Motobu Chōki 本部 朝基 Todejutsu techniques.
Photos
come from two Motobu Chōki
本部 朝基 books.
These books are
"Okinawa Kempo Todejutsu Kumite
Hen Motobu-1926"
& "Watashi no Todejutsu -
1932"
Most of these
techniques draw from the Nahanchi kata
series
and mostly Naihanchi Shodan.
I re-organized the photos (left to right) so as to make it
easier for Western
readers
Fighting Arts. com a martial arts site buile by Christopher
Caille contains great information on many arts. At times I was a contributor.
This is a very interesting article from that site.
A Glimpse
Of Old Karate From Hohan Soken
By Christopher Caile
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 longwinded 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 intersting 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 Japanrsr 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 theatre 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 persoanl variation.. but actually according to Nakazato this
shouldnt 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 dont 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 longwinded, but failed miserably!
love Harry
Davis
Joe-san Swift is
my earliest friend on the internet. Years ago he even visited Derry one day.
I’ve had this article on Koju-Ryu from a Japanese magazine from about 2003. The author
was Mizuguchi Rakuya, editor in chief of the Karate-do Monthly magazine,
and features Hayashi Shingo Sensei, the last known teacher of Kojo-ryu..
While I do not have a translation of the article. The photos clearly show
Joe-san taking the beating. And there is a relationship to Isshinryu useage.
Not that Isshinryu has any kinship to the rare Koju system.
This is shared with Joe Swift’s permission. Joe was originally
an Isshinryu black belt and over years studied Mushikan in Kanazawa ,besides
his profession in Weather Casting he is currently the head instructor of the
Tokyo Mushikan http://tokyo-mushinkan.com/WhoWeAre.html and
has trained with many instructors in Okinawa and Japan. He has made frequent
appearances on Japanese television, and a participant in several Japanese
magazine articles. He has friends around the world frequently sharing articles
and translations, has been a frequent contributor to FightingArts.con and many
other places. He has also translated works for many Japanese and Okinawan
authors.
He is also one
of the nicest guys I have ever had the pleasure to work with.
.jpg)
It
is very likely you will never read this because you will find this too obscure
to make sense. However because of my studies, translations and personal
research I became interested in the use of the term Bunkai made sense in older
Okinawan karate.
Some
of my suppositions are dated as time and other material came to light, but for me this discussions I had long ago with Harry Davis (then going by
Harry Skeeter on the internet) is IMO still relevant.
I
saved this discussion back in 2008 but I am sure this took place a decade
earlier.
So
this allows you to enter my mind a bit showing what interested me.
Harry was English , later moving to Washington state. He pretty
much kept to himself on the nets (often using a pseudonym). The only reference
I could find on the nets follows.
Harry Davis – Joshinmon Shorin-ryu Karate and Okinawan Kobudo.
We have our own dojo facility in Callington, Cornwall, which is
14 miles north of Plymouth, in S.W.England. All karate-ka are welcome.
Contact Sensei "Harry" Davis on 01579 383491 for class times
.jpg)
Hi Victor
I'm not sure how much I can help you with this one, but I'll try. I'm not sure
where we'll end up, but that's fine isn't it? :)
I say this because I think the whole subject -
and the hence the language used in describing it - is somewhat dependent
on the entire teaching philosophy employed by the teacher and, on top of that,
the learning philosophy as far as what is sought by the student, i.e. what he
feels he has the right to know definitively about the forms, and how much he
expects to be shown or told something, as opposed to a greater level of
self-discovery. A lot of this is based on the expectation of the student, as
imparted by the master, and how 'traditional' the master is in allowing the
student to make their own decisions.
What I
mean by this is that I would say the modern use of terms (or even the
meaning sought by students) is based on the assumption that something is
intrinsically 'there' in the kata forms (and is there really anything
intrinsic?) and that this meaning can be conveyed or even should be conveyed
during transmission, master to student. All these things affect what subtle
meanings there are to the words used throughout the process. In a way, all
this and seeking to be 'correct' is in the eye of the beholder.
I suppose an example would be Joen Nakazato's
public criticism of the kanji Nagamine (and, incidentally, McCarthy) commonly
used for kata practice itself. This 'debate' between the two
occurred when terminology of karate was being 'upgraded' and standardized post
war - where there had been no universal terms used previously, no
names for techniques or teaching regimens .. prior, it had just been "do
like this!". That was all there was.
The implications for defining the entire approach to kata practice was
that a subtle change, even a statement of appropriate kanji, can imply
something that would change the emphasis of practice, as a 'false tradition'
was being retro-fitted that maybe didn't quite fit or able to express the
subtleties of prior cultural transmission... and all this being imposed or
projected onto an essentially orally transmitted tradition practiced
in isolation.
I have somewhere a copy of the paper/article
written by Nakazato, which he claimed had been publicly acknowledged by the
karate community as a more subtle understanding of kata and its purpose
than was being forwarded by Nagamine, who Nakazato disliked as someone he saw
as cashing in through social class and connections, while not really having
undergone the intensive day to day master/student contact through which
traditional transmission of values would be made. Nagamine, for his
part was incensed that in doing so Nakazato was an upstart who should have
more respect for his social seniority than to question him. Incidentally Zenpo
Shimabukuro gave his own view that Nagamine was "a snob" :) ..I only
say this to indicate that "karate" and its terminology have
been subject to numerous different "seizures of tradition" by
whatever prevailing school or leadership, but that merely illustrates that
common understanding is subject to change through popularizing what was for
generations something practiced on a very small scale and through intimate
relationships, master/student - hence different undestandings of terminology
and methods of practice have emerged.
To return to this kanji issue, last time on Okinawa I was going between
the dojos of Nakazato in Chinen and Zenpo Shimabukuro in Chatan. They hadn't
spoken in years though they weren't in any kind of dispute - they had
grown apart after the death of Zenryo back in '69 as Zenpo had ploughed his own
furrow. According to Dan, Zenpio hadn't visisted Nakazato in 30 years. Anyway,
when Zenpo asked me what I had been speaking to Nakazato about, this subject
came up of the kanji and debate Nakazato v Nagamine.. He was unaware of
the issue, but when I showed him the article he thought about it and said,
yes, I agree with Nakazato sensei as to the interpretation of the kanji
for "kata". Yes that is interesting! So the subtle differences
between the two characters suggested a subtle difference in understanding
practice.
Hence, to sum up this long pre-amble, I think
the language used - and indeed the meaning sought - are very much subjective.
As to details of this or that for 'bunkai,' you say :
------
>I realize it is a Japanese term, and I personally feel it is incorrect to
simplify Okinawan Karate potential the way most use it. I simply use
application analysis versus application potential and so forth.
-------
I think you'll find in eastern traditions an
extreme caution expressed by (genuine) master-teachers as to how much (and
what) of the results of their own practice. The idea is to transmit the
forms (texts) neutrally, with little meaning super-imposed, and then equip the
students with the tools of analysis to evaluate them according to their own
ability/level of practice. The way Nakazato expressed it was that under
Kyan what the student was shown was a basic "it can be used this way" or showing the
student "like this"... (sorry
I forget the Okinawan term.. for "like this!" perhaps this is the one
Dan alludes to? I know he'll know what you mean if you ask him)...
So it was more physically showing an action and then, as Nakazato
describes, it was the up to the students, working in pairs, to work on what
they themselves could "see" in the kata (his term 'see') I would say
this process of 'visualization' (as a technique) is really what is engaged
in in personal kata analysis by the advanced practitioner. But you see what is 'seen' really is based on
understanding the forms and hence your forms are not some cleaned up slick
kata, but reflect where your body would be to effect some technique or other,
with an emphasis on footwork and weight shifting/ launching/ falling.
Having said this, ones 'personal kata' would not be the one transmitted; what
is transmitted is a neutral kata blueprint for personal study.
So I think the term used for bunkai/oyo/whatever as extremely dependent on
so many different understandings and lineage (or lack of!) that I think we
should say that more than one might be valid to that particular groups practice
methodology, and the sense of purpose imparted by a particular master to a
particular student, and how the student interprets it.
..but, long and the short of it is, given Nakazatos understanding, I don't have
one simple word I could say one way or the other which of the crop of possible
candidates would fit best! Personally I think its more about 'reading
and knowing' than 'showing'
Hope I understood your letter enough to have helped any through my
response :)
thanks
Love harry
One of my
sentences I noticed was incomplete during re-reading:
when I said
>"I think you'll find in eastern traditions an extreme caution
expressed by (genuine) master-teachers as to how much (and what) of the
results of their own practice.."
should have continued:
"..they convey to their students"
------------
By this I mean a teacher, having taught the 'text'
(kata) would tend to re-clarify the tools of analysis rather than solving the
problem for them by showing them.
I guess
an example of this in karate would be where kata segments (or kata broken
down into small pieces) may have ambiguity of use, and that ambiguity might
be that a different application is revealed by analysis of a
technique used at different range or relative position to an opponent
t.
Does the same term 'application'
apply to this form of analysis of a kata broken down into small pieces ? :)
I think we can use all these terms help to understand the process - i.e. what
is going on during a path a study.
..And this is all before we even start looking at the greater picture: the
transformational result of what daily practice itself might bring to an
individual's life! :)
So, beyond the discovery of what a kata means to an individual, I think
there is the bigger picture of what practice means to our lives, and that
brings up how it is
applied. I think we can employ all the above terms to that level too, and that
maybe no one term is adequate to cover the experience.
love harry
Date: Thu, 27
Mar 2014 19:08:36 +0000
From: isshim2@comcast.net
To: harryskelter@msn.com
Subject: Bunkai-itis
the use of the word
Harry,
I hope you are
doing well.
I realize it is
a Japanese term, and I personally feel it is incorrect to simplify Okinawan
Karate potential the way most use it. I simply use application analysis versus
application potential and so forth.
My personal
analysis of bunkai’s rise.
The
Earliest use of the term ‘Bunkai’.
For one thing bunkai wasn’t an Okinawan term. I can make the case it was used
to try and explain kata to the Japanese audience.
Long ago Joe
Swift challenged me to translate several of Mabuni’s books from 1933 that were
translated into French. In 1934’s ‘Karate Kempo – study of Seipai Kata’ the
French edition has the chapter labeled “Applications (Bunkai) Du Kata Sepai”
and when I translated it I chose not to include the term Bunkai. Much later
when I saw Mario McKenna’s translation of “Seipai no Kenkyu” (note the title
from the original Japanese was greatly modified for the French translation –
appropriate for a translator to make everything fit into the new language
scheme) called the Chapter “Analysis & Explanation of Seipai”. Eventually I
got around to comparing it to my French original and noticed he also hadn’t
included the term ‘bunkai’, and being a friend I specifically asked him about
what was in the original Japanese version.
Mario McKenna has explained to me in ‘Seipai no Kenkyu” published in 1934
Mabuni Kenwa originally uses the term "bunkai setsumei" or "breakdown/apart and explanation".
When Tokitsu Kengi translated that into French for his 1989 translation he
chose to just use bunkai.
I don’t read or
translate Japanese, but an independent discussion with a Japanese English
instructor, Takedi Haji, visiting my town and staying in my house years ago
found his explanation of bunkai the same. He explained in normal Japanese usage
the term bunkai might be used to explain what an automobile mechanic did to fix the care, bunkai or take it apart.
Mario then shows
Mabuni used ‘bunkai’ just to
take apart a section of the kata and then provides an explanation ‘setsumei’ or application.
Not a big deal,
but important to understand how the specialized use of a term morphs into other
usage as time passes. I might interpret this as taking apart the kata wasn’t
the important part, but the application of the section was the goal.
After some
recent discussions Dan Smith has reminded me that long ago he shared with me.
I wanted to share information concerning your question
concerning the Okinawan language for kata application. The Uchinan gushi would
have been "Ti Chi Ki", which means showing what the hand is doing.
Best Regards, Dan
My question is
Dan correct? For many reasons I am unsure of his answers.
Another
acquaintance has privately told me in his Goju tradition:
In my last email I wrote that I
chose to not publicly state that there was an Okinawan word that is an equivalent
to bunkai and that word is "wakkwiti".
This word is the gerund form of the word wakkwiyun which means "To do Bunkai". This word does mean to
unravel or broken into small pieces.
I do wish this
kept private but this is my condrum. Not speaking Japanese of Okinawan I can’t
resolve this. Might you have a suggestion?
Feebly in your
debt again.
.jpg)
Victor
Bunkai (分解?), literally meaning
"analysis"[1]
or "disassembly",[2] is a term used in Japanese martial
arts referring to
the application of fighting techniques extracted from the moves of a
"form" (kata).
Bunkai is
usually performed with a partner or a group of partners which execute
predefined attacks, and the student performing the kata responds with
defenses, counterattacks, or other actions, based on a part of the kata.
This allows the student in the middle to understand what the movements in kata
are meant to accomplish. It may also illustrate how to improve technique by
adjusting distances, time moves properly, and adapt a technique depending on
the size of an opponent.
Some kata
have another layer of application that is taught using an Oyo Bunkai, an
"application of the kata in ways other than the standard bunkai."[3] Different practitioners will learn or discover
alternative applications, but the bunkai, like the kata, varies based on
the style and the teacher.
A single kata
posture or movement may be broken into anywhere from a few to a few dozen
applications, and the same sequence of kata moves may sometimes be
interpreted in different ways resulting in several bunkai. Students are
encouraged to consider each movement and technique in a kata in response to
multiple possible attacks, for example: use of a particular movement against a
kick, against a punch, against various forms of grappling. Through analysis of
the move and practice in variant scenarios, the student will unlock new
techniques and expand their understanding of known ones. Some martial arts
require students to perform bunkai for promotion.
Bunkai can be
obvious or elusive depending on the technique in question, the moves preceding
and following it, and the individual practitioner. There are usually many
stages of depth of comprehension of bunkai only reached through the passage of
time. The terms toridai and himitsu are used to refer to
techniques not readily seen to the casual observer and hidden techniques within
kata.[citation needed]
For example, in Gōjū-ryū
karate, two-man kata training is used to reinforce bunkai and correct
technique.[4] If techniques in the kata are not performed
correctly they will not be effective in two man training.
Kumite (Sparring
Matches) Kata Bunkai (Realistic training)
1.
Mutual arranged combat 1.
Unexpected attacks
2.
Must face your opponent straight
on 2.
Attacks may come from any
angle
3.
Referee to control the match, beginning to
end 3. Self-control
on applications to
avoid
injury or death
4.
A strict limitation on techniques
allowed
4. Anything goes, absolutely no
limitations.
5.
Only impacting techniques
allowed 5.
Both Impacting and Seizing
techniques
are encouraged
6.
Conducted with both opponents facing &
ready 6. Attacks will come from the
front,
back
or side.
7.
Particular target areas strictly enforced 7.
All target areas allowed and
dangerous
techniques encouraged
8.
Dangerous attacks (techniques)
forbidden 8.
Specifically, encourages
9.
At least some protective gear
worn
9. No protective gear is worn
10. Joint
strikes & kicks are strictly
forbidden 10.
Joint attacks are highly
encouraged
11. Weight
& age classes strictly
enforced 11.
Weight and age will seldom be
in
your favor
12.
May strike only once when grabbing an opponent 12. Multiple
strikes encouraged
after
grabbing.
13.
Dangerous Pressure point attacks
forbidden 13.
Dangerous Pressure point attacks
highly encouraged
14.
Throws are
forbidden 14. Throws are used and highly ``````` encouraged
15.
Ground techniques seldom taught & are forbidden 15.
Ground techniques are
taught
and applied
16.
No biting, spitting, pinching, poking, etc,
allowed 16. Simulation of
biting, spitting, pinching,
poking, encouraged.
17.
Mind-set limited to only one
opponent
17. Must maintain mind-set
for
multiple
opponent attacks.
18.
No need to learn break-falling
techniques
18. Learning break-falling
techniques
extremely important.
19.
Kicking below waist generally
forbidden.
19. Seldom if ever kicking above
the
waist.
20.
Multiple techniques limited by
referee 20.
Multiple techniques allowed &
encouraged.
21.
Great limitations on techniques
allowed. 21.
Virtually all techniques in a
martial
syllabus allowed.
.jpg)