever since martial arts have been around, it's nothing new. Ken

 

[shihansmurf]

Ha, nothing to take issue with, Mark.

Chris,

I have a feeling that you and I are approaching the Arts from different enough perspectives that we aren't going to agree on this topic. Be that as it may, I'm enjoying the verbal sparring so to continue...

A martial art is it's philosophy. That philosophy forms the approach of the art, including it's techniques and training methods. Provided an art stays within that philosophy, it remains pure. Some philosophies will include the idea of not changing things at all, others will have a philosophy of constant adaptation and evolution. Seriously, I said that already, you guys did read before arguing, didn't you? The point is that altering it doesn't stop it being "pure", if that's what the art has as part of it's entire concept in the first place.

You, as an individual, my distinguish between "pure" and "original" but the vast majority of the martial arts worls doesn't. I don't really have a disagreement with anything that you wrote in the above, except to say that preserving anything in the martial arts merely for the sake of doing so in the face of clearly superior methods is absurd. I'll address that more as the post develops.

I did read what you wrote and I realized after rereading my post that I was riffing on the idea in general and not in specific with your posts. Apologies.

Next, the "yelping". Hate to tell you, but there's quite a lot of evidence that classical Ryu are still using the exact same training methods and kata that they were in the beginning. It's an unavoidable part of the teachings of a number of them, including Musashi's Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, by the way. So yes, the way a sword is swung in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, or Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, is the same way that it was done hundreds of years ago. All this is very well documented within the Ryu themselves.

I am aware of the evidence. I don't accept the objectivity of those claims as readily as the traditional schools would like, but I am aware of the claims. Even if it is true, historical recreation isn't an interest of mine, but I can see how it appeals to others. IF, however, we were to find a measurable way to improve the performance of the sword swing that was objectively better than the way that it was done 400 years ago should we cling doggedly to the old way for the sake of purity or creating a facimile of the initial way?

When it comes to the idea that "the Japanese didn't invent swords", who on earth said they did?!? And that's completely irrelevant as well, frankly. We're not talking about who invented a sword, we're talking about purity in martial systems, which in swordsmanship would refer to approaches of using the sword, not who used it first. As I said, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing.

You and I might agree on the "pure" and "original" dichotomy but the majority of the ma world doesn't. As to the "japanese didn't invent swords" comment I thought the meaning and implication were clear.

Given that they aren't the first culture to utilize those weapons, then any system or method that they developed for doing so was naturaly based off of an earlier school of knowledge. They took and changed the material to adapt it for their needs, as well they should. Attempting to use the Koryu arts as a model to be emmulated as a hallmark of "purity" is, at its foundation, silly. They weren't pure from the begining, being as they were distillizations of earlier knowledge.

When it comes to your comments about "Someone taught Musashi, after all" and "unless the art was magically created and transmitted to the first generation".... uh, Musashi was well known to have minimalist training, and quite a number of systems do claim to be divinely given to the founders. So you're out on both counts, there.

Minimalist training, but training nonetheless. Point is, if he applied the "system is superior to the individual" idea then he wouldn't have developed what he did. He still didn't magically create his system out of thin air. No one ever has.

But in terms of an art being transmitted intact and unchanged from it's founding to a current generation? The two I just mentioned would pass muster there, I feel. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was passed on on the condition that it remain unchanged. Part of the philosophy of Katori Shinto Ryu includes the belief that it was divinely transmitted from the Deity of Katori Shrine, so to change it would be considered sacriligeous, and is not done. Those arts date from the early 17th Century and mid 15th Century respectively.

Superstition doesn't equate with historical fact. Simply because a Japanese guy thought that the karate fairies came down and planted the idea into his head for a super cool new way to slice people up with a sword doesn't make it factual. Hell, there are a few websites out there where they claim that Aliens taught them martial arts. Both hold the same water, as far as I am concerned.

Even with that, I don't believe that those arts have remained unchanged. Each individual that performes the movements do so slightly differently as a matter of their anatomy and psychology. Again, you and I might see the difference in the "purity" vs "oniginality" concept but most don't.

Honestly Mark, I understood that. The issue, though, is that if the other method is mechanically better, then the mechanics are different to your art. If you honestly feel that the new method is better, stop training your art and pick up the other one. There are reasons your original art does things the way they do, so you either embrace that, or you don't. There are reasons the other system does things the way it does. There are reasons they're different. Taking a different mechanical approach (for a similar technique) is honestly just going to weaken both your original art and your new expression of the technique, and the reason is to feel that you're better at it. That's an ego issue, frankly. Far more than staying true to your system and trusting what it teaches is.

If you have a complete understanding of your system (and I do mean a complete understanding here.. you'd need to be able to look at the other approach and say why your system does it the way it does, why it doesn't do it the apparently "more effective" way, and understand the implications that that has), then you might be able to look at, say, a different arts way of doing a side kick, and incorporate it, or change the way you do it, but odds are, you wouldn't. You would be able to see why it doesn't work in your system. And if it doesn't work in your system, adding it won't do a thing, as you need the entire system to be congruent, and a mechanically different approach to a single kick won't be. You'd find yourself doing it the way your original system says, or, even worse, half way between the two. Thinking you know better than the art before getting that complete understanding is absolutely ego.

This defines the crux of our disagreement. You view the martial art systems quite differently than I do.

The way I see it, taking a martial art is like taking a math class. The textbook is really important but the ultimate aim is to develop and internalize the information contained in the book to a level that you surpass the need for the text as anythin other than a reference. The way you're describing it, the book is the important thing.

A better way to phrase it is this.

Karate doesn't exist as a thing in and of itself. It can't know more than I do as it isn't a real thing outside of the people performing it. I have instructors that are more knowledgeable than I but even with them the fact remain that they are not all knowing. They can, in point of fact, be wrong.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The systems are there to teach you certain skills. They are teaching models. Intellectual constructs designed to pass on information. Many who came before me as well as many who will come after will refine those methods, as well they should. Blindly accepting that the system knows better than I is a sign of intellectual laziness. Test your methods, see if they work. If not, then figure out why.

Sometimes, as you say, you don't have a deep enough understanding of the material. Other times it is because the material itself isn't that effective. Don't be to egotistical to look at a body of information and method of execution that you are emotionaly invested in and replace it with something that works better. In order to do that you have to be humble enough to admit to yourself that what you have spent all this time learning and internalizing isn't the pinnacle of the Arts and adapting to better ways.

I would argue that we derive a greater sense of hubris from associating with schools and systems because it gives us bragging rights due to the systems age/fame of the founder/ reputation than it takes to admit that we may have invested in something that doesn't work for what we are wantint to train for.

Just a thought.

If you're training in a martial art to learn that martial art, other approaches are of no real consequence, so you wouldn't be bringing them in. If you're training in a martial art to be a "fighter", and are just concerned with what you think works, that's nothing to do with being a martial artist, or even learning martial arts, but you'd also be concerned with finding a congruent training approach, so outside methods would be eschewed. They could lead to adaptation within your own art, but then again, looking for "how to fight" approaches (which are always contextually driven, by the way, what is "effective" in one area isn't necessarily in another) will include such adaptation in it's philosophy and training methodology, hence it being part of the art already, and not something that would engender such emotional investment to single ideas.

Yes and no.

I don't feel that there is an inherently superior status of "martial artist" as opposed to "fighter". Terms like "purity", "original", traditional, and the like are great buzzwords that , I feel, are of little use to developing the skillset that the martial arts teaches.

That being said(and its more of a general point in the discussion and not a specific reply to your point), knowing what you are training for and what result you are wanting to achieve for training is indispensible. Most arts can be readily adapted to competition fighting just as more "sport oriented" arts can be adapted for effetive street self defense skills. I would argue that it isn't the system but rather the individual fighter, that matters in each case given that they will have gone though the process of testing their material and adopting different methods as appropiate.

Question is, are they still doing their base art? I think so, as each of us are steadily creating our own individual martial art. I don't do Shotokan when I am throwing a reverse punch. I'm not boxing when I throw a jab. I'm not doing JKD when I do a trap/hit combo. I learned those things from those Arts, but I'm just Mark throwing a revers punch/jab/trap-hit combo.

Once I've internalized those skills they belong to me, not the people that taught me and certainly not the systems they used to train me.

That seems to be the argument here. I say the man is more important than the system, you seem to see it the other way around. Different strokes.

Age? No. Experience? Yep. You may be older than the mechanic, but I'm willing to be he's got far more experience at changing transmissions than you. Now, are you going to go up to him and tell him you came across a better way to do it? No, because you respect that he knows what he's doing, based on his experience. Why wouldn't you think this is the same?

If I found an objectively better way to change that transmission, then yes I would. I'd be polite about cause thats just the way I am, but appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The young man in the example isn't right because he is a mechanic, rather he is a mechanic because he is probably right more ofter than not in this subject. His experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will not refute an objectively provable fact.

The martial arts are the same way.

You're still thinking too "young"...

Musashi Miyamoto Shinmen no Fujiwara.

Iizasa Choisai Ienao.

Takenouchi Hisamori.

Takagi Oriuemon.

Takagi Ummanosuke.

Bokuden Tsukahara.

Muso Gonnosuke.

But that's my background, and, believe it or not, I haven't wanted to turn this into a Koryu discussion.

Now you're the one thinking "young"

Ortugg, Neaderthall founder of mounted axe head fighting.

Glagu, Australopithicus founder of smashing people with stones.

Ook-ook-meep, Ancient chimpanzee master of poo flinging.

If there is such a thing as the original martial arts it would be them.

Everbody since then has been imitating and repackaging, or at least adapting to fit with the realities of the enviornment that they are in.

The above is more based on observation than opinion

As was this.

We have obviously different experiences in the martial arts and it informs our world view. As I stated at the begining, we are unlikely to see eye to eye on this. No worries.

Just my view,
Mark

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

You won't find any pure martial systems out there. Over time even if an instructor who inherited a system does not make major changes you will find differences in their approach and teaching. Though most systems go through some radical transformation over time with things being added and taken out or new perspective. Any system that does not have addition or subtraction or difference in influence from someone teaching it is probaly not worth studying as it has more than likely degraded to theory only. If your not advancing and improving a system then what is the point? Things are not the same even twenty years ago in the Martial Sciences. Let alone three or four hundred years ago. While we as a species have remained physically the same over a long period of time the advances in science and training have improved dramatically. Every system should take advantage of this! Just watch sports science and one of their episodes on the Martial Sciences and you will see on many levels proven scientic examples that were not even available to us ten years ago.

So no there are no pure systems not even ones founded by a systems creator within a few years time. People learn and people make changes! That is the nature of people! Change is hard but everyone needs to learn how to deal with it!

 

[Cyriacus]

How pure are they?
Zilch.
Does it matter?
Not really.

 

[MJS]

There is some material in our system that was adopted from elsewhere by prior generations, some of it is stuff my sifu brought in from his early studies, as his first sifu was accomplished in another system and my sifu learned some of that from him. Sifu acknowledges where it came from, and certain things were adjusted to make it fit appropriately within how things are done in my system.

There are some things that didn't really get entirely adjusted properly to follow our sysetematic methods. This is material that my sifu has stated he doesn't really like very well. He does't like it because it doesn't fit the way our system as a whole functions. The material has other benefits and that's why it is kept, but it's just not a favorite because it sort of goes against the grain.

Things do get adopted, traded, shared, etc. from one system to another. This happens, always has and always will. Sometimes this leads to the splintering and development of a "new" system or lineage or spin-off, and sometimes it's just new material that gets absorbed. I think it is very important to ask, "does this material fit within how our system works?". If the answer is "no" then you are actually better off without it. That is a question that I believe often does not get asked. Instead, people see something that someone else is doing, and it's different and interesting, and they decide, "I need to have that, because I don't have it and it MUST be important!" But they lack the context to make it valuable and it becomes a pointless add-on that gives little or no benefit to their training. Sometimes you are actually better off WITHOUT something.

at any rate, sure it's pretty difficult to say that anything is actually pure, because nothing springs forth fully formed from a vacuum.

Good points! And as long as things are acknowledged as to where they came from, I dont see anything wrong with adding them in.

 

[MJS]

Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!

Okay, I'll clarify a bit.

Everyone who has said that there are no "pure" martial arts, that every art borrows from other arts, that every martial artist looks to other systems to augment, add, or influence and in other ways alter what they do, is wrong. Completely.

That, of course though, is not an absolute either. There are certainly martial arts (and, more realistically, martial artists) that don't follow such "purity" in their training, due to their personal preference and values. Neither is better than the other, just different approaches. But let's take it back to the beginning, because I think there's a misunderstanding of what the question is actually asking in the first place... namely, I don't think the idea of what a "pure" system is, in terms of martial arts, in the first place.

The focus of the OP from MJS is centered on technical aspects, and gives the hypothetical example of someone taking disparate techniques or technical aspects of a range of different systems, and combining them. That's really not anything to do with what makes it a pure martial art or not, or even an actual one.

Now, I've said this a number of times before, but a martial art isn't it's techniques. They are simply the physical expression of what the martial art actually is. What a martial art actually is is a philosophy, a set of beliefs and values, that are then expressed in a physical way, with the physical expression having a combative element or theme. What that means, of course, is that provided the base philosophy is adhered to, the art remains "pure". It's really these differences in philosophies that separates out different arts from each other, not their techniques (that does get a little more confused in older systems... but we'll get to that). This philosophy can range wildly, with no particular approach being "normal". It might be competitive, survival, personal development, religious, political, or anything else. It may have elements of adaptation and adoption of other approaches as part of that philosophy, in which case, taking from other arts can still be "pure", for that art. The catch is, whatever the art's philosophy is, it needs to be congruent, and it needs to be adhered to. Simply using kicks from TKD, joint locks from Aikido, throws from Judo, weapon defence from Arnis, strikes from Wing Chun etc, without adaptation (in other words, transplanting them straight from the source system to the "new" one) is a deeply flawed approach, and not something I'd consider a martial art in the first place. It's just a collection of fighting techniques with no understanding.

So, in regards to the original thread (I read through that thing... the amount of incorrect understanding was rather amazing to me!), one of the big concepts was the development of a martial art. Where does something become a distinct martial system, rather than just a copy/case of "stealing" an art? Well, when there is a clear philosophical distinction between the source system and the new one. Supporters of TKD not being "stolen" cited Judo and Aikido, saying that they were the same thing as TKD's origin being from Shotokan. At this point in time, with the development of TKD itself, there's some support for that contention, however there is a huge lack of understanding as to what the development of Judo and Aikido actually was, as that was vastly different to TKD's origins and development. Namely that both Aikido and Judo were specifically developed as new arts based in a new philosophy, different and distinct from the source arts they came from. TKD, on the other hand, was an almost purely transplanted version of Shotokan (originally), with only a small amount of re-arrangement and addition of kicking methods. It was only as it developed later that it began to have it's own distinct philosophy, which was influenced greatly by the Korean government and their hand in the alterations and shaping of the art.

To go back to the OP, and take it in turn, Mike starts by asking:


That depends on your claim. If you take the individual aspects and put them together to create a new system, with a new name, that's not necessarily stealing. Especially if you state where it all came from. An argument could be made that if you claim to have invented it all yourself, that could be stealing, but honestly, if it's just physical techniques (such as individual kicks, strikes, joint locks etc), then no. You may well be less-than-honest, or lying, about your history, and where you took the techniques from, but that's not quite the same as stealing. It's not a simple distinction, really, but it's there.

The reason it's not stealing is that you're not actually taking something unique, or particular to the source school, generally speaking. I can name dozens of schools that have the same joint locks, albeit done slightly differently, or with a slight change in emphasis, or a different name, as Aikido has. What makes it Aikido isn't the joint lock, it's the overall approach, the training methodology, which are all guided by the base philosophy of Aikido. Without that crucial base philosophy, what is taken isn't Aikido, it's just techniques. If the entire training methodology is taken, the things that are uniquely Aikido, then that is where we get into "theft".

Where this is most prevalent is in Koryu. Not in actual Koryu, mind you, but in modern systems that want to be Koryu, or at least, their take on what it is. There we get groups like the "Ogawa Ryu", a modern Brazilian system who claim to be Koryu, whereas what they actually do is copy the kata of actual Koryu. Kata are far more than techniques, they are the strategies of the Ryu, a complete embodiment of the philosophy that that art has. They are "owned" by the Ryu itself, realistically, they are copyrighted actions. An individual punch, or throw might not be, but the kata, the complete strategy that uses the punch, or throw, is.

Some examples of kata theft (an unpardonable sin in the Koryu world, by the way)...

A Bujinkan split-off stealing Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu kata.

The same group stealing Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu kata. Really, they're not doing well, are they?

A Russian group known for copying Koryu kata have a go at stealing more Katori Shinto Ryu.

And another theft of Katori Shinto Ryu kata. These ones admitted to me that they basically just copied the video of Otake Sensei, and felt that made them legitimate in their practice of Katori Shinto Ryu... regardless of the fact that it shows no understanding, there are aspects missing, the kuzushi (application) is completely missing, and it's terrible. I advised them to stop claiming to teach/show/offer Katori Shinto Ryu if they really did respect it as they said, and they banned me from commenting on their you-tube page.... hmm.

The above examples are all theft, plain and simple. They are theft the same way that copying, or covering someone's song, and not paying royalties is theft. The notes aren't what you steal, it's the way they're put together.



Well, that's the thing, Mike, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing. "Pure" would be "true to it's own philosophy and approach to combative problems", whereas "original" would be, in context here, uniquely developed devoid of outside influence. The argument could be made that all martial arts are "pure", and none of them are "original" in that sense.

In regards to the front kick example, there being a front kick present is really neither here nor there. The execution (and the name), though, are a reflection of the philosophy. To use a TKD front kick in, say, Wing Chun, doesn't work, as the philosophies are too different when it comes to postural concepts, power generation, angling, distancing, and so on.



The closer they stay to their philosophies, the more "pure" they are... and that philosophy can be one of adaptation, incorporation of new ideas, exploration, and so on (such as JKD, MMA, BJJ etc), which doesn't make them any less "pure" as a martial art. It's really only those devoid of such a philosophy that aren't "pure" (mind you, as I said, they're also not martial arts to my mind either...), or instructors/practitioners who don't understand their art and it's philosophy enough, so they bring in incongruent elements, which leads those schools to teach/practice an "impure" version of their art. Not to pick on the Akban guys again, but that's what I'm against in my comments in the "Sparring" thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?21401-sparring/page12).

Now, a few things.

Mark (Shihansmurf) said:


There's a couple of things here that I'd take some issue with... firstly the comment "if we can look past our egos enough". I gotta ask, Mark, what makes it an ego thing that way? And how is it not a much bigger ego which has someone thinking they know better than an art which has existed longer than they have in most cases? That, to me, is a much more severe case of "ego" coming into play here.

Next, I feel that Ed Parker was looking for a soundbite, something that simplified things in an easily digestible mouthful. Cause, you see, he's wrong. Pure knuckles meeting pure flesh is nothing to do with Karate, pure or otherwise. It's just knuckles meeting flesh. Don't get me wrong, I get where he was going with it, the idea that the concrete reality of physical experience is required for your study of Karate to be considered "real" in any way, but the infinite number of ways knuckles can meet flesh which has nothing to do with Karate negates his statement to begin with, and the idea that that is the extent of what Karate is teaching in dealing with conflict/violence is to completely understate what Karate offers and is to the point of negating what Karate is at all.

Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way). There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years...

I'm going to agree/disagree with some of this Chris. While you say that its not the techs, but instead the philosophy...well, I highly doubt that even in the same art, g that every single person is doing things the same way, despite the philosophy. I said the same thing you just did, in my opening post, when I talked about method of execution. I think TF was basically talking about not giving credit where its due. It I took Kenpo techs, and Arnis locks, made up my own art, without giving the credit.....well, I believe thats what he was talking about.

Regarding this:

Well, that's the thing, Mike, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing. "Pure" would be "true to it's own philosophy and approach to combative problems", whereas "original" would be, in context here, uniquely developed devoid of outside influence. The argument could be made that all martial arts are "pure", and none of them are "original" in that sense.

I suppose they can be similar. Yeah, they're different in a sense, but the same, in a way. Let me ask you this...when the Jinenkan and Genbukan were formed, are you saying that neither was influenced by the Bujinkan?

As for Emperado...I think thats an insult to Kaju Chris. But if you think about it....Hapkido and Aikido could be repacked. Same types of locks, just different names and ways to perform them.

 

[puunui]

Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that. 5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.

Actually it wasn't five different arts and five founders in Kajukenbo. There was Peter Choo, who did american boxing ("Bo" stands for american boxing, not chinese boxing), Kodenkan jujutsu, judo and Kenpo, Joe Holck who did Judo and Kodenkan Jujutsu, Frank Ordonez who did kodenkan jujutsu and a little american boxing, and Adriano Emperado who did kenpo. George Chang (not Clarence) did not do martial arts but instead was a photographer who took the pictures of the techniques. They did blend it into a new art though.

 

[puunui]

Supporters of TKD not being "stolen" cited Judo and Aikido, saying that they were the same thing as TKD's origin being from Shotokan. At this point in time, with the development of TKD itself, there's some support for that contention, however there is a huge lack of understanding as to what the development of Judo and Aikido actually was, as that was vastly different to TKD's origins and development. Namely that both Aikido and Judo were specifically developed as new arts based in a new philosophy, different and distinct from the source arts they came from. TKD, on the other hand, was an almost purely transplanted version of Shotokan (originally), with only a small amount of re-arrangement and addition of kicking methods. It was only as it developed later that it began to have it's own distinct philosophy, which was influenced greatly by the Korean government and their hand in the alterations and shaping of the art.

I don't really agree with your assessment of taekwondo's developmental path, at least when compared to Aikido, but that's ok. What I wanted to ask you is do you think taekwondo "pure" now, given its development over the last 68 years?

 

[puunui]

I think this is the crux of the issue, particularly in the TKD section. Some, not all Korean GM's want to portray (or have portrayed) TKD as a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art. Which of course, it is not. It is Karate with renamed or recreated forms and extra kicks.

Not really but that's ok. I would say that most taekwondo practitioners are unclear about the historical origin of their arts because they didn't ask their teachers and it wasn't important to them, at least when they were practicing in Korea under their Korean teachers. Back when these Korean practitioners were training, one didn't ask their teachers such questions. In many cases, they didn't even know their teacher's first names. Then when they came to the United States, they had their american students make up a school pamphlet or other school handouts, and those students in turn copied off of General Choi's books or Corcoran and Farkas' Encyclopedia and put the 2000 year old thing in, without understanding what the 2000 year thing actually was. The original instructor from Korea did not know the history and frankly didn't care, just like the Okinawan teachers did not know the history of their own art, and didn't really care either.

 

[puunui]

Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself.

I thought blue was 60 years old. That's what leo mcgarry said on a west wing episode. I always keep at least two bottles in the house, one open, one not.

 

[puunui]

Good points! And as long as things are acknowledged as to where they came from, I dont see anything wrong with adding them in.

I think it depends on what your goal is. In that I do agree with Mr. Parker that certain arts have certain philosophy or themes, which may be counter productive. For example, an MMA guy adding in hook swords to his style may not be the best fit philosophically.

 

[puunui]

I'm going to agree/disagree with some of this Chris. While you say that its not the techs, but instead the philosophy...well, I highly doubt that even in the same art, g that every single person is doing things the same way, despite the philosophy. I said the same thing you just did, in my opening post, when I talked about method of execution. I think TF was basically talking about not giving credit where its due. It I took Kenpo techs, and Arnis locks, made up my own art, without giving the credit.....well, I believe thats what he was talking about.

And to the topic of giving credit, in taekwondo for example, it depends on who you ask as to which answer you will get. If you ask one of the kwan founders, they will openly speak about their experiences in Japan (if you approach them in the proper way of course).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Not really but that's ok. I would say that most taekwondo practitioners are unclear about the historical origin of their arts because they didn't ask their teachers and it wasn't important to them, at least when they were practicing in Korea under their Korean teachers. Back when these Korean practitioners were training, one didn't ask their teachers such questions. In many cases, they didn't even know their teacher's first names. Then when they came to the United States, they had their american students make up a school pamphlet or other school handouts, and those students in turn copied off of General Choi's books or Corcoran and Farkas' Encyclopedia and put the 2000 year old thing in, without understanding what the 2000 year thing actually was. The original instructor from Korea did not know the history and frankly didn't care, just like the Okinawan teachers did not know the history of their own art, and didn't really care either.

With respect, yes really but that's also okay

All I can tell you is that every time I've seen the '2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art' be it TKD or TSD, it was a Korean saying it and not an American. But that is also okay, we all can't know everyone.

In regards to Okinawan teachers not knowing their history, this is incorrect. Many have written extensively on the subject and knew their lineage and history. Uechi Ryu is a fine example.

 

[MJS]

Actually it wasn't five different arts and five founders in Kajukenbo. There was Peter Choo, who did american boxing ("Bo" stands for american boxing, not chinese boxing), Kodenkan jujutsu, judo and Kenpo, Joe Holck who did Judo and Kodenkan Jujutsu, Frank Ordonez who did kodenkan jujutsu and a little american boxing, and Adriano Emperado who did kenpo. George Chang (not Clarence) did not do martial arts but instead was a photographer who took the pictures of the techniques. They did blend it into a new art though.

http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/kajukenbohistory.html

Kajukenbo is a prime example of American ingenuity. It is also America's first martial art system, having been founded in 1949 in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. One of today's foremost instructors in kajukenbo is Gary Forbach from San Clemente, California. According to him, kajukenbo's inception came about in 1947 when five Hawaiian martial arts masters calling themselves the "Black Belt Society" started on a project to develop a comprehensive self defense system. These five men of vision were Peter Choo, the Hawaii welterweight boxing champion, and a Tang Soo Do black belt. Frank Ordonez, a Sekeino Jujitsu black belt. Joe Holck, a Kodokan Judo black belt. Clarence Chang, a master of Sil-lum Pai kung fu. And Adriano D. Emperado, a Kara-Ho Kenpo black belt and Escrima master.

I dont do Kajukenbo. However, John Bishop, whos page I took this from, is a member here. I'll defer any Kaju related questions to him.