Sunday, October 15, 2023

From Mabuni Kenwa’s book “ From GOSHIN KARATE KEMPO Defense and Attack”

 


When I shared this example from Mabuni Kenwa’s book “ From GOSHIN KARATE KEMPO Defense and Attack” Published in March 1934. It was just one example of what he labeled as bunkai for the kata Seiunchin.

 

https://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2016/04/from-application-potential-to.html?fbclid=IwAR2KR7UKx4YkucT7h_-AiFGrgKzGF775ESONIB2GEKGImyL-Rgj2rhedW90

 

He did not intend this book to be a textbook for students. Rather as the book was published in Japan, I highly doubt it was intended for Okinawan’s at all. Nor was it written for the general Japanese populace. Rather it’s intended audience was probably for those who had seen karate demonstrated and more for the university leaders and the Japanese martial leaders, considering where Funakoshi and Mabuni put their efforts.

 

He was surely attempting to show kata had a self defense use with appropriate study. So he kept his examples simple, not necessarily showing everything.

 

Then when I translated a French edition of that book, I was of course captured to try and work out what was shown. And as I have written, it was Sherman Harrill who found the key for that use.

 

The Shito ryu Senenchin has a definite similarity to the Isshinryu Seiunchin kata. Enough I never worried about the differences, I was not attempting to be Shito ryu after all, just attempting to discern what I could from what Mabuni wrote.

 

And it is interesting, especially that it was probably Mabuni who popularized the use of Bunkai, or in his context ‘.

 

But I located a video of Shito Ryu students showing the bunkai for Seienchin, and it is much the same as Mabuni originally wrote.

 

Of course I have no idea if it was as he was originally shown by his teacher Hiagonna Kanryo or his friend Miyagi Chojun. Or was it something they created over time because of that book.

 

I am going to share some screen prints of the section of the kata, It is different from what Mabuni wrote. Of course that does not invalidate what Mabuni was attempting to show.


 

How we interpret what was written in the past is often difficult

 


No comments: