|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 14, 2017 17:44:10 GMT
Yeah I'd like to see some primary source proof on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 14, 2017 18:02:36 GMT
This is the question japanese answered : you don't attack first. Which is why every JSA fight is two dudes standing around until someone get bored and leaves. ::) Especially when they fight to kill each other.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Apr 14, 2017 18:12:14 GMT
Yeah I'd like to see some primary source proof on that one. Seconded
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 14, 2017 18:24:54 GMT
Yeah I'd like to see some primary source proof on that one. With who are you talking? It's enough to go and search the concept of Uke and once you understand what was the thought behind it you will understand the rest of them : go no sen, sen no sen, sen sen no sen, deai etc.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 14, 2017 19:22:48 GMT
Yeah I'd like to see some primary source proof on that one. With who are you talking? It's enough to go and search the concept of Uke and once you understand what was the thought behind it you will understand the rest of them : go no sen, sen no sen, sen sen no sen, deai etc. I'm wondering where it says wait for the opponent to attack you. Because that seems to be at odds with the concept of a sword fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 20:34:51 GMT
I have been told point blank that a fight between two people actually doing what they are supposed to do according to our ideals and philosophy would be the most godawful boring thing in the world to watch because neither wants to feed the other guy anything he could use against them, totally fine by me. A "sword fight" where everybody gets bored, walks away, and gets to keep living is a victory all around.
If there is no force to counter, there wouldn't be a reason do anything.
That said, you aren't stuck waiting for the literal delivery, once you know the other guy is planning on shooting you you don't have to wait for him to draw, load, aim, and pull the trigger before returning fire, you stomp the intention. Likewise, I don't necessarily have to wait until the sword starts coming down. I know so much of this sounds like double-speak and maybe it is, but there's a manner of preemptively countering - it's responsive, but it isn't responding to an obvious manifested layer.
There's a lot that happens when someone makes the decision to attack before the knuckles meet the teeth.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 14, 2017 20:42:06 GMT
Sure there is--to kill him and then kill him extra dead. I'm pretty skeptical about this idea that you just never make the first strike in a sword fight. But I keep an open mind. So that's why I'm asking for a primary source on it. Something in writing from the period in question saying "the master never moves first" or somesuch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 21:48:57 GMT
Sure there is--to kill him and then kill him extra dead. I'm pretty skeptical about this idea that you just never make the first strike in a sword fight. But I keep an open mind. So that's why I'm asking for a primary source on it. Something in writing from the period in question saying "the master never moves first" or somesuch. Yeah but if he's not actively trying to kill me, then I have no real reason to kill him even a little bit dead. He can stand there and point his sword all day long, what's he going to do, throw his pommel at me? Is Musashi primary enough? "The Second - Tai No Sen When the enemy attacks, remain undisturbed but feign weakness. As the enemy reaches you, suddenly move away indicating that you intend to jump aside, then dash in attacking strongly as soon as you see the enemy relax. This is one way. Or, as the enemy attacks, attack still more strongly, taking advantage of the resulting disorder in his timing to win. This is the Tai No Sen Principle. The Third - Tai Tai No Sen When the enemy makes a quick attack, you must attack strongly and calmly, aim for his weak point as he draws near, and strongly defeat him. Or, if the enemy attacks calmly, you must observe his movements and, with your body rather floating, join in with his movements as he draws near. Move quickly and cut him strongly. This is Tai Tai No Sen. These things cannot be clearly explained in words. You must research what is written here. In these three ways of forestalling, you must judge the situation. This does not mean that you always attack first; but if the enemy attacks first you can lead him around. In strategy, you have effectively won when you forestall the enemy, so you must train well to attain this."
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 14, 2017 22:17:47 GMT
Sure there is--to kill him and then kill him extra dead. I'm pretty skeptical about this idea that you just never make the first strike in a sword fight. But I keep an open mind. So that's why I'm asking for a primary source on it. Something in writing from the period in question saying "the master never moves first" or somesuch. Yeah but if he's not actively trying to kill me, then I have no real reason to kill him even a little bit dead. He can stand there and point his sword all day long, what's he going to do, throw his pommel at me? Is Musashi primary enough? Like Musashi when he writes about attacking without waiting for the opponent to attack?
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 14, 2017 23:49:46 GMT
With who are you talking? It's enough to go and search the concept of Uke and once you understand what was the thought behind it you will understand the rest of them : go no sen, sen no sen, sen sen no sen, deai etc. I'm wondering where it says wait for the opponent to attack you. Because that seems to be at odds with the concept of a sword fight. You read the concept about Uke? They have an idea, that when someone decides to attack he is losing the focus on what happens with the opponent. Is that brief moment that is speculated, when decission is happening you attack. I said is beyond technical aspect or "mot a mot" interpretation. Sen sen no sen explains it. What can signal your attack? Breathing, eyes, body position. They teach you how to cover each of these: - they teach you to use abdominal breathing to not show your chest / shoulder movement. Best time to attack is on opponent's inhale. - they teach you to not stare but use enzan no metsuke, activating your peripheral vision to detect the slightest move. The focus comes when decision was made. - and they teach you to set a trap, disorient the opponent, not telegraph your intentions. And they teach you to provoque an attack, being in control of the fight. You can control the fight if you show no openings, but you can provoque an attack showing a deliberate opening and attacking on his attack - sen no sen. Now, I don't say this is happening easy or in couple of years, but a sparring with a 7 or 8 dan opens the eyes. At least it was for me. All these are just things on the surface. Deeper you try to go, you realise how many things are to be learnt. And how little we know. They show or say things just when they want. We are taught that hasso no kamae is a guard who's supposed to enable you to make eight different cuts because in writting they use number 8 ideogram. Couple of years ago I was told that 8 actualy was used because the ideogram shows the position of your elbows. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 15, 2017 0:40:26 GMT
Yeah but if he's not actively trying to kill me, then I have no real reason to kill him even a little bit dead. He can stand there and point his sword all day long, what's he going to do, throw his pommel at me? Is Musashi primary enough? Like Musashi when he writes about attacking without waiting for the opponent to attack? You just missed the point regarding the win in the depths of the enemy. How you are doing this? Forestalling refers to what? For me all these are talking about having an impenetrable defense first and the kill comes as a normal outcome, no matter if attacker moves or not. It's about control, not shear attack power. He moves and you get him since you are expecting, he stays waiting, he dies because of lack of solution-he wants to attack but he can't do it successfully. And the theory is one, reality against a strong adversary is other. He won against good swordsmen messing with their brains, positioning them in wrong spots and using a longer wooden stick than the opponent's sword. Genius, but not advocatind the attacking for the sake of attack.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 15, 2017 1:08:36 GMT
You seem to be assuming the opponent is always the aggressor and the actor would just be a wandering sage trying to be zen like. Maybe Japanese culture was just really strange, but there would be plenty of reasons to kill him. You might be under orders to kill him. You might be morally obligated to do so. You might just hate his guts. He might be stealing your stuff. He might be your wife's lover. Etc. etc. In any case you want him dead, not just standing there as the rain falls in some meditation on the meaning of life. At least ONE party in a sword fight is going to want to kill the person, so at best a sword philosophy that says you never attack first is going to be useless to half of duel participants.
And it looks like Musashi covered ground similar to Liechtenauer's vor/indes/nach and zufechten. You *can* act in response, but that doesn't mean you must never attack first. Heck if he's distracted by a fly why not cut his chest open? Seems like a good plan.
That makes sense. You don't boldly rush in of course. But it's a big leap from that to saying you always have to wait for him to start the attack and take the initiative. Because this is a sword fight, and you do usually want to kill the guy. But maybe in Japan the goal was to avoid confrontation and not kill an enemy unless it was really necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 15, 2017 1:22:28 GMT
In a duel with posible outcome to lose your life, avoiding is the key. They talk about body language that prevents the fight and about mercy when the opponent backs off. They talk about losing ego and having no remorses after a kill. A complicated mindset that might have roots in their vision about life and death imo. Again, is what they preach, not necessary what they were doing. And it's not a big leap, they invented the draw and cut in same motion for a reason. I bet most of the successfull killings were on unaware target, not a gentlemen duel as in europe.
PS Cosmoline, if you had order to kill someone, would you provoke him or try to kill him when he is unaware? In koryu are killing katas on unaware opponent that some Sensei don't want to teach. If they passed down something like this, it was most certain a normality than exception to eliminate without putting you in a harmfull situation. No killing is done in fair fight except in movies. Heck, even when you hunt you kill when the prey is not aware. Why for humans would be different? For the sake of glory?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 1:27:36 GMT
The salient point was "This does not mean that you always attack first", you can attack first or not, which what I understood the question was. Cosmoline wanted to look at a primary source, I remembered that portion of the book of Five rings touching on the subject, and figured a nice basic translation of a readily available reference would serve as an ok example.
If you look at the outside, you think my enemy made the first move because there he goes for the swing. It is hard to see that I encouraged him to attack a particular time by showing an attractive target, and he's actually not leading the dance. It's manipulation and head games. He thinks it was his idea, but you set him up from the start. That's what our friend Musashi is talking about with the whole feigning weakness bit, or at least so goes the impression I get.
Is it an easy thing to sell the lie? No way! He might ignore it, or you show your hand by over selling, or a million other weird things can happen, nothing in life is a guarantee. You do what you can to screw with his head and give yourself the best chance possible to come out on top.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 1:53:20 GMT
You seem to be assuming the opponent is always the aggressor and the actor would just be a wandering sage trying to be zen like. Maybe Japanese culture was just really strange, but there would be plenty of reasons to kill him. You might be under orders to kill him. You might be morally obligated to do so. You might just hate his guts. He might be stealing your stuff. He might be your wife's lover. Etc. etc. In any case you want him dead, not just standing there as the rain falls in some meditation on the meaning of life. At least ONE party in a sword fight is going to want to kill the person, so at best a sword philosophy that says you never attack first is going to be useless to half of duel participants. And it looks like Musashi covered ground similar to Liechtenauer's vor/indes/nach and zufechten. You *can* act in response, but that doesn't mean you must never attack first. Heck if he's distracted by a fly why not cut his chest open? Seems like a good plan. All true, fortunately I'm pretty sure I won't get ordered to kill someone with a sword, so I don't have to worry about that. I've had a big emphasis on dehumanizing the opponent and trying to discard my own emotions and preferences and just work with what's there. It doesn't matter if I'm angry, mad, or sad, there's a line segment moving at this rate of speed in this arc, there's a shape that is strong in this direction and weak in that direction, push here or pull there and it collapses because of math and physics, dressed up in whatever suit you like. It's asking a lot, sometimes you have to work through natural reactions. I think whatever we do we all have our moments where we laugh at or get shaken by something that happens, I just see it as trying to build discipline. I know I've personally experienced a range, cracking up at something when it isn't the time or place, or being outright intimidated by something I felt was beyond me. I think you get the side of the equation you're looking for in the uke role. When tori counters and makes the attack, there's actually an interval where uke and tori can exchange roles. In most exercises they don't, tori is victorious and they bow to each other and return to their starting positions for another rep or a different exercise, but there's no reason uke has to take one on the chin, he can counter the counter (if able) and on and on it goes for however long until someone calls a break or the little failures cascade to a point where someone has no viable option available to them.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 15, 2017 2:31:52 GMT
Like Musashi when he writes about attacking without waiting for the opponent to attack? You just missed the point regarding the win in the depths of the enemy. How you are doing this? Forestalling refers to what? It isn't a great mystery. Musashi's language is quite direct. He means "taking the initiative". If you find the Harris translation difficult, try a different translation. Keji Tokitsu has "In combat, there are three ways of taking the initiative. The first consists in attacking before your opponent." (Wilson has "initiative" as well, and Cleary has "pre-emption".) The 3 initiatives are a common enough topic in writings about how to fight. It's discussed in Chinese manuals, in Medieval European manuals (Vor, Nach, Indes) and later European sources (Silver discusses it in detail, and how choice of weapons affects it), FMA, modern writings, etc. Genius, but not advocatind the attacking for the sake of attack. Of course one doesn't attack for the sake of attacking. One attacks for the sake of victory. You attack when you see that it is the best choice of action. If your opponent gives you an opportunity for you to attack them (genuine, not faked, not a trap), it's a potentially fatal error to not use it.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 15, 2017 2:37:11 GMT
The salient point was "This does not mean that you always attack first", you can attack first or not, which what I understood the question was. Cosmoline wanted to look at a primary source, I remembered that portion of the book of Five rings touching on the subject, and figured a nice basic translation of a readily available reference would serve as an ok example. The question about primary sources sprang from "This is the question japanese answered : you don't attack first", apparently a statement that you never attack first. It would be foolish to advocate only attacking first (in swordsmanship).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 3:08:02 GMT
OK, that makes sense. Saying never go first isn't strictly true, look at something like Jigen ryu, I haven't explored their material beyond seeing a couple quick videos. It's very cool stuff that comes to mind as an example of going proactive, but I don't know them and I could have a totally wrong impression of what their angle is. It screams run them over and crush them, so operating under that assumption I am with you and there's lots of different ways to tackle the problem. If you can intimidate someone from the onset, and maintain that leverage without letting up on the psychological pressure sure. Push them up against the wall then drive them through it. I'm sure they aren't the only ones, and if that sort of thing grabs you go for it.
For simplification, it's easier to say never do this or always do that rather than get deep into caveats and exceptions. But being truly absolute about never go first is right up there with never cut kesa, or always do longppoint, it breaks down pretty quick.
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Apr 15, 2017 5:27:28 GMT
For simplification, it's easier to say never do this or always do that rather than get deep into caveats and exceptions. But being truly absolute about never go first is right up there with never cut kesa, or always do longppoint, it breaks down pretty quick. For the record, i never said "never kesa", i said its a weak 1st strike that surrenders the centre. Its frankly baffling, that every one of those that criticised me for this viewpoint are now quoting musashi, who was as strong an advocator of my position as exists. Btw, all genuine surviving schools of musashi also advocare a downward headnstrike as the opening strike, this cut is practiced by those schools to the point that it is so fast and powerful that it would seem unstoppable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 5:41:05 GMT
Is there a meaningful difference between not literally typing the exact words "never kesa" and opening a thread to mock a guy for performing the cut?
|
|