Martial arts -- HISTORY AND TRADITION

[jtweymo]

Modern Martail Arts

Whether understood as Japanese budo or as the Chinese and Korean counterparts, do these disciplines espouse or support the old caste-based systems and ideologies? Does budo (or rather, martial arts in general) espouse emulation of the Japanese samuraii, or other types of feudal warrior?

I started this thread to discus this subject.

It's been said that Modern budo does not espouse these things, that in fact, the historical edifice of budo was one of the things that helped remove these institutions and was an enemy to these older modes of thinking and social conduct. What do you think about this?

The fact is that, had these older social conventions survived, commoners like you and I probably would not LEGALLY have been able to study or practice budo (except unless in (para-)military service to the upper classes of nobility and royalty.) We could not legally have practiced or owned swords and other weapons. This would imply that budo was not really the product of these classes or time periods, but resulted after the collapse of these social systems (circa the 1880's). What do you think?

Do we approach modern martial arts with a sufficient recognition of these importants facts?

If you aren't an American, I recognize that you might understand these things better than we Americans do... that Americans sometimes can be oblivious to these types of historical and social contexts.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK??

[jtweymo]

Oooh look at me... I'm a yellow belt!!

[disgruntled]

congrads on the yellow belt!

very interesting questions....

although i am a little ignorant on the foundation on budo and the philosophies (having a non-japanese background), i have always (rightly or wrongly) connected Budo to the religious/spiritual aspects of Martial arts. i know that buddhism greatly affected Asian MAs and i thought that it was this connection that formed Budo. isn't budo more of a way of life than a martial philosopy per say? i think that budo is more of a general guide as to how to live well that was developed by martial artists. if that is correct, then living according to budo philosophies do not necessarily imply an emulation of samurai lifestyles or other military lifestyles.....

as far as your question as to whether we approach modern MAs with a recognition of these facts, i would say that we do need more knowledge. i think that it is important for MAist to understand the history of their martial art, if for no other reason than to understand the purpose of the martial art. but people can also gain from understanding how the MA has changed and evolved.

i know it kinda bugs me when people go to a MA class just to learn the motions. there is so much more to learn. i think that you truely grow as a martial artist when you start to understand what it is like to live as a martial artist. growth is not demonstrated through a new belt or the learning of a new technique, that is just one aspect of learning to be a martial artist.

[sirdarksol]

I'm answering using Japanese terms. The same can be applied to other arts, as China went through a very similar series of events.
This is based (partly) on a falsehood. There were plenty of exceptions to the "commoners can't wield weapons" concept.
Some temples, which accepted more than just nobility as monks, would train extensively in weapons (though often not in swords, which were considered the sole province of the samurai).
As you suggested, utilizing weapons in support of one's lord was absolutely fine.

The basis for the systems came into being during the era of the samurai/shogun/etc... To say "our arts are a product of the collapse of these social systems" is to ignore the fact that our art would not exist without these people.

Likewise, their system of values may not have the same meaning as they did before, but that doesn't mean that such values can't be adapted in the same way that the arts have been adapted over the years.
To give an example: Bushido, at its core, is meant to do one thing; support the caste system.
What was the reason for supporting this system, however? Stability of the caste system provided for a stable way of life. Any time a caste system falls apart, there is a period of unpleasantness for all involved as a new social system is determined. In the case of Japan, it was believed that the caste system was a product of the gods themselves, so the idea of a new social system was entirely alien. Thus, in their thoughts, the collapse of the caste system could likely end in a collapse of civilization itself.

So Bushido was a source of stability for the people. Not just the samurai, but for all people (of course, as with all such ideas, Bushido was corruptible, and was, indeed, corrupted at various points and on various scales throughout history, but we're looking at the spirit of the thing for the time being). Can we not take these same comments of loyalty to the family, personal honor and honesty, etc..., and turn them toward stability of our own society? Every step of a journey is important, and every person makes a difference.

My own sensei teaches us karate not simply so we can beat people up. He hopes that we will be changed for the betterment of society and that we will go on to teach others, thus changing them for the betterment of society.

To answer your most poignant question, I do believe that not enough people are truly aware of the roots of the martial arts. Most of us approached the martial arts for similar reasons (it looks cool, liked the Ninja Turtles as a kid, etc...), but we should be learning as we go along. Not just about fancy maneuvers, but about the roots of our art and the impact that it has had on the world and the potential impact it can have.

[jtweymo]

Hi ya guys,

Sorry I haven't been around for a while, I got pre-occupied with other matters, and somehow I didn't get my email notifications to replies posted in this forum. I'll probably just have to resubscribe to the threads!!

Sirdarksol said: So Bushido was a source of stability for the people. Not just the samurai, but for all people (of course, as with all such ideas, Bushido was corruptible, and was, indeed, corrupted at various points and on various scales throughout history, but we're looking at the spirit of the thing for the time being). Can we not take these same comments of loyalty to the family, personal honor and honesty, etc..., and turn them toward stability of our own society? Every step of a journey is important, and every person makes a difference.

Actually according to documents like the Honjo budo no ron (I posted a thread on the translation elsewhere) and many other traditional budo doctrines, this is precisely what the matter was.

It is couched in language traditional to the Japanese, with lots of unusual poetic ancient terminologies but otherwise it reads somewhat like the average historian on the subject. But the difference is that "bushido" isn't what is identified as such, these traditions and doctrines instead say that "Budo" was. This isn't meant as budo in the modern sense of 'martial arts', this is meant as budo in the ancient sense of "martial discipline".

But frankly in our approach we'd say "bushido", because here in the west, that is what we think of it as. Far as I can tell (don't quote me here!) "Bushido" actually is identical to "Chivalry", the Japanese usually apply 'budo' instead.

According to traditional Japanese doctrines (Shinto based, Imperial Japanese tradition) this thing called "amatsu tatara" actually was a term that meant "conduct and marshalling of the military classes" and was associated with imperial governing of the warrior and later military classes. The term is interesting because it literally means: "Bellows of the Imperial Harbor" a reference to the lungs of both the Emporer and of Japanese fuedal society itself. As symbolics, it is as if to say that "(Imperial) government and marshalling of the conduct of the warrior classes is the life breath of the people/nation".

So yes, we've all hit the nail right on the head, but the fact that this is old material content needs pointed out as well. This WAS budo. This was the role of Budo in older society. Modern budo is descended of an edifice that actually overthrew the nobility classes.

Well, sort of.

Fact is that the Emporer of Japan and both the Royal and noble houses of Japan were intact until WWII -- we Westerners were the ones who actually took it all down, or rather caused it to collapse. So technically budo never did actually have a hand in removal, it had a hand in modification of the lines of social conduct related to the old caste systems. Actually we westerners were the ones who downed those castes among the Japanese.

I redact my earlier remarks on this subject then, somewhat, to account for this new information.

[sirdarksol]

I have read a few different translations of Hagakure and The Book of Five Rings, numerous smaller essays by samurai, as well as a book called Bushido: The Warrior's Code (the latter was written in English by a 19th century Japanese immigrant and is an excellent look into the mind of the Japanese), and I would like to make two points.

#1, Bushido is repeatedly referred to as the source of social conduct among the samurai. Budo is more of a military conduct. They are two separate, though linked, concepts.
#2, Chivalry can be seen as "Bushido-lite." Chivalry is a set of very specific rules that are always followed. "Never fight an unhorsed opponent from your horse," "Do no violence to women." The rules were made, perhaps, in the spirit of the same concepts as bushido, but they were still a specific set of rules.
Bushido, on the other hand, was a set of more loosely-defined, yet much more pervasive, social mores that were left open for interpretation.
In chivalry, a rule may be "Do not disobey your king." The equivalent bushido concept is loyalty toward one's lord. There may be a point, however, where king or daimyo may be suggesting a course of action that is, in the long run, harmful to the people and to the lord. In this case, a knight is forced to do what the king says (and, I might say, this is an excellent source of material for writing tragedies), while a samurai has the obligation to take the more difficult route of disobedience (and perhaps death) to abide by the concept of loyalty.

Lastly, I think you misunderstood part of what I was saying. Nowhere did I say that bushido brought the downfall of the caste system (though I also disagree that it was solely Western influence that destroyed it. Japan has a long history of adapting things brought into the country, and some of its people actively embraced these changes before the World Wars). I said that bushido was a source of stability for the people, as it supported the caste system. In addition, I said that the very concept of something other than the caste system was alien to the Japanese prior to exposure to other possibilities, and thus, even though it was abused periodically (as was the case with many daimyo in the Warring States Period), it was a necessary part of Japanese society (an idea that has been confirmed by Nitobe's book).

[jtweymo]

Hi ya Darksol,

Yeah, that's the problem with a term like "chivalry". On one hand, it's non-asiatic, from a different culture (or more precisely, a group of cultures extant in Europe at the time.) It's a language and culture term from a different time period and a different language and place. Really it's not a very good example choice for translation or representation of the meaning of the term "bushido".

But since the mid 20th century (sometime between 1948 and 1957) the word "chivalry" has been used as one of the standard definitions for the term 'Bushido' in dictionaries and texts that list the word. Namely, these entries of definition or description usually listed it as being a form of chivalry, or as you stated "chivalry-like conduct". It's considered one of the standard definitions. I only defer to these.

But frankly I agree with you (if I understood ya correctly.) I really don't think "chivalry" is the right word... but nonetheless, 'chivalry' is the standard definition offered in the traditional texts (dating as far back as about 1948.)

As for occurances in Japanese manuscripts and texts of the word budo and bushido, bushido really only shows up in specific contexts, or in books about bushido (or perhaps the book has a section on bushido is also common.) But I wouldn't know how to explain the context, all I know is that I translate Japanese material all the time, and when one would maybe have expected it to use the term bushido, it's more common to find 'budo' instead.

But honest to god, you'd think from the context that it was talking about bushido (in such texts and manuscripts). This has led me to wonder if, in some contexts, these two words aren't somewhat interchangeable?? I suspect they might be, in certain contexts. Can't exactly tell?

So yeah, I generally agree with ya on all points you raised.

[sirdarksol]

You may be right on the interchangeability of budo and bushido, to some extent. One problem of trying to translate a piece is that certain concepts do not translate well. It's not even, necessarily, a matter of word choice, but an understanding of thought processes that are born from the way a person grows up.
So there could be some broad understanding of the concept that allows the words to be used in each others' places in certain cases, and the context will provide a clue as to the meaning. Unfortunately, it is difficult for someone not entirely fluent in a language to pick up on such context.

For example, the book I refer to above (Bushido) started when a Western thinker expressed concern that religion was not taught in Japanese schools (remember that this was at the end of the 19th century). "How do they learn moral rightness?" The writer could not understand this concern, as children were invariably taught the morals the thinker was concerned about, but they learned it from society as a whole. Specific school curriculum would be unnecessary.

This difference in thinking actually led the the US' involvement in WWII. The US had been withholding gasoline and various mechanical parts from Japanese trade, but was allowing oil because they didn't want to strip Japan of its primary source of oil, feeling that such would be harmful to the Japanese populace, as well as being an antagonizing move that may close down negotiations. (The Japanese saw being cut off from gasoline and mechanical parts as antagonizing, and began withdrawing from negotiations).

Japan thought that the US would go charging across the Pacific if its allies were attacked, and thus, they thought to cut the US off by bombing Pearl Harbor. The US was much more concerned with Nazi Germany, though, and would have largely allowed Britain and Russia to defend themselves. The Hawaiian fleet was present to keep shipping lanes open to Australia in the case of war.

Through all of this, Japan was thinking of the US as if it were another country like Japan, and the US was thinking of Japan as if it were another country like the US, and the misunderstanding cost many, many lives (though the world's face would be far different if these two mistakes were not made).

This is why I think it's important to read as much as possible from as many different cultures as possible, and talk to people as much as possible, and not just look at face value, but try to read into the motivations and beliefs and inner spirit of that people, in order to understand them better (all of which it appears that you are doing )

[jtweymo]

Darksol...

Wow. Uhm, that's far more recognition than most Americans tend to display.

May I ask? Are you an American and what age group are you?

I am a man in my 40's, and whilst American I have bloodline ties into both Israel and Great Britain (thru my mother and father, respectively.) Dad was a sailor on board the American Naval destroyer in the Mediteranean back in the very 1960's and Mom was a girl he met in a bar in Tel Aviv.

[jtweymo]

Wow I just reread your post, Darksol, namely this part:

For example, the book I refer to above (Bushido) started when a Western thinker expressed concern that religion was not taught in Japanese schools (remember that this was at the end of the 19th century). "How do they learn moral rightness?" The writer could not understand this concern, as children were invariably taught the morals the thinker was concerned about, but they learned it from society as a whole. Specific school curriculum would be unnecessary.

Man that is freakin' excellent because it is often the case, unnecessary and sometimes strange positions struck within society. Obviously, it's accurate: we really don't need such-and-such perpetrated to us because frankly it's already common and extant merely by life and society's course.

After the fact, it usually turns out to have been a mask over some other thing. Sometimes that thing is even dangerous and malevolent, such as the Nazi movement and where it led to. It mutated from merely a pro-German base position to something horrific and dangerous. Not what Germany or Germans would really have wanted to do.

Damn, you did good to point that out there, chum.

Freakin' excellent!!!!