Nakazato addresses how Kyan taught Bunkai

 > In Shorinji-ryu does something similar exist, as separate set of application studies (I'm not trying to get copies just understanding the older transmission of the art) in addition to kata studies.
 

Nothing formal. To get kinda deeper real quick I think this speaks to transmission methods (in oral cultures) which is actually my own sphere of interest as much as anything.


I asked Nakazato sensei about this area of teaching bunkai. He said no, Kyan taught kata. I could get long winded here but I'll try not to. I am not saying that no form of applications was ever shown - as guidance - but the thing is ultimately for the student to interpret the kata (the texts) to his own level of understanding.. and be led or helped based on his own level.. this way your level is entirely yours.. the problems you solve are yours. This I think is the reason things are NOT shown or spoon fed. It is up to you. I think this is why all these formal drills are post-classical period.
 

This is connected to not showing bunkai.. or rather not spoon feeding but advising based on where the student is.. in that if you have a "sensei says its this" (*without* it being based on something the student is already doing) you get a situation your students will copy you rather than develop their own understanding. Nakazato suggests that is the way it was with them; they used to practice the kata, then pair up and look at some kind of ippon kumite.. this was based not on what Kyan was telling them to do drill-wise, but based on "if you see something in the kata" (JN words).. in other words it came from the student ..but guided by and led by the kata.. and then helped by the techer if he saw the need.. but I suspect Kyan was very simlar to JN, in that the emphasis is on not stepping in except in correcting a basic done incorrectly during *your own* interpretation.
 
Nakazato's view appears to be that it was really up to the students what they make of it and how they view it.. The texts (the kata) are neutral and this is what is transmitted. This is why you see kata of old folks "looking crap" (!).. Its just a matter of printing versus beautiful personal handwriting (JN uses this thing borrwed from the nomenclature of calligraphy as a direct analogy). The transmission level (kaisho - block printing) kata is shown with very little emphasis beyond suggested weighting and context of individual technique within a group of techniques.. You interpret the words not the other guys handwriting. Eg. Zenryo's handwriting is the full squat shiko dachi  whereas really all this is fundamentally is 50/50 weight distribution.. It is interesting to realize that this is also the way Calligraphy is developed, and that the most beautiful is often that that is so abstract that even Japanes cannot read it, but can only decipher it by knowing (ie. having been taught) the order that Kanji characters are constructed. I believe this contextual understanding is also a clue as to the context of moves in kata.. ie. If they were flowing, the kata would only be a mere shadow, or outline skeletal form of what you were doing.. As in the calligraphy example, the techniques become blurred but imbued with the same principles of movement/weight shift.. but there the similarity ends.
 
 So these kata are (were?) transmitted in a neutral way ie without personal bias or emphasis. As are all texts within eastern traditions it seems, or even in transmission of other cultural lineages, such as theater or ceramics... though these are subject to "commentaries" by teachers/practitioners, expanding on the bare texts.. This is why even when doing a kata students of the same teacher do not look the same. Its not that they were taugtht differently, becuase the same neutral kata was taught to each, but there is/was leeway to do with them what you want stylistically.. though not teach personal variations that are your own except as illustrations as to what the student might do to make things their own...  the same template is there with no thought to "performance" until the modern era when the emphasis shifted to imitating teachers.. So there are personal variations (eg the angle of punch) but this does not count as a kata change per se. its just personal variation.. but actually according to Nakazato this shouldn't be transmitted. He cites specifics of his own but there is also a story about Tatsuo on his mid 60s visit being asked about the fact that his punch was being imitated (incorrectly?) by his students.. he supposedly said something to the effect of " I don't give a shit what they do, this is mine and what they do is up to them".
 
Sorry.. I said I'd try not to get long winded, but failed miserably!
 
love harry