Hey
Victor,
nice conceptual summary. We've knocked
this around a couple of times,
(mostly dealing with Matayoshi's seeming
inability to do his crane forms
the same way twice) but this is a better
synthesis of the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encHYcCQgxc&t=17s
I think you are pointing at two things:
1) we simply don't
have the documentation to know what really happened. I
think you are right. I think that with
an emphasis on real historical
methodology and a broader look at
possible sources there is more
information available than we do know,
mostly because much of it is not
held by martial artists. But in the long
run, we may get closer to the
truth, but will never really KNOW.
That does
not mean to me that we should not look. Some of the research
done has, to my mind, opened up ideas
and brought to light information that
is very valuable. It does mean we should
not assume we have found any real
truths, as it were.
2) kata may not
have been a particularly set tool. I think you are right,
and I would posit a couple of different
possible reasons. The true need for
deliniation came, I believe, from the
Japanese influence on training- the
answering of the simple question
"what does this art contain?" by the
Okinawans gives the replying structure:
"it contains xxx". Suddenly, you
need to decide what xxx actually is.
At the
same time, karate was influenced by foreign physical education
models, and insertion into a very
strictly controlled school environment in
which it was necessary to keep large
groups doing the exact same things.
All together, you get a concept of kata
that is unchanging.
Personally, I would postulate that changes in kata are not part of working
with a teacher as much as part of
leaving one and working on one's own. One
thing that is different about the past
in Okinawan martial arts, and is
still true of many non-Japanese,
non-sport oriented arts, is that any given
art is that of one person. Style names
are usually prefaced or suffixed by
personal names. There is an assumption
that each person will make the art
his or her own. In Okinawa, when you
look back a bit, you stop looking at
Goju ryu, for example, pretty quickly,
and look at Miyagi's art,
Higashionna's art, and so on. Same in
the other lineages- one or two
generations ago there were just these
guys teaching martial arts, with no
set sense of what should be passed down
as xxx ryu. Not only did the ryu
not exist, the idea of them did not.
There was no sense of style other than
whatever a single individual put
together out of what he learned.
This means, to me, that while a teacher might pass on a kata to another in
a certain way, that person could do with
it as he would, not only without
anyone saying he should not once he left
his teacher, but without the idea
that there was a reason to keep the kata
"pure" in the first place.
Everyone changes stuff. While we like to
think differently, this art is in
one way about ego, of the "I can
kick your ass" variety. People that are
deeply involved in that are not likely
to say "I am not competent to make
changes in things as I see fit".
Why should they? They can kick your ass
for you if you disagree with them.
That's a bit flippant, but it conforms to the idea of kata as a tool. If
the teacher thinks the form can help one
to reach the goal invisioned
better, what reason is there to keep it
unchanged, except preserving a
relic. It would be like saying we should
drive a model T ford because that
is what a car should be, like it was in
the old days.
Now of course, if the form is teaching certain body knowledge and changes
ruin that knowledge than the teacher has
failed. But if it is, than changes
have, perhaps improved on it. If
modifications while teaching either
conform to evolving understanding in the
teacher (hence students getting
different versions as the teacher
changes his ideas) or assist an
individual's development, then they are
successful. If they inhibit
development, they are failures. That
seems like the best measure to me.
cheers,
Fred
No comments:
Post a Comment