Who strives for original intent?

[GojuTommy]

I used to want to uncover original intent of techniques behind kata movements, but after seeing the Kung fu form that supposedly is sanchin kata, or at least the forerunner of sanchin kata, and it’s similar sure but it can’t be called the same and the changes mean they’re doing very different techniques.

that and seeing the differences between how different styles, teach and do the same kata, but how dojos within the same style teach kata differently, I’ve come to realize that trying to find original intent is a chore in foolishness.

I find the question academically appealing, but as far as actually training and tying a meaning to the movements I couldn’t care less any more as long as what I’m attributing to the movements works, and is reasonably recognizable between actual use and kata depiction.

Just curious how many people here are looking for the original intent for their practical training.

 

[donald1]

It seems a little hard to know the original intent of form techniques if the form itself is really old. If my instructor tells me "this technique was intended to do this", I'll take his word and do it like he said for form sake. However, on my own time, I like to think of what it could be. Maybe alter it a little. A block into a punch becomes a block and grab then pull into the punch or maybe block, punch then elbow.

For form sake, when I'm doing the form the way it's meant to be, I do it accordingly of course. Whether it's done with the original intent. I don't know, but I kinda hope it is not far off from the original intent at least. Well that's my thoughts on the subject.

 

[GojuTommy]

It seems a little hard to know the original intent of form techniques if the form itself is really old. If my instructor tells me "this technique was intended to do this", I'll take his word and do it like he said for form sake. However, on my own time, I like to think of what it could be. Maybe alter it a little. A block into a punch becomes a block and grab then pull into the punch or maybe block, punch then elbow.

For form sake, when I'm doing the form the way it's meant to be, I do it accordingly of course. Whether it's done with the original intent. I don't know, but I kinda hope it is not far off from the original intent at least. Well that's my thoughts on the subject.

When you think about it, the transmission of kata is just one big game of telephone.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It seems a little hard to know the original intent of form techniques if the form itself is really old.

A: By using the move in the form that you taught me, everytime that I use my palm to strike my opponent's groin, my opponent always punches on my head. What's wrong with that move?
B: That's not a palm strike to the groin. The original intend was to grab a handful of sand from the ground and throw at your oponent's face.

At 0.51 and 1.26.

 

[_Simon_]

Yeah I don't think we'll ever know the very original intent, but it's fun to ponder. We have our standardised bunkai and a few variations in our dojo, but whenever me and the other brown belt are practicing applications we'll often veer off bigtime and go into exploration mode haha.. it's quite fun, and what we come up with actually makes alot of sense and works.. not always, but it is fun to explore.

I think as long as you study and understand the principles each kata is trying to communicate, any differences seen in kata are merely a different expression of that principle. That way, something higher is operating here and informing your performance and knowledge of the kata. I think we can too often focus on the superficial aspects of kata and bunkai/application (ie this move means that, if he does this I do this etc), there's quite a richness to explore when it's more principle-based, rather than technique focused.

 

[seasoned]

Kata in and of itself teaches pattern of movements that can be applied to many situations and techniques. Generally the simplest interpretation is taught to the beginner student.....block, punch, kick. As these techniques are practiced over and over again it is the underlying pattern that opens the gate way to a whole system within the system. Case in point, there are no blocks in MA....

 

[J. Pickard]

I don't look for original intent, just how it has been used in the past to glean ideas from. Seeing how one instructor used a technique can explain why it may have been changed after a few generations. How a technique works for a smaller skinny person is different than how it would work for a taller muscular person so change is needed to the technique as a whole, but the overall concepts are still there.

 

[punisher73]

If your instructor created the kata or if you have a lineage to forms that were created by the founder, then you can probably know the original intent of the form/kata.

If not, then at best, we are guessing. I always say its like the Little Mermaid when the seagull finds a fork and calls it some name and says it was used for hair. The application works, but it isn't what it was originally designed for.

There have been too many documented changes to the forms that we know about so we don't have the "original blueprints". Each change would alter/hide/obscure or even remove the original intent.

Also, some applications were very cultural in origin (speaking of Okinawan Karate). For example, there is a move in Kusanku kata that you are chambering behind your head and then looks like a strike with a knifehand. Many people chamber it differently, but supposedly the original application as it was passed on was that you were grabbing your jifaa (hair pin) and stabbing them. Another example, is the weird twisting hands movement at the beginning of Chinto kata. This was supposedly used to show how to get out of your hands being tied. It must also be remembered that the katas like Wansu, Kusanku, and Chinto were based on particular techniques from that person. So, they were put together in a way to remember their "greatest hits" (pun intended) and pass it on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I used to want to uncover original intent of techniques behind kata movements, but after seeing the Kung fu form that supposedly is sanchin kata, or at least the forerunner of sanchin kata, and it’s similar sure but it can’t be called the same and the changes mean they’re doing very different techniques.

that and seeing the differences between how different styles, teach and do the same kata, but how dojos within the same style teach kata differently, I’ve come to realize that trying to find original intent is a chore in foolishness.

I find the question academically appealing, but as far as actually training and tying a meaning to the movements I couldn’t care less any more as long as what I’m attributing to the movements works, and is reasonably recognizable between actual use and kata depiction.

Just curious how many people here are looking for the original intent for their practical training.

I do like to look for the original intent behind training practices. As you said, at the very least it's an interesting intellectual pursuit. I think there's more utility than that, too: without knowing the original intent, we may miss something in the system.

Let's say there's a specific short form (we'd call them "classical techniques") taught in a system, and we can't find much utility in it - it just doesn't seem to be very useful. Then we find someone in a precursor art, where that same (or at least very similar) form is used, and it is specifically used to teach a kind of body control, rather than being seen as a usable technique in and of itself.

Before we knew that, we were trying to find a use for the technique. Now we know it's not really a "techinique" (as most of us would tend to use that term), but a drill or exercise to work on specific principles. So we can use it for that, rather than trying to make it an actual technique we'd use in a fight (or ditching it because it isn't).

We can't always find out what the original (or at least previous) intent was. But where we can, it can replace knowledge that somehow didn't get passed across the generations of instructors.

 

[seasoned]

I do like to look for the original intent behind training practices. As you said, at the very least it's an interesting intellectual pursuit. I think there's more utility than that, too: without knowing the original intent, we may miss something in the system.

Let's say there's a specific short form (we'd call them "classical techniques") taught in a system, and we can't find much utility in it - it just doesn't seem to be very useful. Then we find someone in a precursor art, where that same (or at least very similar) form is used, and it is specifically used to teach a kind of body control, rather than being seen as a usable technique in and of itself.

Before we knew that, we were trying to find a use for the technique. Now we know it's not really a "techinique" (as most of us would tend to use that term), but a drill or exercise to work on specific principles. So we can use it for that, rather than trying to make it an actual technique we'd use in a fight (or ditching it because it isn't).

We can't always find out what the original (or at least previous) intent was. But where we can, it can replace knowledge that somehow didn't get passed across the generations of instructors.

Very well explaned, nice post...

 

[GojuTommy]

I don't look for original intent, just how it has been used in the past to glean ideas from. Seeing how one instructor used a technique can explain why it may have been changed after a few generations. How a technique works for a smaller skinny person is different than how it would work for a taller muscular person so change is needed to the technique as a whole, but the overall concepts are still there.

Honestly I’m finding even that high method highly flawed, simply because the grappling applications werent taught to so many students who became instructors that a lot of movements get taught in the context of striking, and become interpretations that no one would ever use.

For example the first 3 moves in shosochin kata I have only ever seen/heard interpreted as strikes using the fingertips, but with wider context it seems extremely clear it’s grappling pummeling, than some spearhand strike to the solar plexus.

 

[hoshin1600]

As I raise my hand to acknowledge that I look for original intent, I have to also acknowledge two other points. One, it has taken me 25 years to dig into only two forms, sanchin and seisan with any depth. Two, that some of my discoveries are inevitably my own interpretation. We are all bound by our biases and our eyes see what we want to see.
Speaking strictly of sanchin, this is a foundational form and there is very little application within it. It's more designed to teach a feeling of stability and muscle control. In okinawan terms, chinkuchi and kime. There was some application that was lost in the translation from China to Okinawa but honestly unless you are looking to reinvent your form it's not worth the effort.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The application works, but it isn't what it was originally designed for.

There have been too many documented changes to the forms that we know about so we don't have the "original blueprints". Each change would alter/hide/obscure or even remove the original intent.

Yes, this is true in many cases. Sometimes the currently accepted app has been reverse engineered, but as you say, it works - sometimes for more than one thing. But this flexibility is inherent in many techniques in many arts.

there is a move in Kusanku kata that you are chambering behind your head and then looks like a strike with a knifehand. Many people chamber it differently, but supposedly the original application as it was passed on was that you were grabbing your jifaa (hair pin) and stabbing them. Another example, is the weird twisting hands movement at the beginning of Chinto kata. This was supposedly used to show how to get out of your hands being tied.

You've had some good posts, but here I think you're way off base. There are a lot of fanciful explanations for some techniques which, to put it kindly, are highly unlikely. The move in KSK you describe is more likely a parry with one hand, straightening the attacking arm, then followed by a knifehand to the extended elbow, or head, whichever is most exposed. This is buttressed by the kosa dachi twist stance which is normally used to provide torque - that wouldn't be needed to just take a pin out of your hair. Like the story of it being a "night fighting" kata, it's pure fantasy.

As for the start of Chinto, this can be more logically explained as a cross block, followed by a grab (as cross blocks often are) and then pulling the opponent into a strike. The Japanese Samurai were proficient in tying people up (I believe there is an art just for this) but karate forms were not designed to fight Samurai.

katas like Wansu, Kusanku, and Chinto were based on particular techniques from that person. So, they were put together in a way to remember their "greatest hits" (pun intended) and pass it on.

I agree with you on this point.

 

[punisher73]

Yes, this is true in many cases. Sometimes the currently accepted app has been reverse engineered, but as you say, it works - sometimes for more than one thing. But this flexibility is inherent in many techniques in many arts.

You've had some good posts, but here I think you're way off base. There are a lot of fanciful explanations for some techniques which, to put it kindly, are highly unlikely. The move in KSK you describe is more likely a parry with one hand, straightening the attacking arm, then followed by a knifehand to the extended elbow, or head, whichever is most exposed. This is buttressed by the kosa dachi twist stance which is normally used to provide torque - that wouldn't be needed to just take a pin out of your hair. Like the story of it being a "night fighting" kata, it's pure fantasy.

As for the start of Chinto, this can be more logically explained as a cross block, followed by a grab (as cross blocks often are) and then pulling the opponent into a strike. The Japanese Samurai were proficient in tying people up (I believe there is an art just for this) but karate forms were not designed to fight Samurai.

I agree with you on this point.

Just going by what the Okinawan masters passed on as to what the applications were (I'd have to find the article(s) that mentioned that in Classical Fighting Arts).

In regards to Kusanku for "night fighting", I find it interesting that you think it is pure fantasy when the founder of your style tuaght applications for Kusanku for night fighting. Whether or not that was the original purpose, that is how Tatsuo Shimabuku taught it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I don't doubt that you read of these stories, or even that Tatsuo may have mentioned them to some of his Marine students. I too, have heard some tales and took them as true (before I had a real understanding of Okinawan karate). Still, I very much doubt that he believed them and taught them to his Okinawan students (which I have on high placed authority with direct contact.)

For the most part, he just taught American servicemen the basic block, punch and kick version of karate to them. Afterall, they were just there for a few years, most much less than that. And they were foreigners. Somewhat like explaining where babies come from when asked by a child and telling them the stork brought them, not wanting to impart the true process of how it works yet satisfy their immediate curiosity.

Aside from the Okinawan mindset, these questionable moves can all be explained using combat related applications. The "drop" move in KSK where one supposedly disappears from sight of the opponent at night bears great resemblance to a move illustrated in the Bubishi, and has nothing to do with night fighting. Or its opening move where it is said one is contemplating the moon framed by one's hands. Myths often plug a gap in knowledge.

While these stories are interesting and warming to a romantic as myself, when put up against more logical and demonstrable combat applications we must go with the latter.

 

[punisher73]

I don't doubt that you read of these stories, or even that Tatsuo may have mentioned them to some of his Marine students. I too, have heard some tales and took them as true (before I had a real understanding of Okinawan karate). Still, I very much doubt that he believed them and taught them to his Okinawan students (which I have on high placed authority with direct contact.)

For the most part, he just taught American servicemen the basic block, punch and kick version of karate to them. Afterall, they were just there for a few years, most much less than that. And they were foreigners. Somewhat like explaining where babies come from when asked by a child and telling them the stork brought them, not wanting to impart the true process of how it works yet satisfy their immediate curiosity.

Aside from the Okinawan mindset, these questionable moves can all be explained using combat related applications. The "drop" move in KSK where one supposedly disappears from sight of the opponent at night bears great resemblance to a move illustrated in the Bubishi, and has nothing to do with night fighting. Or its opening move where it is said one is contemplating the moon framed by one's hands. Myths often plug a gap in knowledge.

While these stories are interesting and warming to a romantic as myself, when put up against more logical and demonstrable combat applications we must go with the latter.

Classical Fighting Arts #21-23 contains an interview with a student who studied directly with Chotoku Kyan. (3 part interview). He mentions that Kyan taught Kusanku with night fighting applications. It is also the same interview that he states that Kyan taught the move in Chinto to loosen a rope to free your hands. He also talks about how Kyan taught two versions to students depending on if they were public or private students and that learning from Chotoku Kyan there were 3 levels of application to every movement. There was the open application taught (block/punch/block/kick ) that everyone learned, then there was the second level that would have contained more of the joint locking/grappling aspects and then there was the final level that were the lethal applications and rarely taught.

Here is an interview that mentions using the Jiffa in Kusanku

FightingArts.com - Interview With Hohan Soken: The Last Of The Great Old Time Karate Warriors ? Part 1

Matsumura Orthodox is an old style karate that takes the student back to ancient times when karate was more forceful and challenging.

www.fightingarts.com

You can disagree with me or believe that those are very limited applications, but historically we have documented proof that Chotoku Kyan taught these applications as part of his art. It does NOT mean that these were the only applications for the movements as the quote also states each move had at least 3 levels of application.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Classical Fighting Arts #21-23 contains an interview with a student who studied directly with Chotoku Kyan.

Interesting interview and I do not dispute Hohan Soken, however, there may be parts unsaid.

He also talks about how Kyan taught two versions to students depending on if they were public or private students

Most old sensei did this. There were "school" students and selected "home" students that privately learned deeper levels at the master's house.

He mentions that Kyan taught Kusanku with night fighting applications. It is also the same interview that he states that Kyan taught the move in Chinto to loosen a rope to free your hands.

Tatsuo Shimabuku (Kyan's student) taught Kusanku (I worked on it with his son, Kichiro, for a couple of days.) Master Tatsuo also adapted it to be used with sai, incorporating Kusanku Sai into the Isshinyru system. Many empty hand kata can be adapted to be used with weapons (even hairpins) but they were not originally designed this way.

It is a mistake to read weapon applications into the empty-handed form. The weapons adaptation form should be considered a separate kata. While basic moves and principles may be similar, some of them must be changed to allow for the peculiarities of the weapon and its tactics.

The kata of Okinawa were primarily designed for pragmatic combat that one might commonly come across. So, while special limited applications of kata technique may exist, they should not be taken out of context and thought of as part of the form's design, but rather later adaptations. So, with certain qualifications, there is truth in the things you brought up. Still, I'd keep them in a separate menu labeled "interesting side-dishes" and not part of the main meal.

 

[punisher73]

Interesting interview and I do not dispute Hohan Soken, however, there may be parts unsaid.

Most old sensei did this. There were "school" students and selected "home" students that privately learned deeper levels at the master's house.

Tatsuo Shimabuku (Kyan's student) taught Kusanku (I worked on it with his son, Kichiro, for a couple of days.) Master Tatsuo also adapted it to be used with sai, incorporating Kusanku Sai into the Isshinyru system. Many empty hand kata can be adapted to be used with weapons (even hairpins) but they were not originally designed this way.

It is a mistake to read weapon applications into the empty-handed form. The weapons adaptation form should be considered a separate kata. While basic moves and principles may be similar, some of them must be changed to allow for the peculiarities of the weapon and its tactics.

The kata of Okinawa were primarily designed for pragmatic combat that one might commonly come across. So, while special limited applications of kata technique may exist, they should not be taken out of context and thought of as part of the form's design, but rather later adaptations. So, with certain qualifications, there is truth in the things you brought up. Still, I'd keep them in a separate menu labeled "interesting side-dishes" and not part of the main meal.

I can agree with that. I think we could also both agree that kata have multi-level applications within its movements, which is also what makes it hard to really know what the "original intent" was when they designed the kata.

 

[michaelbiancardi]

Original intent is great to understand - if you can find a reliable source on it. However, many of the original intents are lost to history. The debate in this thread shows that it's sometimes hard to reliably discover the original intent of a form. Furthermore, the history of a form may be complicated - an Okinawan form may contain bits of a Chinese form that was intentionally altered in a certain way.

In practice, I typically try to learn what applications and broader martial principles I can gleam from a given form, based on the teachings of different instructors and various book and video sources. That being said, I'm still on my journey to understand the various forms I've been taught. But I have little interest in preserving the 'historical integrity' of a form. Rather, I want to learn as much as I can, so understanding the original intent, if possible, helps deepen my understanding of the form.

 

[jks9199]

Some forms are verbatim records of proven fighting principles and tactics. "This is how you stop a punch and hit them back." But some forms are methods of passing along movement principles or how to connect things. "This is how you move your body to generate power." Other forms are simply catalogs of techniques and movements. "Punch one, stance two, step three..." And some forms are just stories and demonstrations; they may preserve a story of an attack and defense, or simply be an exciting string of moves, or a physical exercise for conditioning the body.

So... tearing down a form to "original intent" may need to start before the first stance or punch... What is the intent of the form or kata itself? Then you can look into the intent of the motions themselves?