Talk:Japanese martial arts

Small reorganization

An attempt was made to insert Shinkendo as its own section which I basically disagree with since I don't think it really is its own class of Gendai martial art. However it does raise the issue should there be a further section such as the Koryu section (Other koryū martial arts) or perhaps Iaido should be moved down so that modern sword practices could find a place. I hesitate to make the change without opinion since I think the article is reasonably balanced now with respect to weights given to main martial arts.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved the Iaido section down to Gendai from the Koryu. I understand why they were together originally but this way we have all the Jutsu in Koryu and the Do in Gendai. I little simplistic I know but it helps with the flow and both had different main articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---There are enough "over-simplifications" in trying to explain Japanese martial arts without adding further to confusion- The confusion is arising from using Koryu and Gendai as "columns", compounded by including Swordsmanship and Jujutsu in the Koryu "column". It is this "columnization" that is the problem. Not all jujutsu or sword styles are Koryu. Some are, some aren't. I'd suggest leaving the explanations of Koryu and Gendai, but breaking the "styles" out from under them. Also, I'd suggest placing the link to the "lists" closer to the top of the main article, (and possibly eliminating the "class" entries entirely, since I'd assume the link articles are comprehensive). heck, do a "major" styles list in miniature and then the full list link below. It's taken years to undo the whole "jutsu v. do" mess that Mr. Draeger made, let's not add to confusion. --M3michaelmason (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Narrow view of karate

This statement bothers me.

"Karate practice is primarily characterized by linear punching and kicking techniques executed from a stable, fixed stance."

I offer that this could be the view (from the outside looking in) of a person whose art may not be karate do, has not practiced for very long, or who has received limited instruction.

First... Movement is where karate's real potential is unleashed. In every endeavor, you crawl before you walk before you run. But even here, some of the most basic classic forms of martial arts employ simple movement *with* the attacks. The very first forms of Shotokan, Shorin Ryu, and Taequondo all do this. Separating step and attack is something done only in the junior junior white belt classes. It's equivalent to teaching a boxer how to throw punches while standing still. That's just a step on the path - no pun intended.

Second... my own style of Uechi Ryu Karate Do has no (zero) seiken fist in any of the three original forms of Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu. Only the bridge forms brought in the seiken fist.

Third... my own style of Uechi Ryu Karate Do is not primarily linear. Rather it's about half linear and half circular. Have you ever seen the movie Karate Kid? Remember wax on, wax off?? The wauke translates roughly as circle (wa) receive (uke). Circular movement starts with Sanchin, and continues on through the more advanced kata. These same circular moves can also be found in both Japanese and Okinawan variations of Goju Ryu. All these are Naha-area styles.

And finally... Okinawan tegumi or wrestling pre-dates that which came of the mixing of China hand and Okinawan native fighting. The net is not a striking style, but rather a mix of the two. Way before MMA was cool, my teacher of Goju Ryu (also from special forces) was teaching me the judo and aikido principles within traditional Naha te styles. I would offer that sport karate and the narrow view of Funakoshi grammar school exercise temporarily ignored the grappling half of Okinawa te. Now that the sport ring is embracing both striking and grappling, the rest of the Western world is discovering that which was there all along.

If you need verification of any of this, I suggest you look at Kanei Uechi's Kyohon - a book about the size of Webster's unabridged dictionary. (Unfortunately all in Japanese) You can also find this in George Mattson's Uechiryu Karatedo, or Seikichi Toguchi's book on Okinawan Goju Ryu. Finally... any version of the Bubishi (e.g. Patrick McCarthy) will address that, and introduce the concept of the 36 Habitual Acts of Physical Violence. That's pretty much the basis of all these arts. Sport, gym class, and "dojo daycare" are all modern spin-offs.

96.238.182.26 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Bill Glasheen, PhD, Hanshi Hachidan

Budo

In the article I can read that "budō" (武道?) is the same as 'Japanese martial art'. This is not true - I do not known the kanji for 'Japanese martial art' but the kanji is not 武道 (budō) that for sure. - Kontoreg (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check any decent Japanese-English dictionary for English translation of the term "budo".

For example:

ぶどう【武道】the martial arts; military science; 〔武士道〕the precepts of the samurai; chivalry.

from:

Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary （研究社　新和英大辞典　第五版）, Kenkyusha Limited, Tokyo 2003, ISBN 978-4767420264

Since Kenkyusha is the most authoritative Japanese-English dictionary out there (and if you think that another dictionary is more authoritative, please share how a different dictionary translates "budo").

Just checked "Shogakukan Progressive Japanese-English dictionary" (プログレッシブ和英中辞典）, 3rd edition, 2002. Translation is identical, except word 'chivalry' is omitted.

Similarly, in common English use term "budo" means "Japanese martial art", I am unclear what seems to be your point of contention.

I am going to put 'budo' back in.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Diane Morgan has not written anything about martial art or ways. - Kontoreg (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Martial ways is also budo - Diane Morgan has not written anything about budo and has either used the term 'budo' in her book. - Kontoreg (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I provided the reference to a credible source (two of them) that translate "budo" as "martial arts" higher up on this page, and since your arguments seems to be that it Diane Morgan is not a credible source for translating "budo" as "martial arts", I've took the liberty of reverting your change, and simply adding Kenkyusha as yet another reference for "budo" == "martial arts".

Not having read a book by Diane Morgan, I'll reserve a judgement on her being a credible source, however at this point I don't see any reason any further argument about definition of "budo" as "martial arts" needs to be made.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You can not ignore my references concerning the translation of budo (martial way). I had to repeat myself Diane Morgan has not written anything about budo therefore this reference is invalid. - Kontoreg (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then remove the Diane reference - so easy. The changes you made seem more to emphasize your definition of Budo rather than the more broader definition. I generally agree with you that there is not a direct translation between Japanese martial art and budo - you need to include bugei and bujutsu to at least give the understanding of that point. It is also important to consider how English reads and undue weight.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Kontoreg, why do you keep on putting citation needed on the term budo? References Hunter, Draeger, etc, all give translation of it as "martial way" (contrasting it with "bujitsu"), which is given as one of the references, and any Japanese dictionary will translate "budo" as "martial arts". So what citation are you looking for?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "budō" is a modern one, and indicates the practice of martial arts as a way of life

I welcome a reference to the sentence above - if not I will deleted this POV. - Kontoreg (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, with what specifically do you disagree? Do you feel that term "budo" is not modern, or do you feel that it doesn't mean practicing martial arts as a way of life?

Amongst your best reference for Japanese word usage will, probably, be ブリタニカ国際大百科事典. Failing that, you can take a look at how Kotobank defines "budo". Specifically, I will call your attention to the sentence that reads:

しかし〈武道〉には，歴史的に〈武士道〉という倫理思想的な意味もあり，その意味では，茶道，華道，書道などと同様，日本の伝統的な文化として概念づけることができる。

Which specifically tells that, what historically was called "bushido" is now commonly called "budo", and in that usage Japanese calligraphy, flower arrangement, tea ceremony, etc would all be considered "budo". However, I would call your attention to the dictionary equating the meaning of "bushido" with the meaning of "budo". What does "bushido" mean?

Coincidentally, if you look at the definition of "budo" from Kenkyusha, that I copied for you earlier, you will see that Kenkyusha as well equates at least one meaning of "budo" with 「武士道」"bushido".

As for the age of term "budo", on Joukyou 4th (that's 1687) there was published an 8 volume book of martial art stories called (wait for it) 「武道伝来記」("Budo Denraiki"), and you can read all about it here.

Looks like word "budo" was in use for at least 300 years, however it seems, that it got equated with "bushido" relatively recently.

Kontoreg, in the future, prior to challenging meaning or usage of Japanese words, please do at least some basic research of standard references, such as Japanese wikipedia and Kotobank.

Actually, if you really want to be nitpicking, historically, majority of people who are not professional martial arts instructors, yet practice martial arts as a hobby, should really be called "bugeisha", not "budoka", and only professionals doing it as way of life should be called "budoka" . However "budo" and "budoka" became more prevalent in modern English, and meaning of "budo" got ambiguous in Japanese as well, with "bugei" falling out of common usage.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For your information, kobudo exists prior to the Meiji Restoration (1868) and shinbudo exists after the Meiji Restoration. According to: The term "budō" is a modern one, and indicates the practice of martial arts as a way of life. Which budo form are you talking about? It is a generalization to assert that The term "budō" is a modern one... Besides I am still waiting for a reference that can document : The term "budō" is a modern one, and indicates the practice of martial arts as a way of life. Note: "Budo" is NOT synonym with the term "bushido" you are mixing all the terms like the term "martial arts". - Kontoreg (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, kobudo means that the art originated prior to Meiji Restoration. Gendai budo means that the art originated after Meiji Restoration. It's not like a revolution happened, and everything over night became gendai budo. Thus, there are people today, right now, that are practicing legitimate koryu. (BTW, "shinbudo" exists in Draeger's books, but is not in common usage, at least because the word "shin" has multiple meanings leading to confusion.　心武道？　身武道？ 神武道？ all are "shinbudo", while "gendai budo" is not ambiguous).

Now that we got that out of the question....

The usage of the word "budo" to indicate "practice of martial arts as a way of life" is modern. I'll quote you Aizawa Seishisai (1781 – 1863), a 19th century Japanese philosopher, whose writings were influential in causing Meiji restoration, who clearly distinguishes between budo and bugei:

"The arts of the sword, spear, bow and saddle are the bugei; to know etiquette and honor, to preserve the way of the gentleman, to strive for frugality, and thus become a bulwark of the state, is budô.”

"Martial Arts of the World: En Encyclopedia", edited by Thomas A. Green, page 58, article by Karl Friday. ISBN 978-1576071502

See the difference? Where are the martial arts in budo? So just based on this, it should be clear that idea of "budo" as martial arts is relatively new.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace the current phrase, that reads "The term "budō" is a modern one " with a phrase, that reads "Such usage of term "budo" is a modern one", that will clearly indicate that the word is not new, but the way it is used is relatively modern. Opinions?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kontoreg, you have not established consensus on this. Please stop edit WP:EDITWARRING. jmcw (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I can read in the article: "The usage of term "budō" to mean martial arts is a modern one". I will like to see the reference to this statement. When I am talking about reference I mean literature - not websites. - Kontoreg (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop inventing meanings for words that come from language you have no ability to read or write. It just wastes time for other people to respond to your spurious "citation needed" complaints for what is essentially dictionary definitions. It is interesting that Karl Friday's Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan does not mention budo, bugei or bujutsu in index, but equates bushido with martial arts in at least one passage. Legacies of the Sword by same author has over a page length explanation about those three words - I'm not quoting it full - including: (p. 7) "Pre-Meiji sources use "bugei" and "bujutsu" interchangeably, but budo sometime carried special connotation" [equating it to modern usage of word bushido] and then prof. Friday mentions Aizawa Yasushi's definition that Urokogaeshi quoted above, and "Among modern authorities in Japan the terms "bugei", "budo" and "bujutsu" have acquired a more or less conventional usage that, for convenience, I have adopted for the present study. "Bujutsu" describes the various Japanese martial disciplines in their original function as arts of war; "budo" denotes the process by which the study of bujutsu becomes a means of self-development and self-realization; and "bugei" is a general term for the traditional Japanese military arts, embracing both bujutsu and budo. It should be stressed, however, that this usage is modern, not traditional; projecting it backwards into Tokugawa times, as Western literature on Japanese martial arts often does, is anachronous." Also, your preference for literature instead of web reference is not supported by Wikipedia policies. jni (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Part of the problem (that Kontoreg seems to not understand), is that language changes with time, meanings of words change over time, and when talking about a meaning of a particular word, we have to be very careful to define the time, when that word is used.

For example, I was told personally by Mary Heiny (a prominent Aikidoist, who practiced in Tokyo in 1965ish time), that in Aikido the meaning attached to the terms budo and 勝つ (katsu, victory), is very different from mainstream definition (and phrases like 正勝吾勝勝速日武産合気道、"masakatsu agatsu katsuhaya hi takemusu aikido" have layers and layers of meaning, shrouded in Shinto mysticism and Kojiki references (Kontoreg should have been pushing for explanation of religion in Aikido, not in Iaido)).

Another example of language changing, is 兵法 heiho or hyouho, military strategems or art of war, a phrase, that mostly got out of everyday usage. While it's pretty much not used anywhere, but in the names of some schools (Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu comes to mind), seems like it was in general use about 300 - 400 years ago.

Any way, how can we return this article back to semi-resemblance of order, balance and NPV?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we just revert to my edit on November 6th and go from there. Alternatively, since the present version is not so grotesque (as for example Iaido) we could just modify as required.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729051354/http://www.shorinjikempo.or.jp/wsko/wh-shorinji/index.html to http://www.shorinjikempo.or.jp/wsko/wh-shorinji/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011105113/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=600 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122121238/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=634 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)