Tradition is What?

[Vash]

!

[Vash]

I realize now that I am beyond style, beyond substance, beyond beyondness, man. It's like, I'm whoah. Or something like that.

My being a gimp has nothing to do with this whole "I'm the sh!t" idea, anyway. My dog told me.

[Starchaser107]

Vash, I cant understand your slangs what do you mean you're a gimp?

[Vash]

Or not.

Being a gimp means being crippled. Or just having an attachment to b!tching.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On to today's deep thoughts:

Just finished reading the Shaolin special. Pretty neat. Got me thinking.

When a martial art is being used as a vehicle of cultural preservation, does it cross the line of martial art and become a cultural art?

In Shaolin, kung fu is used as a vehicle to "delve into . . . personal demons and attachments to root out the source of ignorance, fear, and greed." However, the martial art is only one aspect of Shaolin. Therefore, removal of any of the other aspects of Shaolin would make it not-Shaolin. The martial art, though, would remain as effective. But, I am confusing myself.

In the Shaolin example, removal of certain spiritual aspects would negate the Shaolin portion of the art. But, what if the same adherence to cultural/discipline is applied to an art whose "goal," if martial arts can be said to have this (and I do. Self-defense, fighting, whatever the correct term is), is self-preservation? Yes, martial arts can lead to self-discipline, improved character, the basic betterment of the practitioner. But, so can organized sports.

So, if a practitioner removes the cultural aspects of an art, yet preserves everything "functional" of said art, what is the end product? A deformed art?

Thinking out loud.

[Vash]

When, in the context of martial arts, the term "traditional" is mentioned, what do you think of? Classes held in a manner very similar to the art's country of origin, or the training regimines, technical base?

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by Kempo Guy
Vash,

Thanks for the kudos. I had a few days to think about my response...


blooming lotus,
Thanks. I agree with you completely! I also spent some time in Asia studying MA (primarily Japan) and also went to Taiwan on a couple of occasions to train in Neijia.

One of the primary reasons for me taking up the practice of traditional Japanese MA was based on my interest in Hoplology, the study of the evolution and development of human combative behavior.

BTW, where in China are staying? I'll be going over to Shanghai in January for a short trip.


Sorry for the long post everyone!
KG

dude. that is very cool , but excuse naivety here,...what exactly is Neijia???
and while we are here hopology hey...isnt that what we all are studying!?! I am currently in Anhui, Hhefei to be specific, Im not sure if either of us will have time but ??? maybe we could meet in Shanghai for a green tea, a spar and a rave..
..dude...you'll be here for new year! if I dont catch you, have fun

[Kristoffer]

neija is the internal arts. Like Pakua

[Kempo Guy]

blooming lotus,

As Kristoffer stated, Neijia refers to the "Chinese internal MA", eg Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua.

And yes, Hoplology is what many of us are studying. Having said that I don't think most modern MA (or perhaps it's the way MA is taught these days) would fall under the category of "combative systems"; and it neglects the study of human combative behavior.

I spent the Chinese new years two years ago in Taiwan and in Korea, which was a pretty cool experience. I've had the opportunity to celebrate Chinese new years in Japan on many occasions as well.


Vash,

When, in the context of martial arts, the term "traditional" is mentioned, what do you think of? Classes held in a manner very similar to the art's country of origin, or the training regimines, technical base?

Yes, yes and yes....

Just kidding, sort of...
When the word "traditional" is used I think of all these things, of course it will depend largely on the context in which it is spoken. And I think many people will conjure up images of Karateka lined up performing one kata after another and practicing prearranged sparring.

If you are referring to a Koryu bugei then perhaps all of the above may be applicable. However more modern forms of combatives may still adhere to all these traditions while being aware of the dangers in adhering too strongly to tradition (in the sense that you may eventually be practicing a "dead art").

I can think of a couple of "traditional" bugei arts that allow the individual teachers some flexibility in how the principles of these arts are taught, i.e. making them applicable to modern day conflicts.

It really comes down to how the principles of the individual arts are passed down from teacher to student whether it is in the form of kata and/or kuden (oral teaching). This does not exclude "modern arts" such as Karate and Judo. Also, reigi (etiquette) imho is of utmost importance. This in many ways is what seperates a MA from just an "empty form" of pugilism, and often carries with it philosphies of the founders (whether it's based on Taoism, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism etc.).

I'm not sure if this is coherent at all... so I'll get off my soapbox and retire for the evening.

KG

[Vash]

Here's another thought.

I've heard it said often that one of the key components of MA training must be virtue, good heartedness, morallity, et al. If these are left out, one is only training killing machines.

For martial training to produce a a "killing machine," devoid or basic human and cultural morallity, wouldn't the student need to be raised in a moral/cultural vacuum? After all, the good part of people with the heart to go through martial arts training are of . . . decent character. There are some A-Holes, as in all things. But, generally, a teacher who really cared to could root these students from the school.

Also, on an art retaining the philosophies of the founder/s. If one is training in the art for cultural/historical preservation, I can see this as important. But, in terms of martial applicability, it is rather useless.

However, this is not to say that a teacher should teach in an imoral fashion or with a dangerous intent, it just shouldn't be a inherent part of the art.

But again, my arguments stem from a need for martial applicablity and not goals shared by others in the arts.

[Tak]

1. Do you/your school use the dress of whichever culture birthed your art?

2. Do you/your school use the 'jargon' of said culture when identifying actions, techniques, et al?


I answer yes to both of these. No, another question, if yes . . .
why?

1. Hmm, sort of. We wear just tshirts and lightweight black gusseted pants, but we also wear feiyue-style shoes, and we're getting "sparring jackets."

2. We tend to use the terms in mandarin alongside their english translations. So, we might refer to a form either as Si Mien Quan or Four Gates (Fist).

3. I dunno, seems like the appropriate training gear. It's not our tradition to wear a heavy gi-like thing, anyway.

[Starchaser107]

sooo , vash..no pics for brink of?

[Vash]

eventually. gotta get my gimp ass under my desk to hook up my camera.

then you see a true playa.

[Starchaser107]

[Kristoffer]

dun be shy

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by Vash
Here's another thought.


For martial training to produce a a "killing machine," devoid or basic human and cultural morallity, wouldn't the student need to be raised in a moral/cultural vacuum? After all, the good part of people with the heart to go through martial arts training are of . . . decent character. There are some A-Holes, as in all things. But, generally, a teacher who really cared to could root these students from the school.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

root them from the school or take them on as a teaching "project and help them walk a good mile???" Show ¨¦m what growth is really about...as you do

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, on an art retaining the philosophies of the founder/s. If one is training in the art for cultural/historical preservation, I can see this as important. But, in terms of martial applicability, it is rather useless.

However, this is not to say that a teacher should teach in an imoral fashion or with a dangerous intent, it just shouldn't be a inherent part of the art.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nicely put

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But again, my arguments stem from a need for martial applicablity and not goals shared by others in the arts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXACTLY VASH! I have got to firmly agree. The abilty to maim and kill should be secondary or a bi-product of training...

for sure.

Who said Vash had bad attitude?