Back in 2008 Patrick McCarthy requested I prepare a forward to
his then new reissue of his translation of the Bubishi. I had done a bit of
translation for him and others from French works and in doing so saw a slightly
different vision of the Bubishi. I respected his request and this is what I
wrote.
The Bubishi
By Victor Smith
In you hands lies a
contemporary translation of the Bubishi by Patrick McCarthy.
Just a short 100
years ago, when even the wildest speculation could barely imagine karate
becoming public let alone being exported past the tiny shores of Okinawa, who
would have ever considered their copy of the Bubishi becoming a public
commodity sold at local bookshops?
The karate of era was
passed from instructor to student through oral and physical transmission. There
were no karate texts and even the unique terminology used by instructors made
it difficult for outsiders to understand the inner-workings of what was being
imparted. Entrusted to senior instructors, to what extent the role of the
Bubishi actually played remains obscure.
In 1922, Funakoshi
Gichin let the cat out of the bag when he included several articles from the
Bubishi in his first publication, “Ryukyu Kenpo Karate-jutsu.” Again, in 1925
with his book, “Karate-jutsu,” and “Karatedo Kyohan,” in 1934, Funakoshi
continued to highlight the importance the Bubishi by republishing several of
its articles. So too did Mabuni Kenwa see fit to publish Bubishi-related material
in his 1934 book, “Seipai No Kata.” As Karate found its way to the four corners of the world,
the content of these unique publications became sought after. So it was that
the Bubishi first came to be known beyond the tiny shores of Okinawa.
When, why and who
actually composed the Bubishi remains unknown, however, the application of
Occam's Razor is one approach which might offer us the simplest explanation. It
seems conceivable that the thirty-two articles, found within the covers of this
hand-written document, could simply be the private notes of a Chinese student
of the fighting arts? After all, it contains information about the use of medicinal
herbs, some history of crane-based quanfa, a description of vital point
striking timed to the hour, healing techniques to counter all of those vital
point strikes and a description of prescribed responses in defence of various attack
scenarios, etc.
Written in older
style Chinese script, it must have been a difficult task to translate without
having access to the original writer or direct lineage-based students to help
decipher code-like phrases. Without accompanying commentary or side notes on
how the Bubishi articles were meant to be used I am left wondering if the document
remained on a shelf it may have never become such a vital key in their research
of the fighting arts.
Making this
information widely available to the general public today has been a very long
and difficult journey. Hokama Tetsuhiro, Tokashiki Iken and Ohtsuka Tadahiko
represent the three principal sources from which various Japanese analyses and
commentaries have been rendered. Tokitsu Kenji and Roland Habersetzer are responsible
for different works in French with the later also publishing his comprehensive
work in German. Of course, thanks to the independent efforts of researchers Ken
Penland and Patrick McCarthy, their separate interpretations of the Bubishi
have been widely distributed throughout the English-speaking world. Mr.
McCarthy’s work has also been translated into several other languages including
Italian, Spanish, Czech and Russian, making the rare document even
more widely known.
Along with these
several translations we get a mixed blessing of sorts as the various works
present the Bubishi material differently. As I compared the different translations
several questions become evident:
- The separate English translations produced by Patrick McCarthy and
Ken Penland seem to be the only ones that present the complete Bubishi
text. The French and Japanese translations appear to focus only on the
fighting sections of the work.
- Comparing the translations it often seems as if they are entirely different works altogether.
a.The text contains
different material and in different order.
b. The 48 two-person drawings are
vastly different from that produced in Mabuni
Kenwa’s 1934
publication, “Seipai no Kenkyu.” The drawings that appear in Ken Penland’s work
are the closest to Mabuni’s version, but are less detailed. The
remaining
drawings are clearly from different Bubishi texts or are different because of the
efforts of the individual preparing them. By different I mean that
the anatomical
structures being attacked are not the same. This causes some confusion with
regards to the original intention of the attack being shown
portrayed.
3. The translations of the
medical-related arts is also very different with the two translations, raising questions about how similar or
different the original texts used for the translation are, or even the
differences between the research methods employed by the authors.
4. Both the McCarthy and Penland translations
contain additional material not in the original Bubishi.
a.
The McCarthy text contains a great amount of historical information as well as additional material on the Chinese meridians and Chi
b. The Penland text contains additional material on the Chinese
meridians and Chi.
c. While the actual Bubishi text discusses
vital point striking, including the times to strike
on a 24-hour cycle, there was no direct material on the meridians in the text.
5. The Habersetzer translation contains an extensive commentary how he interprets
the 48 two-person self-defence techniques. He also presents the Happoren Kata.
6. The Ohtsuka work I observed compares the 48 two-person drawings with
another earlier Chinese work.
For me, differing
translations, the lack of original commentary on its actual role in the
development of the Okinawan arts, and questions about which were the original
drawings, present a conflicting picture. Such mysteries are almost never ending.
Our challenge seems to be as great as those facing the Okinawan instructors who
study this work; do we leave it on the shelf because it’s too difficult to
understand, or do we make an effort to discover its true value.
Tradition tells us
that Chinese documents like the Bubishi were hand-written by brush and
reproduced in two ways. The most common way was through senior students
entrusted to copy the original for themselves. The other way was by engaging a
professional copyist to perform the task. I suppose this is the likely source
from which some of variations previously mentioned come. The translator also
has plays a role in this passage of information; it hardly seems possible to
translate from one
language into another without one’s own experience bearing some influence upon
the final version of any work.
From the various
translations I am familiar with I believe that McCarthy’s work best represents
the entire Bubishi. He also did a wonderful job in presenting the entire
Okinawan context that really helps those of us seeking to better understand the
cultural landscape in which it was produced. But what does this picture give us
except challenges?
As if looking back
through a time portal the Bubishi reveals an earlier fighting art, which placed
as much emphasis upon healing as it did developing defensive and destructive
capabilities. Did it actually convey the secrets of defending against or applying Kyusho-jutsu and which
herbal remedies best cured its damage? In turn
do we interpret this text as a call to study the healing arts as part of
our own karate?
Do we try and find
the self-defence applications within kata and techniques? Do we seek out the
older Chinese methods, as have some of these researchers done?
Ernest Rothrock, a
specialist in Eagle Claw quanfa with more than forty years experience, clearly
demonstrates that Bubishi-like techniques are, in fact, core techniques in many
Chinese Arts. Does this knowledge then enhance our studies, or should we seek
out new information?
In addition to
borrowing liberally from Bubishi-based philosophical and tactical insights for
his early publications, Funakoshi Gichin also reproduced a word-forword account
of no fewer than three articles from this old document; “Eight Important
Phrases,” The Treatise on Ancient Law of Great Strength.” And “Methods
of Escape.” Is this yet another lesson of what we should be doing? The Bubishi material on
tactical doctrine is of considerable value and goes far beyond the 48
two-person prescribed self-defence drawings.
It is very possible
the Bubishi and it’s focus on tactical strategy also influenced Okinawan karate
pioneer, Kyan Chotoku. Published in Miki Nisaburo and Mutsu Mizuho’s 1930 book
entitled, “Kempo Gaisetsu,” Kyan’s advice on the fighting arts rings a
bell of Bubishi familiarity. Even more so, is the collection of sayings used by
Okinawan fighting arts legend, Motobu Choki, which appear with the English presentation
of his book, “My Art of Karate.”
While much of
Okinawa’s karate history remains undocumented, the tactical commentary of these
pioneers reveals important information about basic training in the fighting
arts of that era. Most importantly, the influence of the Bubishi is clearly
obvious through their comments.
Still another example
I identified was through the work of the late Karate expert, Sherman Harrill of
Carson City, Iowa. Harrill studied the Isshin Ryu Karate of Shimabuku Tatsuo
for more than forty years of his life, and spent considerable time focusing on
unraveling the mysteries of kata through using the Bubishi. His effort
resulted in deepening and broadening our understanding of the tactical strategies used in
Isshin Ryu.
I have only briefly
touched on the questions and opportunity the Bubishi presents to us. It’s
easiest to place it on your bookshelf to show others you posses a copy.
It’s much more work,
however, to dig in, find your own values, participate in the larger discussions
and make its existence add texture and depth to your own studies. I hope you
will not simply place it on your shelf?
I specifically want
to thank Mr. McCarthy for his great efforts to make this work available for our
continued studies. The martial arts world has gained considerable resources
from his hard work.
Now a decade later I am still much of the same opinion of
what I wrote back then. So I decided to share it here. Most of the question I
raised I still hold open. I am not in current Bubishi research, just
remembering a time I was.
No comments:
Post a Comment