Matt Stone
Master of Arts
MichiganTKD said:You sound just like the know-nothings I went to school with,
Do I really? Thanks!
the ones I would never dream of talking about martial arts with because it was obvious they considered traditional training laughable.
I don't consider traditional training laughable; quite the contrary. What I find laughable is the pseudo-traditional training, wrapped up in some "grandmaster's" ego trip, that blinds the student to anything outside of what "grandmaster" says it truth.
I am not saying that a traditional instructor needs to know all about life and be a life adviser to students. But you have this superficial attitude that the only thing an instructor is good for is teaching technique.
Again, you err. That isn't all an instructor is good for. They can hold doors open for you, too, or help carry in your groceries...
Seriously, though, my attitude isn't superficial at all. I didn't say that an instructor couldn't provide insight, advice, or guidance. What I said was that it wasn't the instructor's place to offer such things because he/she feels they have that right, or that it is their calling to do so, something too many MA teachers think comes along with the job title...
That is not an instructor that is a coach. A coach's job is to bring student's technique to accomplish a mission-usually winning matches.
I don't think I'd disagree with your definition of coach, but I'd also point out that many mainstream sports coaches have provided their athletes with life lessons of a sort that had a very meaningful impact on the remainder of their lives... I'd disagree that a coach, martial arts instructor, pottery teacher, etc., was as pigeon-holed into their role as you imply in your definition of coach...
This is what DO means-a martial art as a Way of Life to better yourself as a student and as a person.
That could be debated for so long, and from so many different points of view, that we'd burn MT out entirely in attempting it. Understand that until the middle of last century, budo didn't really exist. Bujutsu did. Understand that do started in Japan, and it started as a reaction to the occupation of Japan and the subsequent outlawing of martial arts practice. By couching training in a "character development" environment, it circumvented the fear the occupation forces had of insurrection and rebellion. Going back in history, when the samurai found themselves out of a job, they practiced tea ceremony, flower arrangement and caligraphy instead of trying to convince folks that their emasculated martial training was a better method of developing their refined side...
I'd agree, though, that the modern interpretation of do or dao/tao could be construed as a method by which character development was enabled... Though that isn't the whole of it by far.
You may think of it an outdated anachronism, and your posting suggest more than a little anti-Eastern bigotry.
Oh, this is going to be fun... First, you know nothing of my background. While I tend to want folks to step back and let me handle my own issues, this is one area I know many folks could chime in on. I'm married to a Filipino, I've deliberately pursued living in Japan and Korea, I deliberately pursued living in an area of the US with a high Asian population... So, yeah, I'm anti-Asian. You bet.
Second, I have never said, nor will I say, that traditional training is outdated. Anachronism, yes, but not a bad one. I will say, however, that blind adherence to the directives of a person whose sole focus in life is the practice of a fighting art, regardless of the alleged benefits of that practice, would almost necessarily invalidate that individual's qualification as a life mentor. That having been said, I further do not believe that it is the teacher that teaches the moral lessons in martial arts; experience and training teach those lessons, as the teacher only exists to point the student in the right direction and kick them. It is identical to the saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the dumb SOB take a drink." A teacher does not teach, he/she presents. The student learns through their own effort, or not at all. So all your posturing about actively teaching someone something that is intended to benefit their outside life is just words attempting to validate your ego's desire for justification and recognition. Kill the self, kill the ego; only then can you really teach...
But the practice of traditional martial arts serves an important purpose-a solid foundation to help you through life. I wish there was no need for it.
This is where the co-dependency begins... The solid foundation that exists or fails to exist is not your concern. The student's parents should have imbued the child with that. Perhaps as members of a larger community we have some degree of responsibility for helping our human family learn, but the reality is that in modern America this isn't accepted until it is far too late. At the point you are stepping in, either the damage done is already irreparable, or is so extensive that only the student can remedy it anyway. See the paragraph above. There is a Buddhist tenet that if the Self that sees flaws within the Self desires help, then either a) the damaged Self cannot repair the damage or b) only the damaged Self can recognize what needs to be fixed. Either way, you are cut out of the equation entirely. Point the way, but don't try to either walk the road, nor shoulder the burden, for the traveller.
The fact is, for many students in our organization, mine as well as other instructors', this traditional guidance is often the ONLY guidance they have. We provide guidance that many times their parents don't give them. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is.
The burden for solving all the ills of society must be quite heavy. At some point, you won't be able to carry it alone anymore. Confucius encouraged each person instead to shoulder their own burden, and in so doing, the entire burden could be carried any distance... (Boy, I sure am anti-Asian, ain't I???)
Now, I could say "My responsibility to you is only in class teaching technique. Whatever you do outside class is up to you."
Good! Say it soon, and often! Don't make life easy by taking the student's responsibility away from him!
What happens if that kid gets into trouble with martial arts? Do I still say "He used TKD outside class and it isn't my responsibility?" Of course I don't. I trained him, I am responsible for him. Not just in class, but outside class as well.
What if he gets in trouble without martial arts? Are you still responsible for his gambling, underage drinking, internet porn, traffic tickets, bad checks, late video rentals, and not wearing a condom? Where does your responsibility end? I'm thinking, both legally and morally, at the door to the dojo...
Now adults, granted, are a little different.
Why?
They are responsible for themselves outside class more.
Really? Why? Because they are adults? Is an arbitrary thing like age necessarily disqualifying when we are talking about failing to make moral, ethical and legal decisions? Because, if it is, then there are a whole lot more children in the world of advanced age than we know of...
However, as my students, I am still responsible for their development and growth as martial arts students, both in and out of class.
You aren't even really responsible for their behavior in class, much less outside of class. Teach them the art. Let them train, and the art will teach them the rest. You aren't that important... That was a hard realization to make for me, but putting down the burden of being something I could never be freed me to be what I was capable of becoming. Try it. Your "teaching" will get better...
As far as work, school, family I can give advice if asked or if I know a particular area.
In that aspect, then, how are you any different from anyone else? You are doing, in that aspect, the exact same thing any other person in the student's life could do - providing insight based on experiences. Being a martial arts instructor has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever...
But they can also make their own decisions and learn from them.
Which is as it should be...
But as far as martial artists, they answer to me.
No, they don't. The power you have over them is what they give you and allow you to have. If you take that power from them, not allowing them the choice, then you aren't helping them at all. You are chaining them to your will, and they won't grow the way you claim to want them to. They will exist to serve the inflation of your ego, and nothing more.
The Reverend Kensho Furuya, in his book "Kodo: Ancient Ways" (a fine book, but nothing more than a compilation of articles he'd written for a magazine over a few years), spoke to the nature of a teacher. He pointed out that a "master" was stupid; if he was smart he'd do something far less difficult and far more profitable. A "master" was nothing more than a stepping stone for others to walk on toward their goal. A "master" would never acknowledge anything of the sort. A "master" was nothing more than the sum of experience and training. And so on. I recommend you read it. It is based heavily on traditional Japanese budo and bujutsu training, as well as the Buddhist background Reverend Furuya has (he is a Zen priest in California).
Until then, you'll do whatever you'll do. I just hope your influence remains positive, and focused on the student's needs and not your own.
Enjoy.