What makes a "Master"?

[terryl965]

Oik I'm going to chime in here:
#1 fact- A Master is someone who has devoted himself to they style both physically and emotioally.
#2- They have given away any and all claims of self achievements in life.
# One that can let people learn from there mistakes and then step in at the right time to teach them.
#4- be humble enough to let people say what they will without retaliation.
#5 Have the strenghth to bo a leader inside and outside the Dojang.

I myself have never ask anybody to call me anything except Sir or Sabanum, the one's that do call me Master I have nothing but respect for them even through I do not ask them to call me it themself. A Master does not have to be in the shape of a body builder or be abke to do all the techniques anymore, one of my favorite Grand Masters is a man in his eighties, he is able to train though his experience,do I expect him to be physically able to do a 540 kick no but he still has the knowledge to teach it to many.
So many people are hung up on physical abilities, I'm waiting in the wings when they are unable to do certain techs. and let see how there attitude changes then.
This is my opinion maybe different then some, but I'm strivking to what I have said here today and over the last 5 years as well.
Terry

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i'd argue that 'master' shouldn't be a title, but an adjective. we all have moments of mastery, when we're dead-on and it feels like we're channelling, not practicing. and we all have days where it feels like we were pithed just before walking onto the mats.

there are plenty of 'masters' who had regular moments of mastry ten years back, but who've been resting on their laurels for a decade and should gracefully set down the honorific.

i don't think i would ever accept the title 'master', but i spend much of each day looking for those moments of mastery.

 

[MartialIntent]

I think there's another criterion I would apply and that is to have attained mastery of oneself.

I believe often we overlook this amongst the talk of examplary technique, motivational skill and creative factors [which are nonetheless key in what defines a master]

If a *so-called* master does not have control of him or herself, there is always room for egotism, or egocentric motivations which blows away the idea of selflessness and altruism within the art. Likewise, without mastery of oneself during conflict there's the risk that our *so-called* master will lash out in anger [as we might do ourselves in such a situation], dimishing the dynamic integrity of the art in the eyes of practitioners.

So am I saying the master should be completely beyond reproach? Yes I am. But we're only human after all - surely this is a state few of us can possibly achieve? Indeed it is.

This is why for me, the term master is a special term that should not be attached trivially for merely passing all tests and examinations. The term master should be reserved only for those who truly merit it. And when I say "attached" I don't mean conferred upon, I'm simply referring to how we think of someone.

I say there's no such thing as a good master or a great master any more than we can have a mediocre master. A master is a master [which has implications of greatness in his or her art] anything else equates to not yet having acquired mastery.

Respects!

 

[Gemini]

A master instructor would, therefore, need to be someone who has spent considerable time both learning the style thoroughly and learning how to pass that information on to others - I've known some awesome practitioners who could not instruct, and some awesome instructors who were less competent physically (not incompetent, just not awesome). In my opinion, the latter is more qualified to be a master instructor than the former - physicality fades with time for most people, but the understanding required to instruct a wide variety of students, and raise their skills to a high level, improves with experience. Even if your physical abilities fade with age, injury, or illness, a true master would be able to teach something s/he can no longer do, because s/he would understand the underlying principles well enough to teach other students who are still physically capable.

A Master does not have to be in the shape of a body builder or be abke to do all the techniques anymore, one of my favorite Grand Masters is a man in his eighties, he is able to train though his experience,do I expect him to be physically able to do a 540 kick no but he still has the knowledge to teach it to many.
So many people are hung up on physical abilities, I'm waiting in the wings when they are unable to do certain techs. and let see how there attitude changes then.

Both of these statements are dead on. We all loose the physical ability over time. It's one of life's certainties. But as long as we have the knowledge and are able to pass it on to others, that to me is a characteristic of a true master.

 

[Gemini]

If a *so-called* master does not have control of him or herself, there is always room for egotism, or egocentric motivations which blows away the idea of selflessness and altruism within the art. Likewise, without mastery of oneself during conflict there's the risk that our *so-called* master will lash out in anger [as we might do ourselves in such a situation], dimishing the dynamic integrity of the art in the eyes of practitioners.

That's a very good point. Though most masters I know fall well short of the mark, (some quite intentionally) it is most certainly a goal worth striving for. Even if we may fail to achieve that goal, could we not still set an example for those we're trying to teach to follow?

"In our search for perfection, we achieved excellence"

 

[kamishinkan]

In the art I train in the title of "Shihan" or master is an earned title. It does not mean you are a master to all (outside this art), it implies that you have mastered a level of the styles curiculum and principles. In saying that it would be neccesary for this person to have trained for a number of years (No set time but 15-20 years of training is realistic). Because of the different styles out there it would seem reasonable that what a "master" means for one may or may not be the same for the next. Even the thoughts on a simple Black Belt varies severly between the different styles; one thinks that the black belt means a high level of proficiency, in our art it simply means that you have trained for a time (roughly 3-4 years) and have a good understanding of the BASICS. It is only at that level you are considered a student. Take that and amplify it to master level and the same problems continue. I believe that a "master" title MUST be earned (given by a board of the styles masters) NOT ASSUMED! No differently than ASSUMING a Shodan (1st degree BB). In our art the person is at a Godan (5th degree) level.
Just another opinion.....