The "do" of Tae Kwon!

[Spookey]

Instead of high jacking my previous thread regarding disappearing history, I am creating this thread based on information received by independent posters to these forums...

The "do or way" as I was taught is more than just that of proper punching and kicking. It is a way of life through the virtue of the tenets which is reinforced by the physical abilities of the practitioners.

If we cannot tell the story of Taekwondo with integrity then how can we perpetuate to be teaching a "path of life" ie: "do"

The education of political manipulation, the oppression of the weak by the strong, the difference between cold blooded murder and patriotism (ie Joong Gun), etc. We are not teaching the basic principles of morality and ethics.

How can an instructor spend days, weeks, months, and years correcting and re-explaining the basic techniques, yet neglect to spend an ample amount of time discussing the tenets and oath or the art or organization(s)?

I teach students Taekwondo as a means of prepairing for life, as a means of self improvement, and as a way to positively effect the world one student at a time. This is my understanding of the "do".

Of all the things I teach, stricking, throwing, joint locks, destruction, sparring, ho shin sool, etc. I know from life experience that my students will have a daily opportunity to exhibit the tenets and virtues taught in tradtitional martial arts, yet hope they will never need to exhibit the physical techniques outside the dojang. Accordingly, I asked what should take precedence?

Taekwon!
Spookey

~Martial Scholar and Philosopher...

 

[terryl965]

Instead of high jacking my previous thread regarding disappearing history, I am creating this thread based on information received by independent posters to these forums...

The "do or way" as I was taught is more than just that of proper punching and kicking. It is a way of life through the virtue of the tenets which is reinforced by the physical abilities of the practitioners.

If we cannot tell the story of Taekwondo with integrity then how can we perpetuate to be teaching a "path of life" ie: "do"

The education of political manipulation, the oppression of the weak by the strong, the difference between cold blooded murder and patriotism (ie Joong Gun), etc. We are not teaching the basic principles of morality and ethics.

How can an instructor spend days, weeks, months, and years correcting and re-explaining the basic techniques, yet neglect to spend an ample amount of time discussing the tenets and oath or the art or organization(s)?

I teach students Taekwondo as a means of prepairing for life, as a means of self improvement, and as a way to positively effect the world one student at a time. This is my understanding of the "do".

Of all the things I teach, stricking, throwing, joint locks, destruction, sparring, ho shin sool, etc. I know from life experience that my students will have a daily opportunity to exhibit the tenets and virtues taught in tradtitional martial arts, yet hope they will never need to exhibit the physical techniques outside the dojang. Accordingly, I asked what should take precedence?

Taekwon!
Spookey

~Martial Scholar and Philosopher...

You are exactly right, it is about a way of life that so many have forgotten about.

 

[Kacey]

Instead of high jacking my previous thread regarding disappearing history, I am creating this thread based on information received by independent posters to these forums...

The "do or way" as I was taught is more than just that of proper punching and kicking. It is a way of life through the virtue of the tenets which is reinforced by the physical abilities of the practitioners.

If we cannot tell the story of Taekwondo with integrity then how can we perpetuate to be teaching a "path of life" ie: "do"

The education of political manipulation, the oppression of the weak by the strong, the difference between cold blooded murder and patriotism (ie Joong Gun), etc. We are not teaching the basic principles of morality and ethics.

How can an instructor spend days, weeks, months, and years correcting and re-explaining the basic techniques, yet neglect to spend an ample amount of time discussing the tenets and oath or the art or organization(s)?

I teach students Taekwondo as a means of prepairing for life, as a means of self improvement, and as a way to positively effect the world one student at a time. This is my understanding of the "do".

Of all the things I teach, stricking, throwing, joint locks, destruction, sparring, ho shin sool, etc. I know from life experience that my students will have a daily opportunity to exhibit the tenets and virtues taught in tradtitional martial arts, yet hope they will never need to exhibit the physical techniques outside the dojang. Accordingly, I asked what should take precedence?

Taekwon!
Spookey

~Martial Scholar and Philosopher...

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of a martial arts instructor to teach the whole art - not just the physical portion. It is that instruction that separates a martial art from other forms of training. I know that there are people who disagree - who say that as an instructor, their only responsibility is to teach the physical skills - but I disagree. If I am going to teach a student how to potentially injure other people, I have a responsibility to, at the same time, teach when and how those skills should be applied. Removing that portion of a martial art removes the "do", and leaves only physical skills, and that, to me, is wrong, and a disservice to the students.

 

[seasoned]

Instead of high jacking my previous thread regarding disappearing history, I am creating this thread based on information received by independent posters to these forums...

The "do or way" as I was taught is more than just that of proper punching and kicking. It is a way of life through the virtue of the tenets which is reinforced by the physical abilities of the practitioners.

If we cannot tell the story of Taekwondo with integrity then how can we perpetuate to be teaching a "path of life" ie: "do"

The education of political manipulation, the oppression of the weak by the strong, the difference between cold blooded murder and patriotism (ie Joong Gun), etc. We are not teaching the basic principles of morality and ethics.

How can an instructor spend days, weeks, months, and years correcting and re-explaining the basic techniques, yet neglect to spend an ample amount of time discussing the tenets and oath or the art or organization(s)?

I teach students Taekwondo as a means of prepairing for life, as a means of self improvement, and as a way to positively effect the world one student at a time. This is my understanding of the "do".

Of all the things I teach, stricking, throwing, joint locks, destruction, sparring, ho shin sool, etc. I know from life experience that my students will have a daily opportunity to exhibit the tenets and virtues taught in tradtitional martial arts, yet hope they will never need to exhibit the physical techniques outside the dojang. Accordingly, I asked what should take precedence?

Taekwon!
Spookey

~Martial Scholar and Philosopher...

Everything I ever learned or taught, was geared toward the building up of character first. In order for this or any art to survive, it must be passed down by dedicated people, with a heart toward peace.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, there has been a fundemental shift in the focus of taekwondo, and not just with the KKW, though I'll pick on them since its my org.

The KKW and WTF has shifted the focus of taekwondo greatly in the emphasis of the sport. As a result, most taekwondo schools emphasize the sport.

In sport, there are no tenets. There is merely sportsmanship, which is a rather nebulous concept these days. What constitutes good and bad sportsmanship is generally limited to general politeness, nothing more. There are no tenets associated with sportsmanshp, merely little sayings, such as don't be a sore loser or be magnanimous in victory. Running up the score is considered bad sportsmanship, though I find it rather a silly thing for people to worry about, particularly in professional leagues.

But there are no tenets for how to live and behave. If you want to act like Kobe Bryant and Tom Brady, fine. Really, if it hadn't been for the bad press, I doubt that the NFL would have given a rat's backside about Michael Vic's dogfighting. I think that the fact that he was locked up and unable to play was probably a greater concern to them than that fact that he killed dogs. And look at how the NFL treats retired players.

In sports, you're only as good as your last competative performance. After that, you're just a has-been. And as long as sports is the main focus of the KKW/WTF, the 'do' is really just an inconvenient add-on.

Throw in the IOC, and the tenets become very inconvenient. Someone on another thread described the IOC as the most corrupt organization in existence. I would say that if they aren't the most, they're in the top five. To romance the IOC means that you're intentionally giving away some of your integrity in the pursuit of prestige and sponsorship dollars.

When competition is your focus, then winning becomes your priority. When the olympics are the pinnacle of your competition, then winning at any cost becomes your priority.

Daniel

 

[bluekey88]

That is a good point Daniel.

However, it doesn't have to be so.

I had the honor of accompanying our competition team to a tourny over this past weekend. Good times were had by all. Now, I saw many great examples of "sportsmanship", and sadly some not so good examples (the parents yelling at their kid who just won gold in sparring that he gave some points).

I saw one of our guys who was nervous quit a match after a minro injury (quit because he was gettign shut down, not due to injury)...but because it was a double elimination match...he got to go again, and was able to pull out a victory when he remembered he wasa good counter kicker (he stopped letting his opponent dictate a match)...he then went on to fight FIVE more matches until all was said and done. He learned that day about INDOMITABLE SPIRIT.

We insist that our student show respect and compusre at all times (bowing on and off the matt, shaking hands with competitiors and their coaches after each match).

As coaches, myself and the head coach try hard to push the fun, the unconditional regard we have for the kids, the respect we have for them for jsut showing up...yeah, we like a win...but we're more about leaving everything in the ring...regardless of outcome.

We often see other players using "dirty" tactics in matches. We dont; train them, we don;t condone them, and we'll give out thousands of knuckle pushups to any of our kids who try to use them. this has led to some frustrating matches...but so be it..we're about winning without compromising our integrity.

Sport does not have to lead to a lessening of values...it can, in fact reinforce them...it's all about the leadership.

Peace,
Erik

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sport does not have to lead to a lessening of values...it can, in fact reinforce them...it's all about the leadership.

Very true, but sportsmanship and leadership are not the same as having an actual set of tennets, and the dynamic of organized sports is very different than that of a traditional dojang.

Daniel

 

[bluekey88]

Very true, but sportsmanship and leadership are not the same as having an actual set of tennets, and the dynamic of organized sports is very different than that of a traditional dojang.

Daniel

Any teacher can choose whether or not to make the tenets a part of the curriculum. I don't think the focus of the school necessarily has to enter into it.

Now, does the competitve muindset make it easier for participants to start compromising in search of wins? Sure. Does it have to? No.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Once again, I agree. And ideally, the tenets should be a part of the curriculum. But with the shift to the sport, there is generally a shift away from the traditional. And most schools don't teach the tenets anyway, from what I've seen. Teaching 'do' is inherently more challenging than teaching techniques.

Daniel

 

[zDom]

On a different, but related note,

Does anybody have any examples of how the "-do" aspect has manifested in their daily lives?

Perhaps, instead of avoiding an unpleasant situation, confronting it and "smashing it" for example?

I have examples of how the "-do" of hapkido has led me to "coordinate my inner power" to deal with lifes challenges — but that would be a different thread

 

[SJON]

Just a couple of thoughts to promote discussion ...

What would you say to the following statements?

1. Early TKD (and pre-TKD styles) were primarily "jutsu" rather than "do" (I use the Japanese terms, as they seem to be the standard ones for this kind of discussion).
2. The early masters were more concerned with training to do opponents serious injury than develop practitioners' characters.
3. They were also in no small measure concerned with making money and/or obtaining power, prestige and influence.
4. Point #3 has gained greater and greater importance since then in subsequent generations, both Korean and non-Korean.
5. In many cases, the spiritual/character-development aspect has been consciously introduced both by Koreans and non-Koreans to give the whole thing some mystique and to bring in customers who think that would be positive for them and their kids (and who don't see the bone-smashing, joint-wrenching stuff in the same positive light).

[Simon shuffles slowly backwards into a corner and waits for lightning to strike ...]

 

[matt.m]

As an instructor myself I always consder the following: "You lead by example and it will all fall into place." A little something I picked up in the Marines.

Look your class is influenced by the way you act and conduct yourself. Yeah I have examples of how the "Do" has affected my life and daily routine etc.

Funny how way of coordinated power, art of smashing with foot and fist, and the gentle way all have one similiarity. That is to be a better practitioner today than you were a day before today.

 

[dancingalone]

Just a couple of thoughts to promote discussion ...

What would you say to the following statements?

1. Early TKD (and pre-TKD styles) were primarily "jutsu" rather than "do" (I use the Japanese terms, as they seem to be the standard ones for this kind of discussion).
2. The early masters were more concerned with training to do opponents serious injury than develop practitioners' characters.
3. They were also in no small measure concerned with making money and/or obtaining power, prestige and influence.
4. Point #3 has gained greater and greater importance since then in subsequent generations, both Korean and non-Korean.
5. In many cases, the spiritual/character-development aspect has been consciously introduced both by Koreans and non-Koreans to give the whole thing some mystique and to bring in customers who think that would be positive for them and their kids (and who don't see the bone-smashing, joint-wrenching stuff in the same positive light).

[Simon shuffles slowly backwards into a corner and waits for lightning to strike ...]

Simon, I refrained from commenting on this thread until I saw your contribution. My opinion (as well as my teacher's) falls more in line with #2. We prefer to pre-screen our students for mental and physical fitness. This allows up to focus on transmission of fighting skills and combat systems, rather than spending time on discipline, character-building, or even calisthenics.

 

[StuartA]

One more point.. I have found over the years that students attitude is almost always directly related to the instructors. If the instructors a nice guy, humble and polite, so will the majority of his students be. If he's arrogant, with a win at all costs attitude, so then will his students be.

The 'Do' as TKD see's it can be taught more by actions than just words, though the words help to educate about the actions. However, to me, the 'Do' is more than just the tenets, it is how we travel from our beginnings to our end of martial arts (for may that will be death, for others it will be a different point), what we learn from the 'Do' long the way, becomes the 'do' we pass on as instructors.

Stuart

 

[SJON]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I suggest that the whole idea of character development, or what is often referred to as the “spiritual” side of the MA (most of them, anyway) is not exclusive to the MA and can be found in many other educational and physical endeavours.

Essentially you can divide these things into two groups: aspects which pertain to the person, and aspects which pertain to the person’s way of relating to others. The first will often influence the second over time.

By “aspects which pertain to the person”, I mean things like self-discipline, perseverance, emotional control, facing one’s fears or the ability to face physical or mental hardship. While the MA are a near-ideal environment for these things, I do think they can be obtained in pretty much any highly taxing physical activity.

By “aspects which pertain to the person’s way of relating to others”, I mean things like respect for one’s seniors, humility, cooperation, acceptance of others’ limitations and group dynamics in general. Again, the MA are really good for this, but all of these factors should be present in any modern education system (in fact this is one of its two main purposes) as well as in numerous other social situations.

So, I tend to think that the “spiritual” side of the MA is originally a by-product rather than something they set out to do from the start. Nevertheless, it is clear that MA instructors quickly latched on to the fact that this by-product could be effectively exploited, be it for financial gain through the whole pseudo-mystic approach (see a significant proportion of modern commercial MA in the West – and particularly in the US, from what I can gather), social manipulation for nationalistic/militaristic purposes (see pre-WWII Japan) or legitimate educational purposes (see honest, no-frills MA schools all over the world).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just a couple of thoughts to promote discussion ...

What would you say to the following statements?

1. Early TKD (and pre-TKD styles) were primarily "jutsu" rather than "do" (I use the Japanese terms, as they seem to be the standard ones for this kind of discussion).
2. The early masters were more concerned with training to do opponents serious injury than develop practitioners' characters.
3. They were also in no small measure concerned with making money and/or obtaining power, prestige and influence.
4. Point #3 has gained greater and greater importance since then in subsequent generations, both Korean and non-Korean.
5. In many cases, the spiritual/character-development aspect has been consciously introduced both by Koreans and non-Koreans to give the whole thing some mystique and to bring in customers who think that would be positive for them and their kids (and who don't see the bone-smashing, joint-wrenching stuff in the same positive light).

[Simon shuffles slowly backwards into a corner and waits for lightning to strike ...]

I agree with all that you've stated. To a great extent, most arts start off being centered around technical effectiveness and philosophical and spiritual elements are added over time. Motivations for adding them vary: to my knowledge, nobody was adding 'do' the end of their art in Japan until the Meigi era, and then only because they had to. Most of the flowery philosophical writings of the samurai were also done during a period of relative peace (much like the modern era).

I think that to a great extent, the first twenty years of taekwondo was spent developing a brand new art into something that was as fully developed as all of its contemporaries.

Nonetheless, the tenets and such are there. And while I don't believe that an ethics lesson needs to be taught every class, the conduct of the dojang, both staff and students, should reflect those tenets. The instructor should referrence the tenets periodically and at appropriate times.

Daniel

 

[Miles]

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of a martial arts instructor to teach the whole art - not just the physical portion. It is that instruction that separates a martial art from other forms of training. I know that there are people who disagree - who say that as an instructor, their only responsibility is to teach the physical skills - but I disagree. If I am going to teach a student how to potentially injure other people, I have a responsibility to, at the same time, teach when and how those skills should be applied. Removing that portion of a martial art removes the "do", and leaves only physical skills, and that, to me, is wrong, and a disservice to the students.

This is a wonderfully perceptive post. The system is saying I can't rep ya, which is unfortunate.

I would just add that as instructors, we are role-models for our students. This means we need to "walk the walk, not just talk the talk." Kids especially are impressionable, so if you are speaking negatively for instance in front of them about another instructor/art/whatever, they feel they can do the same thing. If I feel personally responsible for the actions of my students, I will make sure they always represent me and my dojang in the best possible manner. I will always make sure that I am demonstrating and living the "do" in the best way I know how.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Lets face it, teaching the 'do' is beneficial to both the school and the student, and it's only five tenets.

Courtesy
Integrity
Perserverence
Self control
Indomitable spirit

None of these are out of harmony with the way that either parents want their children to live or the way that adults wish those around them to behave.

Daniel

 

[Kacey]

Lets face it, teaching the 'do' is beneficial to both the school and the student, and it's only five tenets.

Courtesy
Integrity
Perserverence
Self control
Indomitable spirit

None of these are out of harmony with the way that either parents want their children to live or the way that adults wish those around them to behave.

Daniel

Nor is it out of harmony with other businesses - the YMCA where I teach, for example, hired me because the philosophy I learned, and teach, is in keeping with the one the Y espouses.