Having been a sometimes casual, sometimes serious student of daoism these last few years, and also having been advisor to a university fencing club (and about to offer a course in beginning foil) I am now trying to reconcile the practice of the former with that of the latter. Both pursuits speak to me, but for a time I was so caught up in the apparent conflict between them that I gave up fencing for over a year in frustration. How can I reconcile a sport whose goal is the simulated murder of another human with the beauty, compassion and serenity of daoism? Can I instruct my course from the daoist viewpoint without throwing away my sword? Does anyone with experience in both martial arts and daoism (or zen, or classical buddhism for that matter) wish to comment on this?
I do Aikido, which is a spiritual form of martial arts. It's meant to generate KI energy through harmonious body movemets. While the base of Aikido is using an opponenets strength and weight against them (as it is in many other disciplines), Aikido also is very non violent when done without weapons. There are basicaly no punches or kicks, only "blocks" or rather "ducks". When done with the weapons (staffs and wooden katana Swords) it is based arround the same principles. Maybe you could look into this discipline and take some of it's elements and combine them with what you are trying to accheive.
As a begginer in these matters, and someone who hasnt done any aikido for 3 years, i am not very sure what tos ay. But I think every action/ martial art, has its dao, and that is the "perfection" of it, when you move well and properly, all present and absorbed, etc. The point comes then with your attitude. If you are out to kill, that is an unharmonic attitude, but in aikido, you arent out to kill, whereeas in karate you are. I think you can effectively follow the dao when you are doing mock battles like fencing, since what you are thinking about is often simply the task at hand, without any intention of really killing someone. But then havnt there been some pretty kick ass fighting monks around?
Fighting monks Yes, certainly. They had no problem with it, either. It is true that Daoism/Buddhism has a reputation for nonviolence but it is not a dogmatic one. After all, buddhist monks in Sri Lanka recently called for militant resistance to Tamil fighters (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001791865_monk15.html) and the Dalai Lama suggested that short-term violence may be required to deal with certain threats (http://www.iht.com/articles/110400.html). What draws me to fencing is how it strips away the day-to-day facade we all carry around - and allows me to experience my opponent directly. In teaching the class I want to de-emphasize the usual desire for victory over the opponent and turn those energies towards victory over the self. Does this make sense?
Yes it makes sense. I thought that was what all the brilliant fighters were aiming for anyways. Me, I have toruble getting into that zone when fighitng, but keep trying. I am uncertain as to how its related to the concept of flow, which is a state in which you are concentrated on the task at hand, and effectively lose sense of yourself. It is recognised by phsychology now, and promoted in some self help books, since its what top athletes and workers get into when they perform at their absolute best.
Losing sense of self Maybe we can lose a sense of self and pursue daoism by removing the distinction between the self and the opponent. Rather than seeing the opponent as the other, the enemy, the thing to be feared and vanquished, perhaps we should think of the fight more like a dance with a partner. Or see the opponent as a reflection in a mirror. This would have the side effect of totally freaking out the opponent who comes to the fight with a traditional mindset.
The only coment i can make to teh above is yes, thats what all the masters hav been saying for centuries. Teh trouble is in remembering it. And in practising it such that you still dont get freaked out by some lithe killer streaking towards yo like a panther.
You musta taken a different style from mine... they taught me to break people into little pieces. The various martial arts, of which fencing is one, all have the same purpose - defense and the application of force. Whether it's in practice with friends or mortal combat, the purpose remains the same. To mystify this is an injustice. (Aikido, particularly, has been overmystified by a vast array of Western literature...) Te Jen: These days you can find a few translations of Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings". When he says fencing he's talking about using a katana, not a foil, but otherwise it's an interesting read. Musashi is immensely practical and blunt. Also, when you're fencing with a partner in practice, it is a dance. Why would it be otherwise?
Daoism is, IMO, a passage and witness of what will come about anyway. Violence is as a part of life as stillness. Why not integrate violence into your life? it will happen. Why not know about it, so when it does happen, you will be ready for it? Whether you react to violence with more violence is seperate from knowing how to react to violence in such a fasion. Though having the knowledge may even allow you to avoid it. For instance, the better you are at combat, the faster you can disable your opponant without disfiguring him -possibly reducing the overall amount of violence you must create to achieve your goal. Maybe any of this guy's friend will decide not to fight you, because they see how fast you remove guy #1 from the fight? Usually, violence does not solve problems, but sometimes, violence is the only way to stop a current action. It will certainly incur further violence, but that may be better than allowing the first action to take place. Not to mention that learning how to fight also requires that learn about your own body, your own mind-it is a method, just like any other, to know yourself better, and to keep healthy at the same time. You don't see many over-weight Shaolin monks, no do you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ignoring violence will not eliminate it.
I've done two styles of aikido, one a hard break them into pieces kind, the otehr a soft, flowing one. The difference somes down partly to how its taught, and practised, and also merely an awareness in one that if you did it like this, then theyd break their back. But in the other one, you never really considered it, you aimed at maximum flow and suchlike. One built up my ki more, the other got me more practised in using it. So really, perhaps youd better do both. As for overmystifying aikido, I would point out that we have tended to demystify so much these days. Or rather, mystycusm is a degeneration of the spirituality of it. umm, ill say that again later. Musashi is very good, a proper distillation of it all, you can get copies all over teh place.
River-wind: I don't know if you read my response to the thread on Which Martial Art is the Best, but there is a cost to combat training which is represented by damage to your body - the joints, particularly, in the throwing and grappling arts. The reason why you shouldn't jump to incorporate violence into your life without reason is that a fighting skill is a specific tool for a specific purpose which you may never need or use. You can end up paying much more for it than it's worth, when the health benefits are not as good as you'd get just by going to the gym and doing circuit training. Guthrie: I took Aikikai - the "traditional" branch (I bet all styles call themselves the "traditional branch... anyway...) It concentrated most strongly on flow. I once met a guy who'd taken Yoshenkan (I think he called it) which concentrated more on form... the result is largely the same once you reach the higher levels, I'm told. Even in Aikikai, however, the style involved strikes to the face - they were treated as a distraction to tie up the attacker's other hand - but still, the backfist attacks were there. With respect to the mysticism... people have written vast tracts of words about the spiritual warrior; all of them that I read were just talk. I had a Long Long argument with Inta'Twamalayah about this, the depiction of life as war in all of its facets, and I can only come to the conclusion that this line of thought makes you blind for two reasons: 1) It seeks stability above knowledge, since knowledge is finally a tool used to maintain stability 2) It reduces all things in the world to the status of resources, which leads to a severe lack of appreciation These combine, unfortunately, to form a mindset where it's very difficult to admit that you're wrong about anything, because that would be a "defeat"... and this is crippling to true love, which is not something that I want to give away. Te Jen: Fight all you want, but don't hurt yourself. It's not worth it.
Very good points. I failed to be specific in my first post. Nothing should be done, IMO, too much. everything in moderation. I in no way recommend heavy, heavy training, bodybuilders and those who train themselves physically to the point where they begin to damage their bodies more than train their bodies are foolish. My martial arts training, while often times more vigorous than a normal cross-training routine, are very similar to "common" exersize routines. They are specifically designed to not over-work areas of the body, and are specifically aware of stress placed on the joints. Having done 6 years of military-style exersize for crew (long skinny boats with 1-8 individuals rowing in tandum), and 8 years of gymnastics, both of which used more western-style cross training methods for physical exersize, my current regimn of Yoga/American Kenpo/Gung Fu/ninjitsu is a much more effective set of exersizes, with a much lower level of physical damage to the body. I have a bad knee these days, but that is due to first dropping a one-ton landscaping log on it, and then subsequently running full speed into a boulder while at a kid's birthday party (paintball). The Gung-fu exersizes have had a significantly larger positive effect on the recovery of my knee than has the non-surgical method perscribed by my doctor. Anyone reading this should take BigBlueHead's warning very seriously. In my opinion, training in martial arts are worthwhile, even if you never end up using them in a real-life setting. they can teach you about yourself, about hard work, about dealing with other people, about overcoming limitations and improving yourself. However, it is easy to become caught up in those thing to the point where you are abusing them, just as you might any drug. Working out or practicing to the point where you are "the best", and end up not being able to walk by the time you are 35 is stupid, and all too common! Moderation is very important!
I definitely agree about the moderation bit. Theres too many people limping about with bad knees and suchlike since they overtrained to make me want to repeat that mistake. Yes, Yoshinkan is the harder, nastier sort. From what i know they are pretty much the same at the higher level, but then I think there is a definited similarity between all martial arts at the highest level. The ki based kind i did hardly used atemis, or rather, again, they were practised with a definite emphasis on distracting attention, rather than also pulping someones nose. "With respect to the mysticism... people have written vast tracts of words about the spiritual warrior; all of them that I read were just talk. I had a Long Long argument with Inta'Twamalayah about this, the depiction of life as war in all of its facets, and I can only come to the conclusion that this line of thought makes you blind for two reasons: 1) It seeks stability above knowledge, since knowledge is finally a tool used to maintain stability 2) It reduces all things in the world to the status of resources, which leads to a severe lack of appreciation" How odd, I would have thought that a properly spiritual warrior would appreciate all things. But then I'm not one, so what do I know? Also, what is wrong with seekign stability, although teh problem here is that you can likely define stability in two ways, the stability of your eternal centre and all that guff, and the stability of being balanced in movement. besides, what use is knowledge without using it, if you see what i mean?
The stability they generally refer to is a stabilizing of external circumstances - seeking to own everything that you interact with, effectively. This means that it can be difficult to learn things from other people unless you already understand in advance what you want to learn and how. The culture here that I live in teaches people not to learn important things anyway, so this kind of warrior mindset can make it even more difficult. Also, to be fair to Inta'Twamalayah, he was talking about something a bit more complicated (or less complicated, I guess,) and "warrior" was only a label he stuck on it for convenience's sake.
OK, now your confusing me. "seeking to own everything that you interact with, effectively." Please exploon. And which culture are you living in?
If there is no resistance to the unpeaceful, then you will be allowing the unpeaceful to happen. You have to use unpeaceful means, against the unpeaceful to cause peace. This doesn't necessarily mean to use violence.
I saw tears of the sun yesterday, and it ended with a similar quote. Wasn't a great movie, but good in the truth it showed of some international situations. Much of the time, you are exactly right, you don't have to (and oftentimes, you *cannot*) be violent to quench violence, but you may have to be "unpeaceful". I like the distinction you give with that word.
Well, owning everything is the wrong way to put it, accept and truly divine everything might be a better way of putting it. Owning is for stupid westerners. Resistance and unpeaceful are still words of activity and war. What about more feminine words, accept, absorb etc. Ideallly thats more what your aiming for in aikido.
Help me here So... concerning European fencing... would you all agree that it is not possible to bring a zen / daoist outlook to such a barbaric sport?
