Malice

[ap Oweyn38 1]

Wow - you guys - I can't even start to keep up.
To ap Oweyn -
Your comment about malice was exactly where my mind was headed.
After reading the OP I thought the same as you and thought of capoeira also.
After study of several years I understood the mischievous aspect of this type
of fighting ( roda ) I think it must be how a general feels emotionally when
completely tricking the enemy. There is no angry intent - it is only the jogo.

Neither can I, really.

I'm glad to hear you say this, RDG. I've not studied capoeira myself, but did a fair amount of reading about it once upon a time. If I recall, they were written by Bira Almeida and Nestor Capoeira. But it's been at least a couple of decades since I read those.

That said, the mentality feels similar to that you find in FMA as well. Including the use of the word "play" (jogo, yeah?) in training.

 

[isshinryuronin30 29]

It’s the idea that the language you speak influences how you perceive and think about the world

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

Wow - you guys - I can't even start to keep up.

We’re Ai Chapbots conversing in ‘Gibberlink’.

To ap Oweyn -
Your comment about malice was exactly where my mind was headed.
After reading the OP I thought the same as you and thought of capoeira also.
After study of several years I understood the mischievous aspect of this type
of fighting ( roda ) I think it must be how a general feels emotionally when
completely tricking the enemy. There is no angry intent - it is only the jogo.

It’s a curious thing we have in Iai. Because we don’t fight (sharp swords etc) there’s a push to make things as ‘realistic’ as possible without actually cutting an enemy. One of those things is the cultivation of ‘martial intent’ which is believed to add realism to one’s performance. The other thing we cultivate is the gaze (metsuke) where we look at our invisible enemy (kaso teki). I’ve witnessed and 8th Dan make his eyes turn inward slightly to look like his enemy was approaching him; it was impressive! I notice, when I watch Karate kata performances, there’s seldom even a slight turn of the head during turns during kata to look at kaso teki, let alone eye swivels!

Anyway, this inner expression of martial/murderous/malicious intent is believed to be visible to experienced practitioners and I have seen Iaidoka pulled up for not expressing it sufficiently and them fully admitting that it’s the case!

 

[ap Oweyn38 1]

Oh I wondered what that word was. I thought I’d missed something

I hear you. I often am.

In the Zen Nippon Kendo Renmei Iaido handbook…our Bible, for the first kata description it says, you sense ‘murderous intent from teki which is why you begin drawing your sword! What if he was just shifting to let out ‘back passage gas’?

There's a visual. Okay, I didn't realise that "murderous intent" was literal wording from source texts. That's interesting.

That must be so hard to achieve. Perhaps with the ‘intent of dispassionate objective killing’?

Makes sense, yeah.

Are those classical writings Chinese/Japanese/Far Eastern? Maybe it’s a peculiarity of that part of the world due to their unique culture.

The ones I was thinking of yeah, though those are what I've read. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that sentiment crop up elsewhere. But I couldn't say for certain.

I think warriors decorated their killing with these sort of ideas to make the horror of splitting a man’s head in two as he screamed for his mother less horrific. They did and saw awful things, faeces squeezing out of abdominal wounds after staffing/slashing, cries for mothers, wives, their children as their limbs were hacked off and thrown onto a fire made up of their comrade’s families.

Scheiße! I’ve done it again…sorry

No worries, Gyakuto. Side effect of how we're formatting this back and forth.

All the Filipino people I know are the most jolly, delightful ever, so that can’t be true.

The ones I've known were always pretty cheerful about beating the crap out of me too.

It doesn’t really in swordsmanship either. Most teachers don’t read enough or think about such things to encourage that sort of reading enough

I remember training a knife disarm in a kali class once, looking around the room marveling at how casually we were all "cutting each other's throats" after taking their knife from them. Something to think about, yeah.

Have you seen Peter Brook’s masterpiece. It in 4k now Blu-Ray now

I have as it happens. We watched it in one of those undergrad classes I mentioned. Back in the early 90s. (Not too long after it came out, by the looks of it.)

Very true. Many of the Japanese martial arts concepts were levered into martial texts by highly literate Zen priests acting as scribes for less articulate/illiterate samurai. Zanshin/Mushin etc have more nuanced meanings in Zen practise.

But it also seems the language we use…out mother tongue with which we grew up, shapes andmolds are brains (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). It’s the idea that the language you speak influences how you perceive and think about the world around you. There are two versions of this:

Strong version (linguistic determinism): language determines thought, so you can’t think about things your language has no words for. This is largely rejected. People can grasp concepts without a dedicated word, and translation, though imperfect, is possible.

Weak version (linguistic relativity): language nudges habits of attention, memory, and categorisation without fixing what you can think. This has real empirical support.

This is great. I've done more recent graduate work on language and cognition. Read a bit of Sapir-Whorf in the process, if I remember correctly.

I wouldn’t want her to hedge her bets and stop swinging her sword at me!

I'm pretty content when people don't choose to swing swords at me in the first place, if I'm honest.

Oh we argue all the time! It was my idea she becomes a nun since her life might not have much meaning without being that deeply entrench in her faith…and I’m a radical atheist!

Okay, you have to tell me that story sometime.

It was more likely (according to her) deliberately (mis)interpreted by traditional Jewish men with their deeply steeped cultural ideas, to perpetuate the ideas and give it credibility. Did you know that the gospel of Mark, usually considered the earliest Gospel, is bares a troubling textual question? The oldest and best manuscripts (such as Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb afraid and saying nothing. A young man there announces that Jesus has risen, so the resurrection is still proclaimed, but no appearances are narrated. Later manuscripts add what is called the ‘longer ending’ (16:9-20), which includes appearances, the Great Commission, and the handling-snakes passage. A ‘shorter ending’ also exists in some manuscripts. Most scholars, and most modern Bible translations (which footnotes or bracket these verses), regard the longer ending as a second-century addition by a later scribe. The style and vocabulary differ from the rest of Mark! Things get stickier when the Bible is translated into Latin, the Middle English and finally modern English. ‘Telephone’ is being kind to the scribes!

I knew literally none of that. Really interesting!

Maybe it’s just me, then? I’m worried now

We all are, mate. We all are.

Exactly, I’m saving people time…two-in-one.

Again with the economy of motion.

Bless her weird thoughts and brain!

Praise be...

 

[drop bear139 14]

Malicia is a Spanish and Portuguese feminine noun that translates primarily to malice, spite, cunning, or mischief (Collin’sDictionary)

Capoeira uses that term for cunning.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

A couple of years ago, I dreamed of a swordsman kneeling in an old dojo, reciting a set of precepts just before he practiced. When I awoke I hurriedly scribbled them down as best I could remember (I’m minded of poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge dreaming the wonderful ‘Kubla Khan’) and I think they’re salient here:

Now you have learned how to take life,
One should endeavour to preserve it.

Now you has learned to be menacing,
One should try to be gentle.

Now you has learned to use guile,
One should cultivate integrity.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

After much thought inbetween sets at the gym, I’ve formulated a hypothesis about this issue of compatibility of martial training (rather than ‘combat sport’) and Christianity.

1) If you belong to a highly interpretive denomination of Christianity, such as the Anglicans, where the Bible is not taken literally in the most part, then you can argue that having murderous thoughts of killing and maiming in the context of martial training is fine; it’s basically ‘pretend’ and you could interpret that the Deity knows this is just a bit of harmless fun and thus doesn’t transgress any religious/canon law.

2) If you belong to a literalist denomination of Christianity where the Bible is not open to human interpretation (such as Conservative Evangelical Groups, Fundamentalist Churches) you cannot practice swordsmanship in the way I’ve described. Jesus made it very clear that intent and action are much the same and if the action is sinful, so it the intention.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

I asked Claude which of the world’s major religions would be accepting of its followers practicing swordsmanship (Iai). It said:

Of the major religions, Shinto and Buddhism (especially Zen) would be the most naturally accepting, with Hinduism and Islam close behind and Christianity the most dependent on tradition and vocation. Here is how they compare.


Shinto
Iaido has direct Shinto roots. Hayashizaki Jinsuke, traditionally credited as the founder of iaijutsu, is said to have received inspiration through prayer at a Shinto shrine, and many koryu traditions begin with shrine rituals and show reverence for kami. For a Shinto follower, there is essentially no tension, since the practice is partly an expression of the faith’s own culture.


Buddhism (particularly Zen)
Japanese swordsmanship has been deeply intertwined with Zen, as in the writings attributed to Takuan Soho, which treat the sword as a means of cultivating a still, undistracted mind. The katsujinken ideal, the sword that gives life, fits comfortably with this. The main tension is the first precept against taking life, but because iaido is practised as self-cultivation rather than violence, and because Zen has a long history of drawing on martial arts, most Buddhists in this tradition see no conflict. Some stricter or more pacifist Buddhist communities might feel differently.


Hinduism
As discussed earlier, dharma varies by role, and the tradition values both martial discipline and detached, hatred-free action (the Gita). Kalaripayattu and the warrior-ascetic traditions show that martial practice and spirituality are not seen as opposed. A Japanese art would be culturally foreign, but nothing in the theology would stand in its way, and ascetic ideals might only matter for those pursuing renunciation.


Islam
Martial training is positively encouraged in the tradition, and the emphasis on intention, self-control, and restraint matches iaido’s ethos. The few concerns would be practical ones: some conservative scholars object to practices with Shinto or Buddhist ritual elements (bowing to a shrine or sword, for example), which some Muslims might avoid or adapt, treating bowing as simple etiquette rather than worship.


Judaism
Generally comfortable with martial arts as exercise and self-defence. The same ritual question applies as in Islam: practitioners typically treat bowing as courtesy and avoid any elements that look like worship. Many Jewish practitioners find no difficulty.


Christianity
Since Christianity has so many branches, the answer varies widely. Most Christians have no objection, and plenty practise martial arts. The harder questions arise with the pacifist traditions (Mennonites, Quakers) and, as we discussed, in religious life under vows, where the answer depends on the community. Some conservative Christians also raise concerns about the Shinto and Zen aspects of the dojo, though many treat these as cultural rather than religious.

Interesting don’t you think?

 

[Headbald5 1]

I asked Claude which of the world’s major religions would be accepting of its followers practicing swordsmanship (Iai). It said:

Is Claude an AI?

Islam
Martial training is positively encouraged in the tradition, and the emphasis on intention, self-control, and restraint matches iaido’s ethos. The few concerns would be practical ones: some conservative scholars object to practices with Shinto or Buddhist ritual elements (bowing to a shrine or sword, for example), which some Muslims might avoid or adapt, treating bowing as simple etiquette rather than worship.

Locally,Malay Muslims have no problem with Aikido at all. I don't know if they avoid doing some of the spiritual stuff or not but no Malay Muslim parents I have come across have complained about it. When Malay Muslims take part in Muay Thai competitions the way they show respect to the King of Thailand's picture is different from Thais. They just do a short bow but I myself don't remember how Thais show respect to him differently. Instead of reciting the mantra the Thais recite while doing the opening dancing ritual, they recite Islamic mantras.

Judaism
Generally comfortable with martial arts as exercise and self-defence. The same ritual question applies as in Islam: practitioners typically treat bowing as courtesy and avoid any elements that look like worship. Many Jewish practitioners find no difficulty.

Generally they have no problem with their own hybrid martial art Krav Maga being made up of martial arts with some Buddhist background. I do know of a Rabbi though who discourages the practice of Yoga and when it comes to martial arts, thinks boxing is okay because it is secular. Not going to tell how I communicated with the Rabbi btw, don't want my government to come calling.

(I'm not giving my opinions at all, just relating what I heard and saw.)
Edit:What is wrong with me? I didn't see that you were referring to swordsmanship and not martial arts in general. Second time this happened to me this week. Must be age ruining my eyesight.

 

[windwalker099140 170]

I have a close friend and my only dedicated Iai student; she is a pleasure to teach. Not only does she absorb the technical side of swordsmanship but also the mental and spiritual aspects too.

I'm curious how you distinguish between the mental and spiritual aspects passed down through your training and those you've come to understand through your own practice.

Considering how much the purpose and circumstances of swordsmanship have changed, I wonder how much of the original understanding may have been lost or reinterpreted.

Particularly when it comes to cultivating lethal intent, how do we know that what we're training today reflects the mental state actually required when these methods were used?

This is very rare. Mentally visualising one’s opponent being dispatched by one’s sword, fostering a lethal intent (but trying to avoid hatred) and making those acts as efficient as possible are a part of what is required, at first at least. We free-spar with wooden swords which requires aggression, duplicity, cunning and the associated mindset. She throws herself into these ideas and practices which is what makes her such a satisfying student to teach!

Lethal intent

Regarding lethal intent, there's a book, The Unfettered Mind, by Takuan Sōhō, that might help resolve some of your questions, or give you and your student a different perspective through which to view the practice.

Interestingly, back

in the military during the 1970s, we had what were called conscientious objectors.

The legal understanding of conscientious objection had broadened through Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Seeger and Welsh v. United States, recognizing deeply held moral, ethical, or philosophical convictions alongside traditional religious beliefs.

It raises an interesting question about the relationship between one's ability to perform an action, the intention behind it, and the beliefs that guide whether one should perform it.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

Yes, Claude is Anthropic’s Ai.

I don’t think the gendai Budo would be such an issue because aren’t distinctly lethal and there’s no encouragement to harbour ‘murderous thoughts’ as part of there practice.

Yes I keep answering bits of posts that have already been explained too! There’s something wrong with us!

Yoga; yes a few years ago some Church of England parish priest started banning its practice in their church halls because of its Hindu origins. But as they started losing much needed revenue (fewer and fewer people attend church or donate money to it these days) they ‘interpreted’ that it was very rare that Yoga class instructors knew much or talked about the Hindu aspects of Yoga and they began lifting the ban as it was reclassified as an exercise class like Zumba!

 

[Wing Woo Gar75 36]

My Sifu more than once told our advanced class, “Jason is not the best technical fighter here, but he has something the rest of you lack, malicious intent.” It translates to 100% commitment in that context because there is no hesitation to use every available means to maximum effect. I don’t care a lick about the religious aspect. I will use the most expeditious means to quell an actual threat to life or limb within the scope of reason. As to the morality of fighting, if I have time to think about it, I shouldn’t be doing it. A moral situation for me is dictated by a need to react rather than choosing to. Needing to react with violence means by any means available.

 

[Wing Woo Gar75 36]

I'm curious how you distinguish between the mental and spiritual aspects passed down through your training and those you've come to understand through your own practice.

Considering how much the purpose and circumstances of swordsmanship have changed, I wonder how much of the original understanding may have been lost or reinterpreted.

Particularly when it comes to cultivating lethal intent, how do we know that what we're training today reflects the mental state actually required when these methods were used?





Lethal intent

Regarding lethal intent, there's a book, The Unfettered Mind, by Takuan Sōhō, that might help resolve some of your questions, or give you and your student a different perspective through which to view the practice.

Interestingly, back

in the military during the 1970s, we had what were called conscientious objectors.

The legal understanding of conscientious objection had broadened through Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Seeger and Welsh v. United States, recognizing deeply held moral, ethical, or philosophical convictions alongside traditional religious beliefs.

It raises an interesting question about the relationship between one's ability to perform an action, the intention behind it, and the beliefs that guide whether one should perform it.

The only way to know what you are capable of is to be put in a situation which requires the action. Thankfully, most people will never experience it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar75 36]

Why would Christians have a care? They can just ask for forgiveness on Sunday…

 

[ap Oweyn38 1]

Apropos of nothing, I was listening to a podcast on my DC area commute this morning on Hammer Films. ("Hammer Time," if anyone's interested. It's brilliant.) They were discussing the 1971 film "Countess Dracula" and one of the hosts (Kevin Lyons) used the phrase "murderous intent." Apparently, this is a much bigger thing than I realised.

I suppose, for me, a lot of this comes down to the simple question "does your friend feel that mental state and action are the same thing?" Understanding that she'll feel the need to keep in line with the precepts of her faith, this also kind of hinges on whether she experiences this as an uncomfortable contradiction. Is she worried about it?

This discussion also reminds me of an idea from psychology: cognitive dissonance. I'm going to horrifically summarise it by saying that it's the tendency of the mind to recognise the disparities between internally held cognitions and external circumstances. And the unconscious act of reconciling those disparities by shifting the cognition.

In other words, as the mind attempts to make sense of the fact that the body is engaged in an act that's at least superficially grounded in "murderous intent," does the mind shift toward that cognition to make sense of the act?

Now, that is a blindingly reductive picture of cognitive dissonance, but not completely baseless. We can probably all think of times we felt the need to "fake it til you make it." Smiling when you actually feel like curling into a ball and weeping openly often makes people feel better, for instance. The mind shifts to make sense of the act of smiling.

Having said all that, I certainly don't think that martial arts have made me a more aggressive (to say nothing of murderous) person. But I could see someone of faith worrying about that, I suppose.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

I'm curious how you distinguish between the mental and spiritual aspects passed down through your training and those you've come to understand through your own practice.

Considering how much the purpose and circumstances of swordsmanship have changed, I wonder how much of the original understanding may have been lost or reinterpreted.

Certainly that’s the case with Iaido. It’s about character building/making you a better person/blah, blah, blah…There’s a certain serenity required in their performance and when my gym pals have seen me perform it, they use the word ‘Graceful’ (which we all know is a synonym for ‘boring’) The Koryu (old schools) on the other hand are about killing your target as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nothing else. Of course these days we are just pretending but we’re supposed to be as close as possible to having the intentions to dispassionately kill our enemy. We can only guess what that’s like but our ‘Theory of Mind’ helps significantly. I’ve heard some Iaidoka saying they imagine they’re avenging the murder of their nearest and dearest but that’s not so good since it raises anger which is said to have a detrimental effect upon one’s performance.

Particularly when it comes to cultivating lethal intent, how do we know that what we're training today reflects the mental state actually required when these methods were used?

It’s an educated guess, but normal people have the ability described above, to do this very well.

Lethal intent

Regarding lethal intent, there's a book, The Unfettered Mind, by Takuan Sōhō, that might help resolve some of your questions, or give you and your student a different perspective through which to view the practice.

Yes, most Iai people have read it and many times. It’s more a boy the ‘Do’ aspect of swordsmanship.

Interestingly, back

in the military during the 1970s, we had what were called conscientious objectors.

The legal understanding of conscientious objection had broadened through Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Seeger and Welsh v. United States, recognizing deeply held moral, ethical, or philosophical convictions alongside traditional religious beliefs.

It raises an interesting question about the relationship between one's ability to perform an action, the intention behind it, and the beliefs that guide whether one should perform it.

Yes it does but again depending upon their religious/spiritual outlook they may be unable to learn swordsmanship.

 

[windwalker099140 170]

Certainly that’s the case with Iaido. It’s about character building/making you a better person/blah, blah, blah…There’s a certain serenity required in their performance and when my gym pals have seen me perform it, they use the word ‘Graceful’ (which we all know is a synonym for ‘boring’) The Koryu (old schools) on the other hand are about killing your target as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nothing else. Of course these days we are just pretending but we’re supposed to be as close as possible to having the intentions to dispassionately kill our enemy. We can only guess what that’s like but our ‘Theory of Mind’ helps significantly. I’ve heard some Iaidoka saying they imagine they’re avenging the murder of their nearest and dearest but that’s not so good since it raises anger which is said to have a detrimental effect upon one’s performance

The desire to kill does not establish the ability to kill, the ability to kill does not require the desire to do so.


What strikes me about your description is that you seem to place greater value on imagining the mental state of someone killing another person than on understanding the qualities your actual practice develops.


Serenity, awareness, composure, and the ability to act without emotional disturbance are hardly insignificant achievements.


You acknowledge that you can only guess at the mental state of someone engaged in lethal combat. Why should cultivating that imagined condition be more important than understanding what your practice actually develops?

 

[Marsha Larts1]

Natural, spontaneous response to violence is without prejudice, malice, hatred, fear, or anything other than what one determines needs doing in the moment.

Kinda like what happened in Bend Oregon the other day.

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

Apropos of nothing, I was listening to a podcast on my DC area commute this morning on Hammer Films. ("Hammer Time," if anyone's interested. It's brilliant.) They were discussing the 1971 film "Countess Dracula" and one of the hosts (Kevin Lyons) used the phrase "murderous intent."

I was watching Hammer’s ’Tales from Beyond the Grave’…one of my favourites…only yesterday!

Apparently, this is a much bigger thing than I realised.

I think a disconnect has developed between the concept and the modern martial arts—-> combat sports. Dan grades have learned their art in clubs that are about monthly revenue, children’s classes and winning trophy’s in competitions. Those Dan grades have become teachers themselves and through no fault of their own, perpetuate this impotent version of the fighting arts; no teaching of psychological/spiritual ideas and the original lethal intent that was part of their art. It’’s like the disconnect between true meditation and modern ideas of ‘mindfulness’; they’re not the same thing.

I suppose, for me, a lot of this comes down to the simple question "does your friend feel that mental state and action are the same thing?"

Yes, that’s the crux of the matter.

Understanding that she'll feel the need to keep in line with the precepts of her faith, this also kind of hinges on whether she experiences this as an uncomfortable contradiction. Is she worried about it?

She’s a member of a modern, interpretive denomination (Anglican). She doesn’t believe in Hell, the immaculate conception and has gathered fire wood on the sabbath! But now she’s going to be ‘nunning it’ won’t her superiors bring it up? She needs to have a set of good arguments to put to them should they have issues.

This discussion also reminds me of an idea from psychology: cognitive dissonance. I'm going to horrifically summarise it by saying that it's the tendency of the mind to recognise the disparities between internally held cognitions and external circumstances. And the unconscious act of reconciling those disparities by shifting the cognition.

That’s an excellent summary.

In other words, as the mind attempts to make sense of the fact that the body is engaged in an act that's at least superficially grounded in "murderous intent," does the mind shift toward that cognition to make sense of the act?

I’m sure you’ve read accounts of soldiers behaving abhorrently on the battlefield despite being perfectly normal in their home environs. People who just followed orders a bit too well were again, quite ordinary in civilian life, so ai think it’s perfectly possible.

Now, that is a blindingly reductive picture of cognitive dissonance, but not completely baseless. We can probably all think of times we felt the need to "fake it til you make it." Smiling when you actually feel like curling into a ball and weeping openly often makes people feel better, for instance. The mind shifts to make sense of the act of smiling.

They have found that by contorting you face into a smile actually makes you feel happier!

Having said all that, I certainly don't think that martial arts have made me a more aggressive (to say nothing of murderous) person.

Speak for yourself

But I could see someone of faith worrying about that, I suppose.

Well hopefully solve this issue for them here!

 

[Gyakuto140 149]

The desire to kill does not establish the ability to kill, the ability to kill does not require the desire to do so.

That’s true so that’s why we practice fighting arts.

What strikes me about your description is that you seem to place greater value on imagining the mental state of someone killing another person than on understanding the qualities your actual practice develops.

Performing Koryu is simply more fun than Seitei Iaido. Students punch the air in glee when the teacher announces “We’ll be concentrating on Koryu tonight” and Seitei nights are just <meh>_ Seitei Iaido is the only set of kata that is actually tested in Japan and Koryu is only a minor part of testing in the rest of the world. Thus classes consist of a lot of Iaido because testing is so important to most people. The ‘inner logic’ (Riai) of Iaido is still emphasised; the fact the cuts and technique have to be able to kill, but much less so.

Serenity, awareness, composure, and the ability to act without emotional disturbance are hardly insignificant achievements.

That’s true but we do it from day one so it loses it’s shine in comparison to Koryu.

You acknowledge that you can only guess at the mental state of someone engaged in lethal combat. Why should cultivating that imagined condition be more important than understanding what your practice actually develops?

Koryu does develop murderous intent if one is practicing it sufficiently and with murderous intent and we ask students to think in that way. Seitei Iaido is more about beauty of form, grace and a serene performance and so having the mindset of a graceful swan, a leaping gazelle, perhaps a ballerina is the default.