WHAT THE HECK WERE THE MASTERS THINKING?

[isshinryuronin]

The idea of this thread comes from a current post in the Aikido forum, but I thought the theme applied to all TMA.

The founding masters of the various arts/styles certainly knew what they had in mind when they developed their art and kata. The concern is the transmission of their thinking to others. This is inherently fraught with many pitfalls. I'll list a few:

They may not have taught certain elements to their students. Either the master died before he was able to, or the students went off on their own (and taught others) before learning it all.

Unlike science, where documentation and recording are part of the method, TMA was directly passed on by oral or physical means with no written record. In the cases where there were writings, many were destroyed in wars or otherwise lost. Some writings were intended for those already familiar with the art and so were little use to others.

Language can be ambiguous, especially when dealing with ideas. This is greatly amplified during the process of translation into another language.

Some definitive works were translated (into Western languages) only recently, decades after being practiced and codified into an inaccurate form of the art.

The original form of the art was purposely changed to be in line with new purposing and ideals. There is also natural drift that happens over many years of being passed down.

So, the question, "What the heck were the masters thinking?" is a valid one, IMO. Can we know? To what extent? How has this affected our particular art? What can or should we do about it?

 

[O'Malley]

"Masters" are just humans. They make mistakes just like anyone else. Sometimes the master's idea is good and one doesn't understand it (yet), but other times it's something that only made sense in a particular historical context. And other times yet it has always been BS. For example, the founder of aikido claimed to have simultaneously dodged several bullets from a platoon of army soldiers and, politely put, I don't buy it.

A master's ideas should only bind you to the extent that they help you towards your training goals. If your goal is the preservation of the founder's art as it was done at the time, then yes it makes sense to research and follow the master's thinking. And obviously if you're going for the same achievements as that master (e.g. a particular way of doing a particular technique), his ideas can be important insights. But if your training goals are different, then why should you be bound by what a particular person has said in a particular context? If that master is dead, he will never have any occasion to tell you if he's changed his mind. Modern football players could care less about what the inventors of football have said or written.

Aikido is the most egregious example of the tendency, in certain martial arts circles, to create a personality cult around the "master", and I think it's hurting a lot of its practitioners.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, the question, "What the heck were the masters thinking?" is a valid one, IMO. Can we know? To what extent? How has this affected our particular art? What can or should we do about it?

You know as well as I do that this is typified by Master Shimabuku. One of his American students says he taught 'X' and another insists he taught 'Y'. Some say he taught both at different times. Some felt he meant to emphasize a technique one way, others feel he meant to emphasize it another way. What was he actually thinking? Well, I think I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows. I've sure been pounced upon and pontificated to by a couple folks who strongly believe that they do know. I don't argue with them.

I am not one of those who thinks he 'knows' what Master Shimabuku knew or meant to pass on, or anything, really. I just apply the techniques as best I can based on what my Sensei teaches me, and don't worry too much about the rest of it. I am sure I am not doing them as well as I should no matter what.

 

[isshinryuronin]

You know as well as I do that this is typified by Master Shimabuku. One of his American students says he taught 'X' and another insists he taught 'Y'. Some say he taught both at different times. Some felt he meant to emphasize a technique one way, others feel he meant to emphasize it another way. What was he actually thinking? Well, I think I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows. I've sure been pounced upon and pontificated to by a couple folks who strongly believe that they do know. I don't argue with them.

I am not one of those who thinks he 'knows' what Master Shimabuku knew or meant to pass on, or anything, really. I just apply the techniques as best I can based on what my Sensei teaches me, and don't worry too much about the rest of it. I am sure I am not doing them as well as I should no matter what.

I agree that isshinryu can be seen as a microcosm for TMA changing over the years (though I consider them very minor changes). I have often wished to go back in time and ask Master Kyan or Motobu the correct nature/bunkai of naihanchi kata. If not the extact bunkai, at least the principles of the fighting system it represented. Or to speak with Bushi Matsumura on the arts and process he used to develop prototype karate and Shuri-te "style." Would we be shocked at how different the answers would be from what we thought? I suspect so.

In many cases trying to figure out TMA history is like paleontology, trying to discern the nature of a dinosaur from a mere still existing footprint or jawbone. Using these fragments and knowledge of the ancient landscape we do our best to recreate the past to aid our current understanding by backtracking. Bill's view is not to worry too much about it, just concentrate on what we have in the here and now. Afterall, the dinosaurs are dead and there are living species that deserve our attention. Can't say I disagree.

Some claim MA is more evolved today and somehow better. But how can we compare if we don't know how it was in the past? Knowing the past helps us understand the present, and discovering lost bits of info can help us reinvigorate our art in the future, whether we are talking about a specific style or TMA in general. If we're interested in making it better, I think it's smart to take the shortcut when possible. Why take years now when some answers are there waiting for us in the past?

Regardless of the practical aspects, human nature seems to give us a desire for connection to our ancestors, our lineage. Don't many philosophers today wish to have lunch with Socrates, physicists with Newton, generals with Alexander? I'd love to share some sushi and sake with Tokumine or Arigake, not only for insights of what karate once was, but for the sake of feeling part of the continuity and legacy of TMA that I carry on.

 

[mograph]

They were probably only thinking about their immediate sphere, town, community, school, whatever. They might not have been thinking about The Art over generations, and across cultures. Maybe they changed something because they wanted to try something new.

We seem to have this idea that a martial art emerged fully formed, designed to be internally consistent, and resilient enough to survive examination over generations and across cultures.

I don't think this was the case. Instead, as I wrote, I think they were only thinking about their own school, lessons, and students. Maybe they were only thinking as far ahead as the next lesson.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So, the question, "What the heck were the masters thinking?" is a valid one, IMO. Can we know? To what extent? How has this affected our particular art? What can or should we do about it?

In another thread, I asked, "How many principles/strategies (grammar) have been recorded in the Karate form (book)?" I haven't got respond yet.

If we can't come up a list of those information, how can we say that we understand a MA system?

 

[drop bear]

Seems a strange way to martial art.

So let's take an ancient skill like black smithing and see how modern people retain the skills of blacksmiths from a hundred years ago.

 

[isshinryuronin]

In another thread, I asked, "How many principles/strategies (grammar) have been recorded in the Karate form (book)?" I haven't got respond yet.

If we can't come up a list of those information, how can we say that we understand a MA system?

Everything is not contained in kata, nor was it meant to be. It's just a representative sampling of the system. The system's full collection of kata normally illustrates most of its principles and main techniques.

 

[isshinryuronin]

They might not have been thinking about The Art over generations, and across cultures.

I very much doubt they did. It was mostly a practical self-defense skill, not intended as a lasting monument or codified curriculum with altruistic future goals.

We seem to have this idea that a martial art emerged fully formed,

We shouldn't. Most practitioners know it evolved by combining existing systems which were modified by a succession of masters.

Maybe they were only thinking as far ahead as the next lesson.

There was a full system in place when it was taught as it was based on existing systems. There's no use in teaching or practicing an incomplete system back then. Effective combat system was the only goal.

 

[skribs]

I think some of this is like trying to interpret art. There's a show that I loved called Still Standing (the 2002 series starring Mark Addy, not the 2015 series). In one episode, they find their daughter's drawing journal, and the aunt (who is studying psychology) says that it's concerning that none of the people in the drawings have hands, because it means she feels powerless and alone. Turns out she just couldn't draw hands.

It's very possible that when a Master created a kata, they were primarily thinking about a primary application (A) and a few secondary applications (B and C). And then it may be that B became the "technique" as described in the kata. And then through interpretation and bunkai, students added on applications D and E. And maybe C got lost, but someone else down the line connected F and G.

And then someone (like me) comes along and says that A, D, and G are not close enough to the movement in the kata to really consider it an application, but that's because the movement I'm doing is based on several generations of training B, E, and F as the main applications of the technique. Or someone else who finds applications IJKLMNOPQRST because they have a much looser definition of what fits the technique in the kata.

I think ultimately we can get lost in this. I think it's more important what the person teaching you the kata is thinking, or what the person you are teaching the kata to is thinking. And its not important what you think, but that your thinking is aligned.

 

[Fungus]

So, the question, "What the heck were the masters thinking?" is a valid one, IMO. Can we know?

In principle, clearly never. Even if the master did in some cases explain their thinking, such things always tend to be subject of "interpretation".

Our best guess is as close to facts as we come, in this case as well as with many cases in science. As we know, we don't prove theories of how nature works in science, we just keep corroborate our best inferences.

What can or should we do about it?

Nothing. Just embrace nature of inference under uncertainty and incompleteness. Nature works just amazingly will and is stable without the lack of perfect confidence.

 

[Badhabits]

I believe a lot of us are on the right track chasing after the functional aspects of the Eastern arts. That being said, I also believe cultural differences really hamper how we interpret a lot of what's in these arts. The way it's mostly taught now, there's no big hurry for functional skills. People go years training and still can't fight. I'm guessing if we trained in a way that put functional skill as the main priority as if our lives depended on it, and perfection of technique second, we'd be training closer to how it was originally meant to be. They probably thought long and hard about what they taught and how to teach it, but people have different priorities. Someone basically teaching cardio karate classes to people is a far cry from someone teaching people who need usable skill today.
If you have an effective system, how would you teach it/pass it on to a small group of relatives/neighbors while keeping the inner workings secret from outsiders? And without written records. Figuring out how to accomplish that might be a good place to start figuring out the rest of it.
But still, unless people are actually using the art for what is was intended for, it'll get warped and lose effectiveness very quickly. It's like with working dogs, once the breeding stock is no longer actually being used for it's job, it only takes a couple of generations for the dogs to no longer be effective at those jobs.
How the heck do you pass along a functional hand to hand combat system when barely anybody teaching it has even used it enough to be an expert in it??? If you teach self defense, how can you be an expert if you've only defended yourself twice in your life?
My guess is that the masters teaching the art were trying to preserve what they could through keeping it relevant. If relevance meant "cardio karate" then that's what you got. If they only intend to pass along the functional stuff to a select few, that's a recipe for it dying out. That's probably where we're at now, as we try to recover what we've lost.

 

[Cri70]

The idea of this thread comes from a current post in the Aikido forum, but I thought the theme applied to all TMA.

The founding masters of the various arts/styles certainly knew what they had in mind when they developed their art and kata. The concern is the transmission of their thinking to others. This is inherently fraught with many pitfalls. I'll list a few:

They may not have taught certain elements to their students. Either the master died before he was able to, or the students went off on their own (and taught others) before learning it all.

Unlike science, where documentation and recording are part of the method, TMA was directly passed on by oral or physical means with no written record. In the cases where there were writings, many were destroyed in wars or otherwise lost. Some writings were intended for those already familiar with the art and so were little use to others.

Language can be ambiguous, especially when dealing with ideas. This is greatly amplified during the process of translation into another language.

Some definitive works were translated (into Western languages) only recently, decades after being practiced and codified into an inaccurate form of the art.

The original form of the art was purposely changed to be in line with new purposing and ideals. There is also natural drift that happens over many years of being passed down.

So, the question, "What the heck were the masters thinking?" is a valid one, IMO. Can we know? To what extent? How has this affected our particular art? What can or should we do about it?

Fun thread!

I study and practice karate, and the way I use to solve the issue is to think that I cannot know what the masters were thinking, but I can try and deduce which principles they thought important by trying to apply the work they left (in karate, the katas). I do that using a set of assumptions, hypotheses and continuous validation in somewhat realistic scenarios with friends.

One big assumption is that the "masters" had developed these techniques as a result of real world confrontations (with all the comes in, different in age, height, size and weight, multiple opponent and so forth) and had a reason to try to pass them on.

Which is why I tend do discard XX century Japanese interpretations (not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they were mostly made under very different conditions, so the cost/benefit ratio of disentangling what makes sense from what's made up is too high.. see the hilarious decades old discussion on the hikite).

Another idea I keep in mind that there certainly has been information drift or corruption, but many different versions of the same kata should contain pretty much the same principles, which helps distinguishing what's essential or not.

Also, in my experience people with real expertise in something tend to reach similar conclusions over time; and a fight between human people is a relatively well defined thing (even if there's many variables... but we all have the same physical shape), so reverse engineering it's not an impossible thing to do. Bit like Champollion deciphering the hieroglyphs.

Finally, once I find meaningful interpretations that are consistent internally and externally, it's test time! I and a couple others give it go, exchange ideas, try carefully at first and then putting out real resistance. If we can't make something to work or needs to be changed too much for the kata, it means that either we haven't got it and the kata (or part of kata) is meaningless (or maybe that the master was a his-era bullshido master .. I usually suspend judgement and I try to see if there's other angles.

There's quite a bit of suspended judgment but also quite a lot of stuff that's phenomenally useful (often way too much - it's a darn good idea that it's not taught institutionally, Itosu had a point).

I particularly love these "aha" moments where two moves which I had considered separated until then, suddenly makes sense when seen as meaningfully following each other, often beyond the stylization of the particular version of the kata we know.

Also, this way of working doesn't lend to a "business dojo" thing, it's much more akin to the one-to-one or one-to-two way of learning of old, only there's no master, but only three friends with funny ideas and enough spare time.

Of course, there's a solid possibility we're totally whacko and the masters were just pompous self-aggrandizing bullshitters all along. But then it's fun anyways.

 

[Cri70]

I believe a lot of us are on the right track chasing after the functional aspects of the Eastern arts. That being said, I also believe cultural differences really hamper how we interpret a lot of what's in these arts. The way it's mostly taught now, there's no big hurry for functional skills. People go years training and still can't fight. I'm guessing if we trained in a way that put functional skill as the main priority as if our lives depended on it, and perfection of technique second, we'd be training closer to how it was originally meant to be. They probably thought long and hard about what they taught and how to teach it, but people have different priorities. Someone basically teaching cardio karate classes to people is a far cry from someone teaching people who need usable skill today.
If you have an effective system, how would you teach it/pass it on to a small group of relatives/neighbors while keeping the inner workings secret from outsiders? And without written records. Figuring out how to accomplish that might be a good place to start figuring out the rest of it.
But still, unless people are actually using the art for what is was intended for, it'll get warped and lose effectiveness very quickly. It's like with working dogs, once the breeding stock is no longer actually being used for it's job, it only takes a couple of generations for the dogs to no longer be effective at those jobs.
How the heck do you pass along a functional hand to hand combat system when barely anybody teaching it has even used it enough to be an expert in it??? If you teach self defense, how can you be an expert if you've only defended yourself twice in your life?
My guess is that the masters teaching the art were trying to preserve what they could through keeping it relevant. If relevance meant "cardio karate" then that's what you got. If they only intend to pass along the functional stuff to a select few, that's a recipe for it dying out. That's probably where we're at now, as we try to recover what we've lost.

Good point. I would suspect that a hands-on bushi would first start from the obvious - "what we are trying to achieve here".
In fields other than martial arts, where I can claim a little mastering, that's always my starting point to get students to understand stuff. Yet somehow it seems to be completely missing in many modern dojos (or the explanations given are so bizarre and far fetched that even as a yellow belt I couldn't help thinking "it makes no sense").