ある人にとっては，ある師の技術や考えが正しく，別の人にとっては別の師のそれが正しい。その意味で世の中には「本物」と評される武道家が星の数ほどいる。ただ，客観的な基準として有名かどうかは，「本物」かどうかの判断材料には一切ならない。重要なのは，この人は「本物」だと，自分自身が心底から思える武道家に巡り会うことである。もちろんその判断は自身の修行の程度に依存するるものの，「本物」かどうかの究極的な基準はおそらく，主観的な体感だろう。武道は身体技芸であるからこそ，「本物」かどうかの理解は，理屈ではなく身体感覚に基づいていると考えられる。ただし，その体感の理解は，主観的な枠組みや基準に依存している。修行段階によって，得られる体感は異なる。結局のところ，ある武道家を本物と判断するかどうかは，徹底的に修行者個人の主観であるといえる。
A master's techniques and thoughts are right for some people, while another master's ones for other people. In that sense, there are thousands of martial artists described as "genuine" in the world. But, whether a master is famous or not is never information as a subjective criterion to decide whether he/she is "genuine" or not. The important thing is that people meet a martial artist who they themselves can regard as "genuine" from the bottom of their heart. Though the decision naturally depends on the level of their own mastering, the ultimate scale to decide whether a master is "genuine" or not may probably be a subjective sense of body. Comprehension of the genuineness is considered to be based on not a logical theory but a sense of body, just because marital arts are body crafts. However, understanding that sense of body depends on a subjective framework or standard. Felt sense of body varies according to the stage of mastering. As it turned out, it is said that deciding whether a martial artist is genuine or not is thoroughly the person's own subjective judgement.
August 21, 2012
Genuine Master for Experts
いちじるしく誤った師の元でない限り，ある程度そこで修練を積めば，多様な経験や知識が徐々に蓄積されるために，その人にとっての「本物」の枠組みや基準が少しずつ醸成されるはずである。もし仮にこの段階で，我が師は本物でないという判断に至れば，本物を他に求めることになる。あるいは，師を求めることなく自分一人で修行する，さらには自流を立てることになるかもしれない。この際，「本物」の枠組みや基準は，極めて主観的なものであるといえる。自分個人にとって，すなわち，あくまで個人的主観的な枠組みと基準において理想とされる技術や考えを持つ武道家かどうかによって，「本物」かどうかが決まる。したがって，「本物」とは，百人百様である。自分の目から見て，この人は偽物だ，この人は本物だと判断するのだから，本質的に，他者の評価や意見は関係ない。
Unless the master is extremely wrong, if we learn martial arts under him/her to some extent, we must bring about the framework and standard to estimate "genuineness" for ourselves little by little, because we gradually accumulate various kinds of experience and knowledge about the art. At this stage, if we reached to a decision that our master was not a genuine martial artist, we would seek for another master who is genuine. Or, while some would practice by themselves without seeking for a new master, others might establish his own school. On this occasion, the framework or standard of "genuineness" can be said to be extremely subjective. Depending on us individually, that is, whether the master is a person who have techniques and thoughts we idealize on our subjective framework and standard to the utmost, is a point to decide whether the master should be "genuine" or not. Therefore, concerning the "genuineness," so many men, so many minds. Essentially, other people's evaluation and opinions are not relevant to the decision whether a person regard his/her master as a genuine martial artist or a fake one from his/her own subjective viewpoint.
Unless the master is extremely wrong, if we learn martial arts under him/her to some extent, we must bring about the framework and standard to estimate "genuineness" for ourselves little by little, because we gradually accumulate various kinds of experience and knowledge about the art. At this stage, if we reached to a decision that our master was not a genuine martial artist, we would seek for another master who is genuine. Or, while some would practice by themselves without seeking for a new master, others might establish his own school. On this occasion, the framework or standard of "genuineness" can be said to be extremely subjective. Depending on us individually, that is, whether the master is a person who have techniques and thoughts we idealize on our subjective framework and standard to the utmost, is a point to decide whether the master should be "genuine" or not. Therefore, concerning the "genuineness," so many men, so many minds. Essentially, other people's evaluation and opinions are not relevant to the decision whether a person regard his/her master as a genuine martial artist or a fake one from his/her own subjective viewpoint.
Genuine Master for Beginners
初学者の場合は，経験や知識といった材料が少ないために，目の前の武道家が本物かどうかを判断する枠組みや基準がない。そのため，たまたまついた師匠を「本物」と信じるしかないだろう。修行の過程でその信念が変わらない限り，その人にとってその師匠は永遠に「本物」である。たとえ他者の目から見れば（客観的には）いかがわしくても，本人にとっては（主観的には）本物であり続ける。
In the case of beginners, they have no framework or standard to judge whether a martial artist in front of them is genuine or not, because of few matters such as experience or knowledge. Then, they would have no other way than to believe their master, whom they follow by chance, genuine. Unless their belief changes in the process of practicing, the master is "genuine" for them forever. Even if the master was doubtful in the eyes of others outside (objectively), he would continue to be genuine for themselves (subjectively).
In the case of beginners, they have no framework or standard to judge whether a martial artist in front of them is genuine or not, because of few matters such as experience or knowledge. Then, they would have no other way than to believe their master, whom they follow by chance, genuine. Unless their belief changes in the process of practicing, the master is "genuine" for them forever. Even if the master was doubtful in the eyes of others outside (objectively), he would continue to be genuine for themselves (subjectively).
Who is a genuine master?
ある武道家を「本物」だと思うかどうかは，主観的な判断にゆだねられる。修行者は，通常，この人は本物（の武道家）だと思う人の元について稽古を重ねる。したがって，人それぞれ，自分の師匠を本物だと信じて，その人についていっているはずである。貴重な時間と金を費やしてわざわざ「偽者」についていく奇特な人間などいないことを考えれば，論理的帰結として，あらゆる修行者はすべて，「本物」の武道家の元で修行していることになる。
Whether we think of a martial artist as "genuine" depends on our subjective judgment. Practitioners of martial arts, in general, continue to learn it under the person who they think is a genuine martial artist. Therefore, every person ought to follow his/her own master, who they believe is genuine. Given that there is not such a praiseworthy person who want to spend his/her precious time and money following a "fake" master, as a logical result, all practitioners actually would learn the art under a "genuine" master.
Whether we think of a martial artist as "genuine" depends on our subjective judgment. Practitioners of martial arts, in general, continue to learn it under the person who they think is a genuine martial artist. Therefore, every person ought to follow his/her own master, who they believe is genuine. Given that there is not such a praiseworthy person who want to spend his/her precious time and money following a "fake" master, as a logical result, all practitioners actually would learn the art under a "genuine" master.
August 12, 2012
Essential Commonality
武芸における技術の伝承では，身体を媒介としているために，ある程度の変容は免れない。特に空手は変容に対する許容性が高い。したがって，一見異なって見える空手の流派間の技術的差異は，流祖の身体（身体感覚）的差異に基づく理解の差異に起因している可能性が高い。その見かけの違いを捨象し，通底する本質を見極めるべきである。流派は異なれど，空手として通底する本質が存在するはずであり，その本質を探求することが空手修行である。つまり，空手的身体の神髄を追い求めることである。それは，いたってシンプルな諸原理，諸原則と考えられる。空手に流派無し，とした先人の思いがここにあるのではないだろうか。
In the transmission of techniques of martial arts, technical changes to some extent is inevitable because the transmission is done through bodies. Especially karate has a high acceptability to the changes. Therefore, the seeming differences in techniques between schools of karate is possible to be attributed to the differences in understanding of karate based on the founders' physical (body sensational) differences. What we have to do is to find out the underlying truth without the seeming differences. In spite of schools' differences, there ought to be the essence underlying karate, and it is a practice of karate that is to pursue the essence. In other words, it is to pursue the quintessence of "karate-body" (bodily existential style developed by karate). It is thought of as very simple several principles. Is here a desire that forerunners of karate insisted that karate has no school?
In the transmission of techniques of martial arts, technical changes to some extent is inevitable because the transmission is done through bodies. Especially karate has a high acceptability to the changes. Therefore, the seeming differences in techniques between schools of karate is possible to be attributed to the differences in understanding of karate based on the founders' physical (body sensational) differences. What we have to do is to find out the underlying truth without the seeming differences. In spite of schools' differences, there ought to be the essence underlying karate, and it is a practice of karate that is to pursue the essence. In other words, it is to pursue the quintessence of "karate-body" (bodily existential style developed by karate). It is thought of as very simple several principles. Is here a desire that forerunners of karate insisted that karate has no school?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)