Chris Parker
Grandmaster
But how are you defining Bunkai then?
Performing the Katas by Iain Abernethy
- Thread starter Black Belt Jedi
- Start date
Whether the technique from the kata KOs you and/or incapacitates you or just a pretty 'cool' move in the dojo! The former is Bunkai and the second is not. :ultracool
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
But that's not Bunkai, that's just a technique. Bunkai is the taking apart of the kata in order to find hidden applications, not just "well, this strike to this point is really effective". And I think that's been Gary's point.
Nope. Do you deny that the re-wording, reference, or term was changes to be not associated with China?
And meh, upon a scant few that held onto its "ties"
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
You said "Karate" never meant "China Hand". You were wrong. You said that "Kara Te" was a reference to Japan, and "Tode" (and, for some as yet unexplained reason, Tang) were references to China, when "Karate" was a reference to China (in Japanese). You have been corrected on the kanji, terminology, dates, reasons, and more, yet you still argue. I really don't know how you can maintain any semblance of thinking you're right here.
Do you deny that the re-wording, reference, or term was changes to be not associated with China?
Can you absoultely state this as a non-possibility?
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
If you'd read the article I linked for you (twice!), you'd see that it was more to do with not having any objections, and to differentiate between Okinawan and Japanese forms of karate, nothing to do with a disassociation from China. Hell, there was support for retaining the name "China Hand" as it was famous as that on Okinawa still.
Godsdammit, Rickster, no, it's not a Japanese reference, it's a Japanese term! And, depending on how it's written, it can be a direct reference to China! Which would make it a Chinese reference (in Japanese)!! I have no idea how you're managing to be this delusional!
I guess you were there. I guess you did not see how dominating Japan was to a point of trying to de-culturize any place they forced a take-over.
Besides that, their pride of trying to lay claim to something trying to be passed off being uniquely Japanese.
So a "term" cannot be a "reference"...hmmmnnnn
Sojobo
Green Belt
Hi Tez,
Personally, I think that understanding the history and traditions of your art is an important part of realising how and why the art works.
I expect my students to at least have an appreciation of this and my instructors (in both Wado-ryu and Koryu Bujutsu) expect the same from me.
I'm about to reply to Iain on his site and - at his request - I'm going to give him some more background on Wado-ryu, the part that Wado Kata play within its pedagogy and its connection to Shindo Yoshin ryu.
If you have the time, have a read - I think it will clear up a few things.
Sojobo
I know a good amount of history of martial arts, what I don't go in for is the minutiae of it I'm afraid. I simply don't have the time, I work shifts, teach martial arts for four hours three nights a week if I can plus with the Olympics coming up I will be away for five weeks on deployment soon, I ref, corner and judge on MMA fights, as well as supporting my daughter's Cheer squad. There simply isn't enough time for me to go into the detail many do. I'm not ignorant of the history of Wado... and other styles, I also know some of that 'history' isn't, not with karate but with TSD etc being 2000 years old etc. We all have to cut our cloth according to what we have, I'm meeting myself coming back as it is. MT and Iain's site as well as his books, videos and the seminars I can get to have to comprise my training in traditional martial arts these days.
I posted in jest but yes Bunkai as I understand it is the taking apart of the kata to find the techniques, that's what I was taught by my Wado instructors when I started 20 years ago. That's how I've always thought it was done until being told here there's no Bunkai use in Wado.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Are you kidding me here?!?! Was I there? Seriously? Were the minutes of the actual meeting not enough for you?
After all, were you there? Or, more importantly, can you provide any evidence at all that supports your claims, aside from what you think the reasons were? Because so far, you've been proven wrong in every single aspect of this discussion.
The words are Japanese, hence Japanese terms. They are not a reference to Japan. One of the Japanese words is a reference to China. I seriously can't believe you are being this thick-headed about this.
Ah, that's better... Right, Tez. When you say that you "took the kata apart to find the techniques", were you looking at the individual actions/movements in order to understand them as they were presented (Kaisetsu), or were you looking at the movements to see alternate potential applications hidden within them (Bunkai)? I can certainly see the Kaisetsu approach being labeled as Bunkai, in fact, I think that'd be common, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing.
TimoS
Master of Arts
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Chris Parker wrote:
Chris,
I have read the minutes quite closely and I do not come away with your conclusion at all. I fully support Rickster's reading of history here. I do not believe the minutes, combined with a host of other historical issues, support your interpretation. I have little doubt that the term "empty" was imposed on the Okinawans at the 1936 meeting. It was indeed, somewhat of a face-saving meeting. The Okinawans were asked a bit about the history of their art.
But the thought that this was some true collaboration, that the Okinawans really had any say in this decision, is, in my view, not really supported in the minutes.
I would be surprised if anyone would believe that if had the Okinawan masters said "no, we want to continue to call the art Toudi, and refuse to use the new kanji and call it karate," that this would have in any way been successful.
It is my interpretation that the meeting was a mere formality, and that the decision to change the name was likely made long prior to the meeting.
I would be happy to engage in a lengthier discussion of this.
I fully acknowledge that this really does not pertain to anything meaningful in today's karate world. We are arguing over the historical semantics of a name change that began over a hundred years ago, and was completed 75 years ago. But I am very interested in this subject and would be quite happy to debate here the numerous factors that likely contributed to the name change.
-Cayuga Karate
Chris,
I have read the minutes quite closely and I do not come away with your conclusion at all. I fully support Rickster's reading of history here. I do not believe the minutes, combined with a host of other historical issues, support your interpretation. I have little doubt that the term "empty" was imposed on the Okinawans at the 1936 meeting. It was indeed, somewhat of a face-saving meeting. The Okinawans were asked a bit about the history of their art.
But the thought that this was some true collaboration, that the Okinawans really had any say in this decision, is, in my view, not really supported in the minutes.
I would be surprised if anyone would believe that if had the Okinawan masters said "no, we want to continue to call the art Toudi, and refuse to use the new kanji and call it karate," that this would have in any way been successful.
It is my interpretation that the meeting was a mere formality, and that the decision to change the name was likely made long prior to the meeting.
I would be happy to engage in a lengthier discussion of this.
I fully acknowledge that this really does not pertain to anything meaningful in today's karate world. We are arguing over the historical semantics of a name change that began over a hundred years ago, and was completed 75 years ago. But I am very interested in this subject and would be quite happy to debate here the numerous factors that likely contributed to the name change.
-Cayuga Karate
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Cool. Remember that the way this started here was that Rickster claimed that "Karate" had never meant "China Hand", and this has been a way of demonstrating (beyond what I felt was needed) that he was completely wrong.
But to get to your interpretation, the overall feel I get from the meetings minutes are that the art had been growing in popularity, but there was some confusion as to what it was, based on the name "China Hand". In other words, people thought it was a Chinese martial art, rather than an Okinawan one, so part of the reason for the name change was to alleviate this confusion. Another part of it was to try to begin a "unification" of karate, removing the separation between styles (Funakoshi, among others, was a supporter of the idea that there really aren't, or shouldn't be different karate systems, there should just be "karate"), and the Okinawan membership moved that the name change be taken on universally. The move away from a reference to China in the name wasn't anything to do with national pride, or shame, but more about the confusion the name was having. Even on Okinawa, Fukushima notes, the kanji "China Hand" make sense to those who already know what karate is, but not to others. It's also noted (by Shimabukuro) that the term "Tode" (which, really, is just an alternate pronunciation of the kanji that read "China Hand", as shown in an earlier post of mine) was used to show which of the arts were brought over from China, and "Te" was used to show the arts that developed on Okinawa. By that token, it's also more plausible that the name change was to show (again) a separation of origin, coming from either Okinawa, or newly developed in Japan, as opposed to China (again, nothing to do with shame of occupational action... knowing some of the stories that have come out of such events [meaning the occupation of Manchuria], such shame just wasn't as much of a factor).
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Timo S wrote:
So let's debate it then.
First, My post clearly states:
1905 is 107 years ago. This statement I wrote is an implicit reference to Hanashiro's text. Regarding my use of the term "new", I concede that the term "different" might have been clearer. However, regarding your statement "which means that they were probably used in that way previously, just not in writing that has survived to this day" I would be most interested if you had any further evidence, other than Hanashiro's text that the kanji for "empty" was common, as compared to the kanji for T'ang. For instance, Itosu ten lessons, published at the same time, use the kanji for T'ang.
In contrast to your statement about the prevalence of the kanji for empty as far back as 1905, we can look to the 1936 meeting minutes themselves to shed light on this.
Following are some statements from the 1936 meeting. I am particularly curious about your perspective on Miyagi's discussion of the controversial aspect of this name change. Why do you believe it was controversial?
If the kanji for "empty" was in use since 1905, why would the name change have been considered controversial?
But let's get back to Hanashiro's use of the kanji "empty" in 1905. I have an additional question for you. What does Hanashiro have in his background, that is quite different from most other karatemen of his day that would make him likely to consider this change back in 1905.
In other words, is there anything in Hanashiro's background that might lead him to use this term, one that may not have gained any significant usage within Okinawa, but was later adopted by Funakoshi in Tokyo?
- Cayuga Karate
So let's debate it then.
First, My post clearly states:
1905 is 107 years ago. This statement I wrote is an implicit reference to Hanashiro's text. Regarding my use of the term "new", I concede that the term "different" might have been clearer. However, regarding your statement "which means that they were probably used in that way previously, just not in writing that has survived to this day" I would be most interested if you had any further evidence, other than Hanashiro's text that the kanji for "empty" was common, as compared to the kanji for T'ang. For instance, Itosu ten lessons, published at the same time, use the kanji for T'ang.
In contrast to your statement about the prevalence of the kanji for empty as far back as 1905, we can look to the 1936 meeting minutes themselves to shed light on this.
Following are some statements from the 1936 meeting. I am particularly curious about your perspective on Miyagi's discussion of the controversial aspect of this name change. Why do you believe it was controversial?
If the kanji for "empty" was in use since 1905, why would the name change have been considered controversial?
But let's get back to Hanashiro's use of the kanji "empty" in 1905. I have an additional question for you. What does Hanashiro have in his background, that is quite different from most other karatemen of his day that would make him likely to consider this change back in 1905.
In other words, is there anything in Hanashiro's background that might lead him to use this term, one that may not have gained any significant usage within Okinawa, but was later adopted by Funakoshi in Tokyo?
- Cayuga Karate
Last edited:
TimoS
Master of Arts
Well, I hardly can have evidence, when the oldest known historical evidence is the book. However, all I'm saying that since it was written in a book, it is quite likely that it was used in that context even before that. Can I prove it? No, of course I can't, but as you yourself highlighted, Miyagi sensei is saying that "most people" use the kanji for China. That already tells us that not everyone did. Why not? Who knows!
I wouldn't know. I haven't really read that much about Hanashiro Chomo.
Debate is certainly encouraged, but this thread is for the purpose of discussing Abernathy's works. If you wish to continue your debate, it's advisable to start a new thread.
