Originally posted by Mya Ryu Jitsu
A student receives rank from an instructor who received his/her rank/authority ultimately from an individual who originally had no rank in the system and either 'ranked' himself or had someone outside the system 'rank' him. Do you follow where I'm going here? Some people feel that an instructor [Master or whatever] can't grant rank to someone outside their system...But really, on what basis is this 'against' the rules?
Well, to me, this is common sense. A school of Optometry can't grant a doctorate in Osteopathy. And if they did, no one in the field would recognize it as legitimate.
And I think that brings up the dual nature of rankings. A person can claim to be any rank they want. And they may have legitimately earned that rank from a legitimate instructor. But their peers are going to judge them on their ability to perform, not on what color belt/sash they wear or what a piece of paper says.
You're absolutely right that, at some point, all systems were new creations. I think, though, that titles are, over time, earned or lost on the merit of actions.
Example (using generic terminology for purposes of illustration):
A person starts teaching in his back yard. His students start calling him "instructor" because he teaches them and they respect him and cherish what they learn from him.
At some point, he deems some of those students ready to go teach. It's not done on "authority" ... it's just that he feels they're at a place in their development where they'll learn more from teaching than they can learn in similar time as students.
Now, these people earn the title "instructor" from their students and, much like the title "grandfather" is earned, the head instructor becomes a "master instructor" because he's an "instructor of instructors."
This process repeats and he earns the title (through having propogated this lineage) of "grandmaster." But the title is given to him by his students and their students.
On the flip side, he starts teaching and calls himself "grandmaster." If he's good and he produces good students, then, eventually, his "progeny" will use the term respectfully. He's "earned" the title. So, by using it to begin with, he's kind of "buying it on credit." If he doesn't produce good students and a lineage (pay his "debtors") then the lineage will die and he'll be nothing more than a "legend in his own mind."
That's basically the way that I perceive it.
Some people worry about getting to the next rank rather than training for the sheer enjoyment or skills, when really it's only a piece of cloth. Some feel that one system is more legitimate than another, but they must all have had a similar starting point. These are just general thoughts that I felt inclined to put into the written word. Not aimed at anyone or any institution. I am very curious as to others 'take' on some of these things.
There are certainly those out there. Personally, the only reason I train is because I enjoy it. The day it stops being fun is the day I quit. But I expect I'll die before that happens. I have instructor level ranks in 4 systems. I didn't set out for any of them. My sole goal in training was to improve myself in some way each day. The rank came as recognition of my success at self-improvement.
Are we all to some extend concerned with who grants what and in what and to who? Would anyone have a better option to consider?
Personally, it's about honesty. I don't care what someone claims about their background. If their skill/ability seems commensurate (in my opinion) with their claims, then fine. If not, then fine. No skin off my nose either way. It will only impact how I interact with them.
Mike
