Musashi said...

[Archangel M]

To become overly attached to one weapon is as bad as not knowing it sufficiently well.

Ive been thinking about that statement for a while. Ive read the Book of Five Rings a few times and recently picked up a pretty good bio./analysis of Musashi's work. It seems to me that (as with most of Musashi's work) he wants us to look beyond the surface of what he wrote and make some deeper connections. On the surface he seems to be saying, "dont devote your entire life to one weapon (sword)". I think hes implying that "The Way of Strategy" is beyond weapons entirely. And that by concentrating on weapons instead of on "cutting down the enemy" you loose sight of the way. Now that doesnt mean that you shouldnt practice with weapons, study/discuss weapons or be concerned with having the right weapon for the situation, just that you should be focused on "The Way" so that if you loose your weapon, run out of ammo, or pick up a dropped wepon that you wont be disconcerted.

Opinions?

 

[MarkC]

I think he knew what he was talking about. He won many of his duels using a bokken instead of steel.

 

[Deaf Smith]

First, Miyamoto said, "overly attached", and was not implying one should ignore the superiority of a particular weapon. Nor did he say to favor one would be bad (that is being 'attached' to one, or liking it alot.)

He was pointing out one should become familiar with many of the current weapons that are prevailant and understand them well. And while you might favor a partiular type of weapon, to not become dependant on it in exclusion of other common weapons.

Deaf

 

[Hyper_Shadow]

If you become attached to a particular weapon (note he doesn't specify swords or other arms, weapon can mean your body) then when you lose it or it is overwhelmed you will panic and die. It's like having two sharpshooters and one saying to the other I'm gonna win because my rifle has 300 metres more accurate range than yours, only to get killed later on by the other guy knifing him in the back.
I been studying Musashi's work for years. Everytime I read a section anew I conclude something different. Fact is we'll never fully know what Musashi meant in leaving the information he did. There are all sorts of different translations nowadays that it's hard to discern the context in which they were translated.
I agree with being focussed on cutting down the target. Or defeating the enemy. The essence of swordship, of martial arts is to win. Not to survive, not to defend yourself, but to be the victor, normally by killing someone else. Strip away all the spiritualism and that is the bare bones through and through.
To conclude I believe Musashi means to be adaptive to your environment. Don't take anything as fixed. You're not always gonna be the one getting attacked, you may be the attacker. You're not always gonna be in the same combat situation so you need to be ready to adapt to stay alive long enough to win.
I was reading through a book a while back, by mark chadbourn. I think it was called The Hounds of Avalon. It's a fantasy novel but it had a very phrase I picked up.

"Nothing is fixed in the fixed lands."

 

[tshadowchaser]

You're not always going to be in the same combat situation so you need to be ready to adapt to stay alive long enough to win.

This statement sums up what I draw from the quote. A weapon be it a sword or a hammer is not something you should become overly attached to because it may not be there when you need it.
Also being overly attached to one weapon make you dependent upon it thusly you are at a disadvantage, just as the person who dose not know how to use it, when you do not have it

 

[Grenadier]

If you were living in the mideval European scenario, going against enemies who wore various types of armor, I'd imagine that you would want several weapons at your access, since you may be encountering different types of enemies.

For example, long spears for long range melee, maybe swords for up close, but also keeping maces, flails, or picks to use against heavily armored opponents. Use the right tool for the right job, after all...

 

[jim777]

It's sort of the same as "don't put all your eggs in one basket" when you think about it.

Over reliance on any one thing makes that thing a crutch.

 

[thardey]

With the mindset I was in when I first read that, I took it to mean that if you study one weapon, to the exclusion of all others, then you will never really understand that one weapon.

There's a similar thought in language: "If all you know is your first language, then you really don't know your first language." That is, it's not until you try to apply your language to another's that you really begin to appreciate the details of how your own language is constructed.

My first weapon training was in rapier, I learned to stab, and learned it pretty well. Then I moved into longsword, where I learned to cut. Now, with the rapier, I know how to stab, and how to cut, and the various defenses that come with each. It is possible to have learned that without the longsword, but I learned it in a different way than I would have otherwise.

Also, having practiced the longsword against a rapier, gives me a different perspective as well.

As we've found on the sword forum, a sword is simply a sword. There are only so many principles that can come from it. It only moves in so many ways. In all weapons, there is usually some principle that applies to most other weapons. Limiting yourself to only one style of weapon, or one certain length of weapon, makes in more difficult to find that underlying thread.

In demonstrating "hooking" strikes in karate, I have used as examples (sometimes actually bringing the weapon to class), swords, nunchacku, bullwhips, golf clubs, and bo staffs. There's a common thread that runs through those weapons, which wouldn't be obvious unless you were familiar with them.

 

[geezer]

I agree with being focussed on... defeating the enemy. The essence of swordship, of martial arts is to win. Not to survive, not to defend yourself, but to be the victor

This reminds me of the attitude of my first Escrima instructor. He was a bit of a Musashi-like character. Large, powerful, intelligent and a bit of a renegade among FMA masters. Always disheveled, he was often faulted by his peers for the roughness of his manners and the aggressiveness of his combat system. He despised complicated, flashy movements and was a big advocate of hitting first, with devastating power, directness and efficiency.

After one demonstration of double-stick techniques, a student asked him if using two sticks (or blades) was always better than one. He responded, "It doesn't matter." Confused, the student re-phrased his question, asking if that meant that sometimes one stick was better than two. The master retorted, "No. Give me two sticks, one stick, or nothing. I'm still going to win."

 

[Marginal]

Ive been thinking about that statement for a while. Ive read the Book of Five Rings a few times and recently picked up a pretty good bio./analysis of Musashi's work. It seems to me that (as with most of Musashi's work) he wants us to look beyond the surface of what he wrote and make some deeper connections. On the surface he seems to be saying, "dont devote your entire life to one weapon (sword)". I think hes implying that "The Way of Strategy" is beyond weapons entirely. And that by concentrating on weapons instead of on "cutting down the enemy" you loose sight of the way. Now that doesnt mean that you shouldnt practice with weapons, study/discuss weapons or be concerned with having the right weapon for the situation, just that you should be focused on "The Way" so that if you loose your weapon, run out of ammo, or pick up a dropped wepon that you wont be disconcerted.

Opinions?

I always took that to mean, use the right tool for the job. A sword does one thing, a spear another, and so on.

 

[DavidCC]

Ive been thinking about that statement for a while. Ive read the Book of Five Rings a few times and recently picked up a pretty good bio./analysis of Musashi's work. It seems to me that (as with most of Musashi's work) he wants us to look beyond the surface of what he wrote and make some deeper connections. On the surface he seems to be saying, "dont devote your entire life to one weapon (sword)". I think hes implying that "The Way of Strategy" is beyond weapons entirely. And that by concentrating on weapons instead of on "cutting down the enemy" you loose sight of the way. Now that doesnt mean that you shouldnt practice with weapons, study/discuss weapons or be concerned with having the right weapon for the situation, just that you should be focused on "The Way" so that if you loose your weapon, run out of ammo, or pick up a dropped wepon that you wont be disconcerted.

Opinions?

musashi was also one of the earlist documented to use and teach the use of 2 swords. So maybe he was saying don't be attached to ONE weapon (try TWO!)


ok but seriously by his later years he was often writing about swordsmanship as a metaphor for his entire life; he may have meant fighting, killing, all forms violence, as "one weapon". I think late in life he regretted not being more socially adept which prevented him from attaining the high ranking teaching positions he really wanted (ref: Yagyu Munenori)

 

[Archangel M]

To become overly attached to one weapon is as bad as not knowing it sufficiently well.

The literal translation as I read it is, to become so focused on one weapon, either in training or in combat, is as bad as using a weapon you dont understand.

Some good responses so far. How about I throw out an analogy. What if you replace your martial art and its particular strategies and techniques with the word WEAPON?

 

[Archangel M]

I think late in life he regretted not being more socially adept which prevented him from attaining the high ranking teaching positions he really wanted (ref: Yagyu Munenori)

Excellent point. I believe that we (westerners in particular) tend to always take the written word on its surface. To Musashi all of life was about "The Way" so comparing/blending martial arts philosophy with life philosophy without explicitly explaining it is a very real possibility.

 

[DavidCC]

If you read more of his writing it becomes more clear

Complete Writings of Miyamoto Musashi

 

[bowser666]

It basically says to me that never put all your eggs in one basket. The one weapon that you train in all the time may not always be available. So what happens in a situation where a sword is called for when all you know is Staff ? This is what I think ti means.

 

[charyuop]

Been a long time since I read Musashi, but wasn't he himself who defined his art and weapon the only one which is the true art and weapon? There is a section in that book, if I well remember, where he talks specifically of other bujutsu and weapons and basically puts them all down badly.

I do agree that being attached to one weapon is bad, but not because training in more weapons is better. A weapon is not a part of your body and can't be always with you and/or a weapon can break and/or in the heat of the fight an opponent can disarm you. At that point if you rely solely on your weapon, in the moment the weapon itself is no longer available you have automatically welcome defeat. If you don't rely solely on your weapon, but more in your skills with and without weapons, in the moment you come to lose your weapon there won't be any single instant you will be not prepared. The moment the weapon will disappear from your hands will naturally link to the continue of the bare hand fight. Instead if you rely too much on your weapon, the moment the weapon itself will come to disappear from your hands a period of "lost" feeling will take possession of your body. By the time you will have realized that you need to move from a weapon fight onto relying on something else you will be dead. If you don't rely on "one weapon", you will be ready to replace that weapon when it comes to be no longer available with another one (which can be bare hands) with a natural flow which causes no interruption.

Of course this is just a personal interpretation of his words...

 

[Hyper_Shadow]

Instead if you rely too much on your weapon, the moment the weapon itself will come to disappear from your hands a period of "lost" feeling will take possession of your body. By the time you will have realized that you need to move from a weapon fight onto relying on something else you will be dead. If you don't rely on "one weapon", you will be ready to replace that weapon when it comes to be no longer available with another one (which can be bare hands) with a natural flow which causes no interruption.

Well said. It is widely known that Musashi himself was masterful in over 9 different weapon types. No mean feat at all in his time. Hell, no mean feat today.

 

[geezer]

Well said. It is widely known that Musashi himself was masterful in over 9 different weapon types. No mean feat at all in his time. Hell, no mean feat today.

It's also widely known that he suckered and tricked his opponents, used every advantage he could get. He threw his sword at his opponents, body-slammed them, beat their heads in with wooden swords and pieces of firewood, and killed a twelve year-old boy to make a point. He was even more a master of the psychology and tactics of combat than technique. And, at least during his dueling years, it was all about winning. How else could anyone win over sixty duels, fight in numerous mass battles and live to die in a cave of natural causes?

 

[Marginal]

Well said. It is widely known that Musashi himself was masterful in over 9 different weapon types. No mean feat at all in his time. Hell, no mean feat today.

Well, not really. Most Samurai were familiar with the bow, spear etc.

It's not too far removed from imagining modern day combat troops as people who've mastered hand grenade throwing and pistol whipping maybe, and admiring those troops who also know how to shoot a rifle, fire the pistol etc.

 

[DavidCC]

killed a twelve year-old boy to make a point.

I read Complete Writing of Miyamoto Musashi and they describe almost every one of Musashi's duels and his travels throughout Japan and I don;t remember this at all. i do remember that HE was about 12 when he fought his first duel. Can you provide mroe detail on this?