Train MA for self-cultivation

[Urban Trekker]

Hmm. So treating PTSD, depression, and other mental health issues (that can affect any of us, if we are being honest about it) is cheap and easy? Damn, guess my brother lost his eldest son to schizophrenia (and suicide) 'cause he's a tightwad!

Dude, I don't think you are really thinking these issues through. They are complex. And don't get me wrong. I'm not "blaming guns". Like I said ..."complex".

You're not thinking it through. I said "prevent." You're talking about things after the fact.

 

[geezer]

Niezsche: "That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger". Fact he was weakened, collapsed into dementia and after years, ultimately died of syphilis.

Me: Moderate adversity may toughen you, too much will break you, and that which almost, but doesn't quite kill you leaves you broken for life. Then we all die. ....So, I'm going to take a nap.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yes, teaching responsible gun ownership is important. I'd like to see proper firearm use, safety and marksmanship taught in public schools. People think that's weird. But since we live in a society with a lot of guns, it makes total sense to me. I learned that stuff hunting with my dad and grandad, and even in the boy scouts (they had a great little range at Camp Geronimo!).

We had competitive rifle and pistol teams at my High School. And it wasn't at all uncommon to leave a rifle in your vehicle. Because we'd go rabbit hunting and stuff after school.
Different world...

My other comment regarding accidental deaths and suicides was about more than gun safety. A martial art associate of mine, a vet, MA school owner and firearms safety instructor, went through some hard times recently including financial troubles (nearly closing his school) and a divorce. A friend stopped in to check on him and found him distraught and putting a loaded pistol in his mouth. Fortunately, a tragedy was averted. I've lost other friends to suicide by firearms.

Without firearms close by, you often hear about "attempted suicide". With them, it's a done deal. Not sure what the answer is.

Most "attempted suicide" isn't really attempted suicide. It's more about not knowing how to get help. So they take a bunch of pills right in front of someone else, or post about it.
People who really want to die, die. Guns or no guns.
If we want to address the problem of suicide, we need to do it by addressing the lack of decent mental resources and the stigma of seeking help.

 

[isshinryuronin]

We have our Codes of Karate, which have been passed down, with mistakes no doubt, over the years. I think about what they mean and how I can apply them, and often find they have more than simply martial aspects; they have universal truths behind them.

Let's take one of them that happens to be my favorite. "A person's unbalance is the same as a weight." What does this mean?

Taken at face value, and only considering martial aspects, it means that if a person is off-balance, they cannot respond quickly or correctly to an attack; it is as if you gave them a bag of sand to carry and then hit them as they struggled to control it.

The Isshinryu Code of Karate is a mostly accurate version of the Eight Precepts of Chuan Fa, which can be found in Patrick McCarthey's translation of the Bubishi. Some are worded the same, some differently, but have the same core meaning, so IMO should not be considered mistakes. They all have aspects that extend beyond MA, as you have surmised. Think of basic bunkai vs oyo.

Your favorite, "A person's unbalance..." you have interpreted as having to do with the ability to respond to an attack. I definitely agree. The Bubishi's translation of this one is, "One must adapt to changing conditions." An attack is certainly a changing condition, and, if off balance, adapting/responding to it is difficult. And, as you say, it's hard to adapt to any changes in life if you are not balanced mentally/spiritually.

It is said Miyagi based the name "Go-ju" ryu on the 3rd precept, dealing with hard-soft.

Just studying these 8 concepts and putting them to use is a whole course in "self-cultivation."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We have our Codes of Karate, which have been passed down,

We have codes for CMA too. But I don't know how to pass it down.

For a CMA teacher, he has to teach his students how to help the

- weak to fight against the strong.
- good to fight against the evil.

Today, the term evil is hard to define.

 

[Buka]

We have codes for CMA too. But I don't know how to pass it down.

For a CMA teacher, he has to teach his students how to help the

- weak to fight against the strong.
- good to fight against the evil.

Today, the term evil is hard to define.

Wang, you said "today the word evil is hard to define.'

Ain't that the truth, my brother, ain't that the truth.

 

[Buka]

Okay, so help me understand what some are suggesting.

Do martial arts schools teach people to kick and punch other human beings and leave at that, and are paying lip service if they claim to do more than that?

Or is there objection to schools teaching more, and that martial arts schools should only teach people how to kick and punch other human beings, and leave it at that?

Martial Arts schools are just so different from each other. Even within the same styles, even within the same organizations. How many Martial Arts schools have you been in, have you trained in or visited and just watched? Ever seen two that were alike? I haven't. (I don't ask that as a call out, please believe that, it is not my intent at all, honest to God.) Even fast Freddie's schools were different. (Villari) (Oh, F him and his fifteenth degree puke belt)

I've been in a whole lot of them, in several countries, in a dozen states or more. Enjoyed every one of them, even if I didn't care for how they trained.

If you visit enough schools, not only will your eyes open a lot, not only will you pick up things that you'll probably implement to help your students, it will also allow you to ask yourself WTF?

One of my black belts once told me, "Dojos are like restaurants. Different."

I think he made a good point.

 

[_Simon_]

Kenshiro Abbe was the soke of the Kyushindo philosophical system. He questioned the why and looked for deeper answers in the Judo, Aikido, and Kendo that he held high ranks in. He reportedly eventually became dejected because he was unable to make anyone understand what he was trying to say and stopped trying.

I am not comparing myself to him, not in any way. However, having found a path that works for me, I find myself utterly unable to explain it to anyone else, especially martial artists who see punch and kick but nothing more in martial arts. If that is all you see, that is all there is, for you. I see something else, and I pursue it. I cannot make you see what I see.

Yeah same, Bill. I find it very difficult, even though I rabbited on trying before haha. I think because it touches more on intangibles, and when someone might only be used to looking at measurables, tangibles, literal, concrete information when it comes to MA training, it can be kinda hard to explain.. especially as words/languaging can only go so far!

Again, different emphases for what we all value or focus on in MA, no judgements, just different. As long as the conversation remains respectful all cool.

 

[_Simon_]

But man, if you get that math problem, you would be such a stud! I taught myself to juggle in high school, and at the time I did it because I was interested. But I actually imagined someday, someone saying, "Hey can you juggle?" and being able to say, 'As a matter of fact."

Never happened, though. Bummer.

Love it!

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Probbly been written before, but they mean they do it for self perfection, as thats where most martial arts have ended up. I reject that line quite a bit just because i always think "martial art" should denote things useful for fighting, not 2 steps removed from fighting being called a fighting art. (it is the two steps removed that should adopt a new name for the reverse)

Largely asian orgins as far as i can tell. HEMA folks tend to be more about function in the context of when ever the system was around in europe, and given the main influence of martial arts is from Asia*, and specfically south east asia. (hell i have seen a definition state "fighting systems from asia" as the defintion of martial art, so completely rejects the notion that any other culture or place has ever had a system of combat, or ever will) So thats probbly why this distinction is made. I can only really think of Japanese and Chinese history for martial arts as the recent history for it. It was banned in both, and brought back under a diffrent direction. Granted for very diffrent reasons and circumstances for both. I can only comment for japan as i know martial arts were changing several generations before to be more about spirtual persuit rather than fighting, as the need for learning it for fighting was reducing. Up until the nail of the coffin being it banned and needing to come back under a less militaristic heading.

Granted this is a very big simplification, generalistion and butchery on the matter, and IS NOT A EXASTIVE list. Needless to say i know more about Japanese history than i do chinese, hence the focus. I just know both banned them and part of the ideological framework for them to come back was the schools changing their outlook slightly. (or else literally no point in banning, i know its come back some in recent years, but this is at least where the seeds were sown)

I also can state with some certainty every communist government, or at least most has banned at least one martial art at least temporarily.


*Not the ONLY, but the main influence of the martial arts concept etc has been from Asia, my refrence to that dictionary definition supports that to some only asians did martial arts. Now we all know better than to say "europeans didnt do martial arts" But most european martial arts are coming back and went extinct, a lot of asian ones didnt. that kind of doesnt do it justice as it merged into modern sport and military training as opposed to staying around In a pureish form from generations ago. But hey ho. So the Asian imported systems sort of filled the void europeans had. Just want to make it clear, i am not saying "only asians had martial arts", but the main influence in recent history has been from asia. Another thing which i just thought of which backs my point the "for self perfection, and spirtuality" comes from asia, is the fact that europeans didnt do fighting as a spirtual expression, if you wanted to express yourself spirtually you would go to church and pray. thats not to say you didnt do a little prayer before any practise as its defacto dangerous and you can get hurt, but it wasnt in lieu of church. (it still isnt)

How ever the concept of "swordsmanship is good for the soul" seems to be in many cultures, as i think i can recall a lot of people across cultures preeching the usefullness of learning swordsmanship. (Or at least something to do with weapons. ) As both a practise of the mind and body, and when you could carry said weapons and they were competitive of use if you ever needed to fight. Wouldnt call that the same as say "kung fu being for buddhists not to suffer from hours of sedentry, or used in lieu of sedentry medidation" (not saying thats true, but a hypothetical example) The diffrences of relgion and how it plays on martial arts is a rant i will leave for another day, i could double the amount of words here just by itself. Also i think i will hold off on societies outlook on violence changing martial arts as well, for a similar reason.


And this is my point in the largely filled with tangents and rambly style you have all come to expect and enjoy. (i hope i actually answered a question)

Addendum: For the sake of simplcitly i use martial arts how its normally used instead of my protest semantics point. if you spend any time reading what i write about it you know how much it pains me to call something a martial art, which its main focus is not about fighting, and so having to call the martial art that has fighting as its focus somethign diffrent. As i wrote at the start, the twice removed from fighting needs a new name, not the one about it. Its not really germane to any of the points here, just left it here as clarity that i am not arguing about its defition, or it can be overlooked.

Also, i havent recently looked into either parties hisotry, as far as i recall those events happened at some point, events arent for dispute really. Effects they had is mot my conjecture and opinion. Edit: The effect of a hsiotricsl event, at least when it comes to social norms etc, is almost always ones opinion.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Martial Arts schools are just so different from each other. Even within the same styles, even within the same organizations. How many Martial Arts schools have you been in, have you trained in or visited and just watched? Ever seen two that were alike? I haven't. (I don't ask that as a call out, please believe that, it is not my intent at all, honest to God.) Even fast Freddie's schools were different. (Villari) (Oh, F him and his fifteenth degree puke belt)

I've been in a whole lot of them, in several countries, in a dozen states or more. Enjoyed every one of them, even if I didn't care for how they trained.

If you visit enough schools, not only will your eyes open a lot, not only will you pick up things that you'll probably implement to help your students, it will also allow you to ask yourself WTF?

One of my black belts once told me, "Dojos are like restaurants. Different."

I think he made a good point.

I've trained in probably over a dozen, and have visited many others. I'm recently retired military, and have only recently been able to establish a permanent home at a dojo.

I can agree with what you're saying. For the most part, with adults, the "values" aspect isn't as necessary, because adults show up of their own volition (they're not being forced to by parents), and adults are presumed to already have a set of values established.

It's different with children. At a hapkido dojang I spent a few months at, I remember the sabom ending every children's class with a five minute story meant to teach a lesson in vales. Never seen this anywhere else.

Here's the point that I was trying to make earlier: you're teaching people how to do things that can harm others. I don't think most would ever want to send people out into the world who are capable of these things without the proper values to go along with them. This is probably more important for children than the adults are expected to know better.

Like I said before, even the military instills values into its members, while training them to effectively use firearms and other weapons.

 

[Urban Trekker]

You really do like your black & white, either/or answers. Nobody is suggesting either option, so far as I can see. Other than you, of course.
People are saying that different people get different things out of training, and that the same person may get different things out of their training at different times of their life. I've certainly seen students learn a lot about fighting, but with little personal growth. I've also seen students have a lot of personal growth while not really being very good at fighting.

You call it black & white. I call it not leaving wiggle room for non-answers.

I'm not suggesting either of the two. I'm just trying to understand what the complaint is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Probbly been written before, but they mean they do it for self perfection, as thats where most martial arts have ended up. I reject that line quite a bit just because i always think "martial art" should denote things useful for fighting, not 2 steps removed from fighting being called a fighting art. (it is the two steps removed that should adopt a new name for the reverse)

Forgive me for trimming your post in my reply. I did read it all.

I should stipulate that the karate style I train in, Isshinryu, is indeed a traditional Okinawan martial art, and the main focus of the art is 'martial' if you will, in that what is taught are self-defense techniques. Anything beyond that which I have found to be more of interest to me are on me, not on my style.

Most of us probably learn a bit outside of the pure realm of self-defense while training, though, don't we? I would imagine that blade fighters might learn not just the way of the knife, but perhaps consider the ramifications of taking a life or being killed in a skirmish. I'm just guessing, but I would think it would enter my mind. I've certainly considered the implications of applying a joint-destroying technique to an opponent that becomes life-altering for them. That's a form of philosophy, or at least introspection.

As far as what is properly constrained inside the boundaries of the term 'martial art', I am not quite so hard-and-fast about what the definition happens to be. Samurai were of course swordsmen, but they were also expected to be refined, educated, and cultured, where they not? I am no expert on Japanese history, but from what I've read, the Samurai were intended to be cultural exemplars, and were to be role models. It may not have always gone that way, but that was the original idea as I understand it. No one would argue that Samurai were not 'martial', I think.

We have terms like 'warrior-poet' and 'warrior-priest' in various contexts because they existed in some form or fashion, even in European fighting or soldierly traditions. These concepts survive today in the form of role-playing games, mostly.

As I trained in Isshinryu, I began to reach for understanding of the Japanese term 'do' which as you know translates to 'way' or sometimes 'path'. Karatedo is not the same as karate jutsu. Karatedo contains jutsu, but jutsu does not contain do, if you will.

When I think about the Japanese arts which end in 'do', I think about things like flower arranging (kado), calligraphy (shodo), tea making (sado), and others. These are also a 'do'. These are, I think, much more that they appear on the surface. I do not think anyone would think that sado is simply making a good cup of tea, or flowers are about sticking some blooms in a vase. They have a surface value, yes, so a calligrapher is in fact writing letters on paper, but the intent is much more inward, and has much to do with the inner life of the practitioner. Consider the Japanese art of kyudo. This is an archery style which is far more concerned with the art of the bow than with hitting the target. The hitting of the target will happen when the mind, body, and spirit of the archer are correct, as I understand this art.

Above all, these things are contemplative. They are less about the outside world than the space between one's ears.

If I see karatedo as more than self-defense for me, that doesn't make it less of a martial art. It is certainly still quite good at fighting. It doesn't mean I don't train to defend myself; I do, and I can, to some reasonable extent. It just means I have found something interesting to think about and study as well.

Being on the path has changed one thing for me above all. I used to think that there was a point beyond which I would not train, or at least that I would not need to train. Now I know there is no end goal, not desired result that will result in me stepping back from training. I will train until my body will no longer work. The path is the goal, not the route to the goal. For me.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Here's the point that I was trying to make earlier: you're teaching people how to do things that can harm others. I don't think most would ever want to send people out into the world who are capable of these things without the proper values to go along with them. This is probably more important for children than the adults are expected to know better.

Like I said before, even the military instills values into its members, while training them to effectively use firearms and other weapons.

I dont know the over arching context to this. But that statement is fair and seems to be a legitimate issue. Its either out of ignorance of what you are learning, or you arent prepard to do it to somone. Id probbly say the latter is better than the former.

Military values are quite the condrum, because your basically expected and taught to do something thats a taboo, and only in a very limited set of circumstances (war). You cant exactly have brawls with people in your barracks. Although i say that, yet they endorse and encourage combat sports, so i need to revist that one. Its probbly the disipline side of unsolcited brawls as opposed to being morally against the act of brawling, alongside if they get hurt they are out for how ever long, and you also pay for it. (when healthcare is private, also sick leave). If you cant trust your soldiers not fight each other when who ever is in charge of them isnt looking, what else cant you trust them with?


I dont really know about the morals thing, but i think most good schools may interject if they find out you are doing something they disagree with even if they dont do it proactively. At least then its a more case by case basis as opposed to generalising. Generalsing a message of non violence may lead to issues with legitimate self defence, or when a pre emptive punch may be the best solution, but you dont want to do it due to being brought up that its the worst thing you can do.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Most of us probably learn a bit outside of the pure realm of self-defense while training, though, don't we? I would imagine that blade fighters might learn not just the way of the knife, but perhaps consider the ramifications of taking a life or being killed in a skirmish. I'm just guessing, but I would think it would enter my mind. I've certainly considered the implications of applying a joint-destroying technique to an opponent that becomes life-altering for them. That's a form of philosophy, or at least introspection.

As far as what is properly constrained inside the boundaries of the term 'martial art', I am not quite so hard-and-fast about what the definition happens to be. Samurai were of course swordsmen, but they were also expected to be refined, educated, and cultured, where they not? I am no expert on Japanese history, but from what I've read, the Samurai were intended to be cultural exemplars, and were to be role models. It may not have always gone that way, but that was the original idea as I understand it. No one would argue that Samurai were not 'martial', I think.

I have read all of this, i am debating to do it quote by quote so i can refrence it easier or not, or just to bulk reply. (you will see which one i choose) I do agree on some points, so im not really considering this a argument just a dicussion.

I need to sort of seperate this from, lets be fair English and Japanese culture and history. So i need to sort of anglify the Japanese parts.

As far as i know the Samurai were equally expected to fight and lead armies, as to take many other tasks in the country. The nobility tended to take admistrative tasks and tasks that needed a pretty academic education, so manning courts, accountancy etc.

This can be drawn a parrellel to the English nobility being expected to do a great many things equally. A king would be expected to be compotent in many aspects, including leading a army, and they were all equally important. (apart from the glaring issue there is not a 1:1 comparision to how the nobility in both countries was made up, skillset for the ruling class globally are similar though)

As far as i know, Japan throughout the years has blurred the line between the martial compotent in their education (i would call martial arts the fighting part in a Samurais education, and Martial arts will be refering to that) and the other compotents. Where spirtuality would be distinctly seperate for say England, it has been blurred for Japan. See the previous example about going to pray, and that being a seperate thing entirely to learning to swordfight.

I hold the viewpoint that you can achive betterment by doing martial arts meant for function, as opposed to adapted to better suit bettering yourself.* Modern martial arts would have been adapted to betterment more, so to karatify that, as best as i know Karate. it would be adapting one of the combat kata to be a conditioning kata. Or if they are of lesser character, claiming a conditioning kata is a combat kata.
*That as far as i know is how it was viewed the longest and is a tradtional view on the subject, or a "old school" view. Because i mean you can do sports Karate, and better yourself all you want by getting good at sports karate and not really wanting or intenting to learn how to break someones arm. You can better yourself by doing non contact sports karate at that.

As for the "do", due to how translations work, there is probbly always going to be ambiguity and not a true idea of what it means, or what it should be translated as. I dont think Japanese translates to english all that well. Which to be fair, Karate was made in territory owned by Japan and catered to the Japanese until it was exported. The persons who have exported it have tried to adapt it into what ever culture they are in as best as possible. (and as much as they are willing to change)




and for the self defence claims, i dont think many things were made for "self defence" until recently. That does not mean self defence is not a subject inside the overarching term and study of "combat", but rather you cover it while studying the overarching field, rather than focus on it. I think that argument can be left for another day as i need to dwell on it more. As far as i got, as a Samurai, or Nobleman you would need the ability to defend yourself as a individual, against one or a small group. Due to your status, you were a target, either by bandits, political rivals, or potentially in war for a randsom. (although just surrender may be better, you would be treated fairly) If you were expected to campaign more i can imagine the neuances of how to campaign and lead armies might be better than individual fighting skills, if you were more in a admsitrative role at home, more individual focus. (this isnt accounting any guards you may or may not have, you could be a fairly poor nobleman) Battlefield weapons and weapons carried for self defence are also diffrent to reflect this.
Edit: i forgot to mention you could be a lesser nobleman in charge of guarding a greater one. Or you could not be a nobleman at all and shoved into the service of one and trained out of the pocket of one to guard them.


I think i covered everything there was to cover.

Addendum: Periods were not cited, but im sure we both know the neuances vary peroid by peroid. If the peorid if heavy in war, war would be the focus so most martial training would focus that, if peace then duels(individual fighting) may be the focus. this is more generalisations of trends than anything, with all the caviates that brings.

Addendum 2: Dont know where to put this, so i will tag it onto the end as a addition:

Id rather not get into the Karate politics of its "Okinawan" i am aware of the history, i know Karateka, (lack of better words) tend to rant and rave over that. But the facts are laid out, modern karate was made when it was a territory of japan, its been Japanese for 100 years ish, they speak Japanese and share a lot of Japanese culture. Id just rather not get into it, also i will just point out, some Karate styles are Japanese as opposed to Okinawan or a mix. Not saying anyone specfically will, just in case somone comes in with that.

Addendum 3: I think i overlooked the warrior poet point, i may have to revisit and post a seperate reply after i thought about it. i did have something of a intresting point i need to try and remember and remember how to articulate it.

Although, i wouldnt knock somone for having a intrest in conflcit and then persuing it. Even if they cant join any of the proffesions that do it, its a pretty intresting study. One has full right to persue their intrests to the best of their ability. Just looking into a modern war has a lot more caviates than looking into a medievil war. Largely because to wargame it you are by some defintiions doing paramilitary training. (roleplaying includes wargaming, there are lots of practical reasons to do wagaming and role playing, its the closest some people would get to actually experiencing it)

A warrior poet to me is just somone who has a academic education + a functional military one. Thw two wernt as divisive historically as they are now days. Or is poetically/philosophicallyminded and has been employed as a soldier. Edit: you tend to muse about what ever you are doing if you are even slightly inclined to both of those. Hell, i think even if you rent you tend to muse about somethings natually or everyone is natually inclided to it enough to muse about things.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You're not thinking it through. I said "prevent." You're talking about things after the fact.

Preventing the accidents would be by treating the mental health issues. And therapy can be a lot more expensive then MA training depending on how frequently you go, insurance, and the level of therapy.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Today, the term evil is hard to define.

Is it? I don't really think it is. I think that as we mature, we stop seeing things as either/or and start realizing that relatively few things are always good or always evil.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Preventing the accidents would be by treating the mental health issues. And therapy can be a lot more expensive then MA training depending on how frequently you go, insurance, and the level of therapy.

As far as anything beyond a trained medical proffesional gives you, its case by case basis to if it works or not. As the NHS puts it for Yoga "yoga teacher are not medical proffesionals and are not trained or qualified to diagnose or prescribe treatment to medical issues, but some of the exercises they do may or may not help (insert what ever joint pain you have here)" that in short means, it may or may not, until you ask a GP or run it through a GP or specilist its not a yes or no. (they cant actually tell you it will unless they have a medical proffesional backing them, or specfically run it through who ever is heading your treatment)

A martial arts teacher seems to be a part time, secondment to most people, so nothing says they cannot be qualfiied and work proffesional as what ever medical proffesion full time, but the large amount dont seem to be. Is the issue of martial arts being seperate from modern sports knowledge and education still as big as i think it used to be? Because if you say classes on how to be a personal trainer you tend to learn how to work around some medical conditions, or adapt training to them, or general aches and pains. (not to identify or treat them)

Id exepct the baseline quality of a martial arts teacher to be that of a trained personal trainer, can work around medical conditions and knows about them enough to work around them.

As far as i know at least here, the only medical proffesional that can diagnose and manage mental health issues is a psychatrist, so a psychatrist would head your care plan and vet and review anything you are doing and reccomend things based on their assesments. In some cases i think a Psychologist can, although that seems to be a largely treatment and research position. Every position has a list of what they can and cannot do and what autonomy they have.

So working off the teacher being a trained and qualfiied counciler and registered to work in that capaicty, they could potetionally mix martial arts things in with treatment. There is a needed level of proffesional conduct though, so if its done in that(proffesional) capaicty it needs the required proffesionalism alongside it. (no idea what it is, i just know its diffrent, very complciated and can get very legally complicated)


Addendum: Therapy on the NHS is at least free for me, so its a lot cheaper than going to Martial arts lessons. Depends how you define therapy, some of its free some of it isnt, some of it can be discounted.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Id exepct the baseline quality of a martial arts teacher to be that of a trained personal trainer

Ummm, yes.....no......maybe. Seen quite a few MA teachers that look like they know their way around a donut bar more than a barbell. Sure, they may still retain the knowledge but they aren't living the example.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

As far as anything beyond a trained medical proffesional gives you, its case by case basis to if it works or not. As the NHS puts it for Yoga "yoga teacher are not medical proffesionals and are not trained or qualified to diagnose or prescribe treatment to medical issues, but some of the exercises they do may or may not help (insert what ever joint pain you have here)" that in short means, it may or may not, until you ask a GP or run it through a GP or specilist its not a yes or no. (they cant actually tell you it will unless they have a medical proffesional backing them, or specfically run it through who ever is heading your treatment)

A martial arts teacher seems to be a part time, secondment to most people, so nothing says they cannot be qualfiied and work proffesional as what ever medical proffesion full time, but the large amount dont seem to be. Is the issue of martial arts being seperate from modern sports knowledge and education still as big as i think it used to be? Because if you say classes on how to be a personal trainer you tend to learn how to work around some medical conditions, or adapt training to them, or general aches and pains. (not to identify or treat them)

Id exepct the baseline quality of a martial arts teacher to be that of a trained personal trainer, can work around medical conditions and knows about them enough to work around them.

As far as i know at least here, the only medical proffesional that can diagnose and manage mental health issues is a psychatrist, so a psychatrist would head your care plan and vet and review anything you are doing and reccomend things based on their assesments. In some cases i think a Psychologist can, although that seems to be a largely treatment and research position. Every position has a list of what they can and cannot do and what autonomy they have.

So working off the teacher being a trained and qualfiied counciler and registered to work in that capaicty, they could potetionally mix martial arts things in with treatment. There is a needed level of proffesional conduct though, so if its done in that(proffesional) capaicty it needs the required proffesionalism alongside it. (no idea what it is, i just know its diffrent, very complciated and can get very legally complicated)


Addendum: Therapy on the NHS is at least free for me, so its a lot cheaper than going to Martial arts lessons. Depends how you define therapy, some of its free some of it isnt, some of it can be discounted.

None of that actually has to do with my statement, except the addendum. I would never argue replacing therapy or psychiatry with martial arts. As for the addendum, that falls under the can be, depending..., as that is the insurance aspect. If your country has healthcare where you aren't charged (or it's taken from taxes or whatever) then obviously that's cheaper.