Training at the Source

[Touch Of Death]

Consider, the people training you just happen to live in Okinawa, and are not granted with any special teaching abilities, you could get at home, but it would be a good time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Consider, the people training you just happen to live in Okinawa, and are not granted with any special teaching abilities, you could get at home, but it would be a good time.

That's the thing to me. I'd love to go train some in Japan. While NGA is no longer found there, I'd be happy to train in something related, and the experience of training there in a different environment, under a different culture, would be worth the trip.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

I will say this - it seems to me that the more generations one gets from the source of style in question, the more changes are introduced. Some intentionally, some without anyone actually trying to change anything. It just happens. It seems to be a natural occurrence

This is very accurate. Martial traditions, as all other traditions, continually and constantly change. As for unintentional changes, well, this is beyond our control. But what about intentional changes? The question here is who has the authority to interpret, or re-interpret tradition?

I think that we in the West have all been affected, to a lesser or greater degree, by what I call Zen missionaries. Those people argued that Zen can be transmitted without words(=language) because it was from the start "special transmission outside the scriptures(=words)". While this might be true in a limited sense(when, as Bill says, one is taught by The Source, so to speak, this might hold true) it is mainly Zen ideology, not to say propaganda.

For Zen monks themselves have been interpreting and reinterpreting their tradition for 1200 years now. that is why there are so many Zen commentaries(the amount written by Zen monks is truly unbelievable). And this re-interpretation, expressed in words, and relying to a large degree on a WRITTEN canon, affects practice. And to a very large degree.

So what gave those monks the authority of re-interpretation? 1) experience with practice. 2) direct relationship with A Source. 3) Access to the literary tradition(access to this tradition is mainly a function of one's language skills and specific sort of education).

Now, this is not a camouflaged criticism. I am not trying to belittle Western teachers. However, if we consider the prerequisites for re-interpretation we mostly find that they lack the third component--access to the literary tradition.

Let me emphasize, I do not mean to say that what Western teachers teach and transmit is merely a watered-down version of what is being transmitted in the East. Not at all. I just point out the fact that without access to the East Asian literary tradition Western martial artists are not completely independent.

I would be cautious about uncritically accepting the history related by an instructor, even if they are a native of the country in question.

You are right to be cautious. However, from my experience, these masters, even living in some remote village in China and not very well educated are very sensitive to what we now call "objective historical accounts". I was very surprised by this. So, for example, they'll tell you, "see, this is the story of origins transmitted in our village. But that's just a myth". I found out, however, that sometimes they were too quick in dismissing those origin stories, because those stories did transmit historical facts, and more importantly, historical truths.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

And take pictures, Dudi, lots of pictures.

Thanks again man! You are right. These adventures should be documented. I made the mistake of not documenting my earlier days of training. In fact, I took almost no pictures and I regret it. It was stupid. I am definitely going to heed your advice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is very accurate. Martial traditions, as all other traditions, continually and constantly change. As for unintentional changes, well, this is beyond our control. But what about intentional changes? The question here is who has the authority to interpret, or re-interpret tradition?

I think that we in the West have all been affected, to a lesser or greater degree, by what I call Zen missionaries. Those people argued that Zen can be transmitted without words(=language) because it was from the start "special transmission outside the scriptures(=words)". While this might be true in a limited sense(when, as Bill says, one is taught by The Source, so to speak, this might hold true) it is mainly Zen ideology, not to say propaganda.

For Zen monks themselves have been interpreting and reinterpreting their tradition for 1200 years now. that is why there are so many Zen commentaries(the amount written by Zen monks is truly unbelievable). And this re-interpretation, expressed in words, and relying to a large degree on a WRITTEN canon, affects practice. And to a very large degree.

So what gave those monks the authority of re-interpretation? 1) experience with practice. 2) direct relationship with A Source. 3) Access to the literary tradition(access to this tradition is mainly a function of one's language skills and specific sort of education).

Now, this is not a camouflaged criticism. I am not trying to belittle Western teachers. However, if we consider the prerequisites for re-interpretation we mostly find that they lack the third component--access to the literary tradition.

Let me emphasize, I do not mean to say that what Western teachers teach and transmit is merely a watered-down version of what is being transmitted in the East. Not at all. I just point out the fact that without access to the East Asian literary tradition Western martial artists are not completely independent.



You are right to be cautious. However, from my experience, these masters, even living in some remote village in China and not very well educated are very sensitive to what we now call "objective historical accounts". I was very surprised by this. So, for example, they'll tell you, "see, this is the story of origins transmitted in our village. But that's just a myth". I found out, however, that sometimes they were too quick in dismissing those origin stories, because those stories did transmit historical facts, and more importantly, historical truths.

I'd argue against both the second and third "requirements" you list.

For something like martial arts, having access to a literary source is not nearly as important as experience with effective training. And since most of what has been written on most martial arts is available in English (regardless of the original source language), that literary access is more universal than it was, as least as far as the more modern writings (which I argue are often more important).

The requirement of access to a source once again assumes the source is better than the subsequent generations. For the first few generations of students, this is likely to be true, since the source is still developing the material and principles, so the explanations won't be as complete. Thus, those students are left to fill in many gaps with their own understanding. After the first few generations of students produce instructors, however, the situation changes. Some of those will have found better explanations. Some will have understood pieces even better than the source did. Some will have become better technicians than the source. Over time, the source becomes one important voice among many, and some of the "many" will be found in far away places these days.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

And since most of what has been written on most martial arts is available in English

I am sorry. But that is incorrect. Only very little has been translated into English, and as you know, much is lost in translation.

assumes the source is better than the subsequent generations

You mix up "fighting" and "tradition". When it comes to tradition then the Source is by definition the most important. Martial arts are traditions. Effective fighting you have in the military (maybe...).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am sorry. But that is incorrect. Only very little has been translated into English, and as you know, much is lost in translation.

Most of what has been written on nearly any art (assuming it is extant) was written in the last 100 years. That's true of almost any topic.

You mix up "fighting" and "tradition". When it comes to tradition then the Source is by definition the most important. Martial arts are traditions. Effective fighting you have in the military (maybe...).

No, actually I don't mix those up. I think you place too much emphasis on the tradition. Okay, too much for my taste, but not for others. There's really nothing wrong with wanting to dig deeply into the tradition, though it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the art. It's important if you want to understand the thoughts of the founder(s), because their culture affects how they communicate. But it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the art. How important tradition is depends upon your approach and focus. Tradition, to me, only matters insofar as it ties together the community of an art. So, I maintain some traditions from mainline NGA, though they have no real effect upon the mechanics and effectiveness of the art.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In some arts (I'd suspect BJJ is one), there's a strong influence of the founder(s) still to be found at the country of origin.

If you look at the list of winners of the Mundials (World Jiu-Jitsu Championships) the majority of the names are still Brazilian. However, at least half of those Brazilian-born practitioners live and teach in the U.S.. In addition, most of the prominent Gracie family practitioners live in the U.S. (except for Roger Gracie, who lives in England and Carlos Jr, who lives in Brazil). This leads me to suspect that we've reached the point where the level of training in the U.S. is at or near the level of training available in Brazil.

That said, I'd still love to make a training trip to Brazil one of these days. I'm even studying Portuguese, so hopefully I would have learned enough to carry on conversations by the time such a trip comes about.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

Most of what has been written on nearly any art (assuming it is extant) was written in the last 100 years. That's true of almost any topic.

We have 400 years of martial arts literature in both China and Japan. The amount of this literature is beyond huge.

it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the art

It has everything to do with the effectiveness of the art.

it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the art

And it definitely has to do with the mechanics of the art.

The ancients moved, and opted to move, quite differently. The writings of the ancients help much in this respect. They often speak of "chain of movements", what to move first, what to move second etc. And, East Asian SEE the Chinese characters/kanji, while we, Westerners read them. Many character-combinations in the ancient writings are evocative--they evoke in the one SEEing them a certain movement, or physical gesture. This is just all over the classical texts. And, this is one point that is totally lost in translation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you look at the list of winners of the Mundials (World Jiu-Jitsu Championships) the majority of the names are still Brazilian. However, at least half of those Brazilian-born practitioners live and teach in the U.S.. In addition, most of the prominent Gracie family practitioners live in the U.S. (except for Roger Gracie, who lives in England and Carlos Jr, who lives in Brazil). This leads me to suspect that we've reached the point where the level of training in the U.S. is at or near the level of training available in Brazil.

That said, I'd still love to make a training trip to Brazil one of these days. I'm even studying Portuguese, so hopefully I would have learned enough to carry on conversations by the time such a trip comes about.

That was quick - I guess globalization has sped up that process, too. I'd still guess (and it's nothing more than a guess) that there's a dense pocket near the origin in Brazil that's not found in the US. Although with so many Gracies here, that may not be true, either.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We have 400 years of martial arts literature in both China and Japan. The amount of this literature is beyond huge.

More has been written on Karate, for instance, in the last 100 years than in that time. And much of that has been published (including analysis of some of those ancient writings). My assertion is that there is likely not a huge amount of physical knowledge to be found in the older writings that will not be found in a different form in the newer writings. And the older writings include inaccuracies driven by misunderstandings of how the world works (like ki/chi metaphysical explanations).

It has everything to do with the effectiveness of the art.

And it definitely has to do with the mechanics of the art.

The ancients moved, and opted to move, quite differently. The writings of the ancients help much in this respect. They often speak of "chain of movements", what to move first, what to move second etc. And, East Asian SEE the Chinese characters/kanji, while we, Westerners read them. Many character-combinations in the ancient writings are evocative--they evoke in the one SEEing them a certain movement, or physical gesture. This is just all over the classical texts. And, this is one point that is totally lost in translation.

They were using the same bodies we use, and the same mechanics we have available. And their movements were not fed by the scientific understandings of advancements in things like kinesiology. The ancients made choices based upon what was available at the time. Their culture drove how they got to their point, but culture absolutely does not change the mechanics of the human body (beyond flexibility in certain areas due to habitual actions). The cultures of Okinawa and Japan are in no way necessary to the effectiveness of Karate-do and Judo. The mechanics work the same if you ignore those. There are reasons to study the cultures and those links, but physical effectiveness is not among them.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

This leads me to suspect that we've reached the point where the level of training in the U.S. is at or near the level of training available in Brazil.

I am sure you are right. My arguments are applicable only to East Asian martial arts. BJJ is something else. I am not arguing against its effectiveness, just saying that it is not an East Asian art. BJJ comes from Judo, which was already removed, almost disconnected, from the East Asian literary tradition. Jigoro Kano simply did not think much about classical Jujutsu theories, which he found vague and mystical. BJJ is even more removed from the East Asia tradition than Judo. BJJ is simply a different phenomenon.

Gpseymour's Aikido is closer than Judo to the classical traditions of East Asia. But in the case of both Judo and Aikido, effectiveness, in the modern scientific sense of the word, is more important than being effective in the way the ancients were. I am not saying it's bad, just pointing out the differences. If you one knows what he is doing, and BJJ practitioners seem like they are (Aikidoka, I feel, are less certain about their orientation) than it's fine.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

They were using the same bodies we use, and the same mechanics we have available

I think that this, for example, is a different way of moving:

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think that this, for example, is a different way of moving:

I cover these same types of topics, with no reference to the ancients. It's body mechanics. That instructor shows a different approach to them, but that's just a different way of applying the same principles.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think the OP has made up his mind and is looking for confirmation. If you want to go, go. Have fun.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the OP has made up his mind and is looking for confirmation. If you want to go, go. Have fun.

Agreed. The trip is worthwhile on its own merit.

 

[Andrew Green]

How important it is for the serious karate to train in Okinawa? How important it is to train there for an extended period?

What do you think guys?

Happy New Year!

Depends entirely on what you want to get out of your training. Information is now so widespread and available there is not likely anything you can get in terms of practical skills that is not available in many other places.

Of course most people that get really into karate have more to their interest then purely practical things. It's like any other skill that has roots in a specific culture. You don't need to go to Italy to learn how to make spaghetti. But, there are a lot of cultural things around spaghetti that you might find beneficial that can only be gained by going to Italy. It might not help you make better spaghetti, but it can enhance your spaghetti experience.

 

[O'Malley]

Depends entirely on what you want to get out of your training. Information is now so widespread and available there is not likely anything you can get in terms of practical skills that is not available in many other places.

Of course most people that get really into karate have more to their interest then purely practical things. It's like any other skill that has roots in a specific culture. You don't need to go to Italy to learn how to make spaghetti. But, there are a lot of cultural things around spaghetti that you might find beneficial that can only be gained by going to Italy. It might not help you make better spaghetti, but it can enhance your spaghetti experience.

As an Italian I can safely say that decent spaghetti is hard to find outside of Italy, except in places where Italian immigration is strong. But again we're damn picky about food.

The most extreme example of needing to go to the source for the real deal is that the granita you can find outside of Sicily (even on mainland Italy) is not even worthy to be given that name.

 

[Tez3]

The most extreme example of needing to go to the source for the real deal is that the granita you can find outside of Sicily (even on mainland Italy) is not even worthy to be given that name.

Ah I dream of granita with Inspector Montalbano, sigh.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As an Italian I can safely say that decent spaghetti is hard to find outside of Italy, except in places where Italian immigration is strong. But again we're damn picky about food.

The most extreme example of needing to go to the source for the real deal is that the granita you can find outside of Sicily (even on mainland Italy) is not even worthy to be given that name.

Explain to me where in Okinawa I would obtain training in my Okinawan karate style (Isshin Ryu) which is better than the training I already receive. Something I would get which I cannot get from my Sensei.

There is none.

This is why I reject such arguments.

With regard to the OP, it is clear he never intended to entertain any discussion about going versus not going. He believes he will receive great benefit. In such cases, he should do as he pleases. If he wants opinions, he now has them. But he didn't really want opinions, it seems to me. He wanted affirmation.