I wonder if the defensive aspects of kata, i.e. every kata should begin from the defense technique, should be emphasized as it is in modern karate. I also wonder if how we perceive and interpret that meaning is actually what the originators of Okinawan "Ti" actually meant.
I understand why modern times require is to think and act in "defense" but wonder the actual benefits of that thinking.
Isn't it true that to react in defense is slower that acting in offense? Maybe defense should be emphasized to achieve the goal of meeting societies "need and demand" that any violence perpetuated on humans must be in a "defense mode or model." Is this because society today has removed itself from our violent instincts?
I find it a lofty goal to achieve a non-violent society but I tend to think that tempering that with a solid ability to handle violence a must. Why? Because we are humans and humans are fallible thereby the violent tendencies, especially concerning those whose minds might be born to it, still exist and how we deal with them is important.
Back to the subject, every kata should begin from the defense technique, tends to lean more on a reactionary model and that in some violent encounters "may not be a good thing."
I lean toward this discussion because often the defense in kata is actually a technique but in some it is more a symbolism such as some comments on this share indicate. (see comment by Indishe Senanayake on Advincula sensei's wall post shared below).
As a teaching and symbolic representation I feel it should be one that is not "sometimes" inferred to a means of defense, i.e. more a posturing that is only a small part of violence, i.e. posturing is more a social act. Posturing is all fine and dandy when completing in a tournament or some form of sport activity but is it actually relevant in a truly asocial violent act?
Don't get me wrong, I believe that avoidance is the first line of "defense," if relevant to the situation and if possible. But when it is not relevant and not possible then actions speak louder than reactions. The distinction is important and what I personally consider an important part of the culture, customs and symbology in kata are those theories and philosophies that go beyond the surface into the depth and breadth that is kata.
Granted, some dojo teach the full spectrum and the possible misinterpretations and misunderstandings are lessened but for a lot of training facilities this is lost completely.
Kata as a tool to teach martial arts are critical. Learning the essence, cultures and symbolic attributes are important and also critical but it goes further that this - it is not about turning kata into some symbolic spiritual dogma but using them both in its original forms and in modern interpretations of modern times that should be taught, sought out and learned.
The moral of this mindless meanderings is "don't assume anything and don't assume that what is written is the end all of the explanation." Look to things as questions that open the mind and the door to knowledge, knowledge and knowledge.
Addendum: I have to wonder when kata first came into being if they actually had a defense in every kata at the beginning or was it more a symbolic gesture or technique to teach a more philosophical aspect toward karate? I also wonder if "Ti" was actually about kata before the late 1800's and early 1900's or was Ti about a compilation of techniques found to work in a violent encounter?
Consider the need for karate as given in what history is available, i.e. the ban on weapons, etc. Is it possible that the more defensive aspects were incorporated to water down true karate into something more acceptable for incorporation into the school systems?
I can't imagine a Okinawan encountering a violent attack first posturing to demonstrate to the adversary that they know and will apply karate if forced rather than simply doing that adversary the service of felling him before he has a chance to do damage to that Okinawan.
Some of the legends that were written about tend to convey the quick actions of a karate-ka to fell an adversary over any posturing to demonstrate a defensive philosophy or to defend rather the act against violence in a more "action oriented" way vs. a reactionary act.
Many of the things we have been taught in karate or martial arts has been subjected to such things as what teachings are influenced and constrained by the teachers own knowledge, experience, imagination, and attitudes of those times.
The times, the cultures, the beliefs all influence perceptions including our own during these modern times, cultures and beliefs. Nothing is set in stone and nothing is as it seems. Historical records about martial arts in Okinawan culture are scarce and subject to more modern interpretations due to a lack of documentation. Even documentation is subject to the same constraints mentioned above so "how do we know, how do we really know?"
No comments:
Post a Comment