Let me, first off, just thank you for a spectacular post. Truly excellent! I assure you, no insights into Kata and Bunkai will ever be useless, for me, *or* for any others reading this thread!
Lol it took me quite some time to write your answer, so I hope it isn't useless right now.
...
All of this said, it is true that those applications are some kind of speculation (with a fair ammount of probability IMO, though). In the other hand, there are really a few masters (most from Okinawa, I believe) who have learned them from people who have been taught in lineages that would suggest the applications have been really passed on since the older masters of the past, the ones that we'd suppose to have known well the "original" meaning of the techniques.
I agree that, even if we knew NOTHING about the original intent, many motions have such an obvious or perfect application, it might be reasonably safe to make a guess towards, at least generally, what was initially envisioned. I also agree that what is most important is the constant drive to explore and dissect the techniques and premises within.
I was actually confused, I thought that you, (or possibly someone else) had at least implied that what was of most concern was the tradition of maintaining specific application for techniques, rather than an evolving and exploring of motion in martial context. Both are valid, but for different driving goals, I feel.
However, one very important thing that you have to note is that kata only provides a formal representation of the real movement you will have to perform. You'll always have to adapt the movement to the situation in the fight, and it will never be a literal reproduction of what you did in kata. Note that kata is not meant for that, it is more like some kind of live textbook that transmits the combative ideas. So the fact you're going to need to adapt the original movement in the kata (the ammount of body shifting/rotation, for example) to make the movement work doesn't really mean the movement is wrong and that you'd have to necessarily pick up another application that is closest to the original movement. Today I see that one of the biggest mistake karate and taekwondo practicioners make when studying their arts is trying to interpret forms movements literally. Also note that different forms have been created and modified by different masters across the years, so different movements in various moments could represent the same general idea; conversely equal movements could also represent different things depending on the context.
We often refer to kata as a book, or encyclopedia, but I sometimes think it is more of a card catalog. The purely physical motions each direct you to an area of study, rather than supply you with ready information. Exactly as you say. Kata should not be a series of, "If they do this, then you do this and they'll fall down," but rather, "here's something you can do with your body which you might not otherwise have thought to experiment with. See what you can do with it!"
I have almost never seen a practical application derived from bunkai that looked like the pure motion contained within the form, as performed. Personally, I tend to view it less as a formal representation, although it is, and more of an idealized example of technique. If we look at a simple reverse punch to, say, the solar plexus, I can, I hope, illustrate what I mean. Performing a reverse punch as part of a formal kata, you can focus on *precisely* how you wish to punch, to derive the most speed, power, and focus, utilizing the entire body as close to perfectly as possible. When you transfer the same technique to a heavy bag, or to an uke, you meet resistance, and the pure, ideal form of the motion will suffer, however slightly. When utilized in a free sparring situation, you are often lucky to even hint at this pure, perfect formal technique, although you come as close as possible. For this reason, I feel that it is important that your applications, if they were performed ideally, would closely approximate the formal motion. Otherwise, you are not practicing the motion when performing solo kata.
Does that make sense? I know what I mean, but not whether I have said what I mean!
As for what you mentioning Funakoshi, I believe you may have confused him with Kenwa Mabuni, as I cited the latter in my previous post, but not the former.
If I recall, I think I mentioned Funakoshi in reference to the Taikyoku forms. I think I was saying, that *I* might interpret and practice the opening motion of Taikyoku Shodan in any number of ways, but that I can't actually say that Funakoshi intended any of those uses. I might be misremembering, but I think that's how Funakoshi got into all of this...
Finally, there's one more mistake that I believe people to be practicing today, that is to view bunkai as mere "applications". The very word bunkai doesn't really mean that, it's more something like "analytical study". Thus, the applications are only the result from such a study. Kata doesn't only teach applications of techniques. In kata you also find tactical lessons about how to behave in a battle -- some people call this principles, and they're many times even more important than the very techniques.
You know, I don't think I've ever actually heard a definition of "bunkai" before, now that you mention it. It's always just been used to mean something like, "figuring-out-what-the-heck-all-these-funky-moves-are-for." One of those silly things I never thought about, you know?
This subject is hard to explain only through text, but I hope I have helped you somehow.
Definitely, a difficult subject. I think you tackled it wonderfully, especially, since I believe English may be your second language? You write it better than many of of A-Mur-Uh-Kans here on the internetz. You have written an enormously informative post. Thanks very many times!
-Zack
