SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Apr 15, 2017 6:34:43 GMT
By that reasoning, what does work as an initial attack? This is the question japanese answered : you don't attack first. You DID say that you never attack first.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 15, 2017 7:21:07 GMT
I don't know about Japan. In the HRE duels were a legal matter held to determine God's hidden truth. To back down would be to condemn yourself, and both parties were supposed to be fighting to the death at least in theory. But beyond this there innumerable instances where one person might want to attack another, and a sword fight breaks out. Yeah you could back stab, but again legally you'd be a murderer condemned to die for doing it. A fair fight might be another matter.
But we come back to the basic idea that a sword system needs to teach you how to kill someone to be worth anything in historical periods before the modern era, when swords have a different set of purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 13:40:50 GMT
Even historically, martial studies were valued for many reasons aside from just killing people, but anytime it gets mentioned as a vehicle for cultivation of the self someone comes along to crap all over the notion as if it was some kind of binary distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 15, 2017 22:45:52 GMT
This is the question japanese answered : you don't attack first. You DID say that you never attack first. And? That's what they teach. Anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 15, 2017 23:00:01 GMT
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. You think Musashi 's sayings are direct and simple? I don't think so. Couple of years ago I asked a japaness Sensei what it says in their SEITEI manual about a specific thing. In english was saying "draw to forestall the enemy" and he told me "draw with determination, absoluteness and fearless". That's to say how we translate words when a japanese studing the same martial art understands subtleties we have no accesss due to the language and cultural barrier. I don't see Go Rin No Sho more than a newspaper article about something specific. Too much "you have to practice to understand" to make it a Bible. And how you know it's an opportunity and not a trap? Imagine your life depends on your decision - not that you can start over if you misjudged - when you answer to the question.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 15, 2017 23:43:03 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). The answer about sources was done after. Concept of Uke, sen no sen, sen sen no sen and other stupid things like this would have been enough to explain the surface of that affirmation. And all is ignored since nobody asked one thing: what defines the attack they talk about? Intention, the act itself? How can you read intention if is intention? Body language? Respiration? Voice ? Rolling eyes? How their idea is supported or not in their teachings regarding losing the ego and all their teachings regarding mushin, fudoshin, senshin to not say shoshin and zanshin? And all is more than complicated because we don't live in a period where we "live by the sword and die by the sword" - to use a sterotype - to really understand what they were talking about. We play knights and samurai and if we make mistakes it's OK, we stop and start again. They did not have this luxury.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 16, 2017 0:28:55 GMT
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. 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. You think Musashi 's sayings are direct and simple? I don't think so. Couple of years ago I asked a japaness Sensei what it says in their SEITEI manual about a specific thing. In english was saying "draw to forestall the enemy" and he told me "draw with determination". That's to say how we translate words when a japanese studing the same martial art understands subtleties we have no accesss due to the language and cultural barrier. No, I'm saying that Musashi's language is simple and direct. Some of what he says depends a lot on the reader knowing something of swordsmanship, and understanding of what he says will improve as understanding of swordsmanship improves. His actual language is plain. If it's hard to understand what he writes, look to improve your swordsmanship rather than looking for hidden meaning in his words. He isn't trying to trick his reader; he's helping his reader. But the reader needs to put in the physical practice. Some of what he says doesn't depend on the reader being proficient in swordsmanship. Again, no tricks - he just writes what he means. Almost all Japanese readers depend on translations, so it isn't just our problem (the book wasn't written in modern Japanese). It can be useful to have multiple translations. I think the Tokitsu translation is generally the best. The Wilson translation is very literal, so can be very useful to check specific passages. The Cleary translation is the best for the religious language (Cleary being a Buddhist scholar). Too much "you have to practice to understand" to make it a Bible. It's about practical skills. Do you really expect to learn those practical skills from a book without actually training with a sword in your hand? And how you know it's an opportunity and not a trap? Imagine your life depends on your decision - not that you can start over if you misjudged - when you answer to the question. How do you know? Judgment. How do you learn to know? You train. As one might expect, Musashi writes about judging what the opponent is doing: (I think the Tokitsu translation is better, but the Harris is online and easy to copy-and-paste.)
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Apr 16, 2017 0:41:28 GMT
Anything else than lecture by copy paste? Something really meaningfull to the subject? What the eff you do if you don't recognize "the school of strategy" the opponent has? You do your thing and hope for the best? If you recognize the guy in front of you is stronger than you, you still go to see if you can kill him? Right. Thank you for your wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Apr 21, 2017 20:56:24 GMT
It is quite important to bear in mind, when reading go rin no sho, that these scrolls were only meant to be read by musashis two top students of hyoho niten ichi ryu, memorised, and then destroyed.
The original scrolls were duly memorised, and the originals were destroyed with fire.
Musashi died after the memorisation, and the two students agonised whether the scrolls should be recreated, they eventually were recreated, by these two students.
I only mention this, as the scrolls are being mentioned as if they relate to swordsmanship per se.they dont. They are mostly philosophical documents of the emerging school of thought as the stratification of japanese classes closed, from a samurai pov.
And the water scroll is a codifiction of hyoho niten ichi ryu mentality, and mechanics, that supplements practice of the kata withi the context of that schol. The water scroll is not cross-communicable, to say, rapier or longsword, or any other non-related styles, afaik and Imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 23:38:46 GMT
Be that as it may, it's still an invaluable resource. Whatever the author's intent, I get tremendous value in revisiting the writings at steady intervals, and can practically gauge my development by discovering new insights on re-reads. It's a really unique phenomenon in my own studies, I haven't really found anything else that has a similar amount of unpacking.
Going off of results, I don't care if it's a Sword Book or a Cook Book, it's a super helpful resource and I'm glad it's been made available.
I can't imagine how it wouldn't be cross-communicable, whether there's a tsuba or a crossguard I haven't really seen anything in there that would fail in one context or another, it seems general enough to work in hakama or hose.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 22, 2017 3:49:05 GMT
I only mention this, as the scrolls are being mentioned as if they relate to swordsmanship per se.they dont. They are mostly philosophical documents of the emerging school of thought as the stratification of japanese classes closed, from a samurai pov. And the water scroll is a codifiction of hyoho niten ichi ryu mentality, and mechanics, that supplements practice of the kata withi the context of that schol. The water scroll is not cross-communicable, to say, rapier or longsword, or any other non-related styles, afaik and Imo. "Water" is the most technique-oriented section. One would expect it to be the least generalisable to swordsmanship in general. But it's a brief written text and describes things generally rather than in precise detail. Most of it is broadly applicable. So, a section-by-section look at "Water": thebookoffiverings.com/the-water-book/Spiritual Bearing in Strategy: General discussion of spirit/attitude, applicable to fighting in general. Stance in Strategy: Body posture, applicable to most swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Gaze in Strategy: Broad vision, using peripheral vision, don't tunnel-vision, applicable to fighting in general. Holding the Long Sword: How to hold a katana. Applicable to other JSA schools, European longsword, some Chinese sword. Not applicable to all swordsmanship, since this method of gripping the sword is not appropriate for all swords. Footwork: A very general discussion of footwork, with an emphasis on natural movement: "your feet must always move as in normal walking". Not applicable to styles of swordsmanship that prescribe specific special methods of stepping. Applicable to much swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Five Attitudes: Summary of 5 basic guards/kamae. Very general description as high, middle, low, left, and right - at this level of generality, most or all of these should be recognisable in many styles of swordsmanship. Not applicable to all swordsmanship. Applicable to much swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Way of the Long Sword: Less clear than the previous sections. I would summarise this section as "you must cooperate with your sword when you move it, not force it to move in ways not suited to it". Applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Five Approaches: Relatively technical and detailed. How to counter attacks and counter-attack from the 5 guards. The techniques described will work for a variety of two-handed swords and are applicable to a variety of swordsmanship, including Chinese two-handed sword and European longsword. The descriptions are general enough so that they are also at least partly applicable to one-handed swords. At worst, those from other styles of swordsmanship can try these counters/counter-attacks and decide whether they make sense and/or are useful with their weapon/style. The "Attitude No-Attitude" Teaching: (a) Don't be married to your chosen stance/guard. You can change from one to another. Use the appropriate one. Applicable to all swordsmanship, and other weapons. (b) "Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement." Applicable to much swordsmanship. To Hit the Enemy "In One Timing" through to The Smacking Parry: Some of it is technical, but much is at the level of principles. The principles are broadly applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. At least much of the technical bits are applicable to much swordsmanship, especially with a sword in two-hands, and other weapons (again, especially two-handed weapons). There are Many Enemies: The general principles of fighting multiple opponents is applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The specific instruction to "Draw both sword and companion sword and assume a wide-stretched left and right attitude" is not widely applicable. The Advantage when coming to Blows through to the end: The written word is not enough - you must train diligently. If you want to learn a particular style, get a teacher ("direct communication"). Applicable to fighting in general. So, much that is very broadly applicable. Not enough to actually learn swordsmanship from - technique is not described in anything close to sufficient detail. Learn your technique elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Apr 23, 2017 19:47:44 GMT
I only mention this, as the scrolls are being mentioned as if they relate to swordsmanship per se.they dont. They are mostly philosophical documents of the emerging school of thought as the stratification of japanese classes closed, from a samurai pov. And the water scroll is a codifiction of hyoho niten ichi ryu mentality, and mechanics, that supplements practice of the kata withi the context of that schol. The water scroll is not cross-communicable, to say, rapier or longsword, or any other non-related styles, afaik and Imo. "Water" is the most technique-oriented section. One would expect it to be the least generalisable to swordsmanship in general. But it's a brief written text and describes things generally rather than in precise detail. Most of it is broadly applicable. So, a section-by-section look at "Water": thebookoffiverings.com/the-water-book/Spiritual Bearing in Strategy: General discussion of spirit/attitude, applicable to fighting in general. Stance in Strategy: Body posture, applicable to most swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Gaze in Strategy: Broad vision, using peripheral vision, don't tunnel-vision, applicable to fighting in general. Holding the Long Sword: How to hold a katana. Applicable to other JSA schools, European longsword, some Chinese sword. Not applicable to all swordsmanship, since this method of gripping the sword is not appropriate for all swords. Footwork: A very general discussion of footwork, with an emphasis on natural movement: "your feet must always move as in normal walking". Not applicable to styles of swordsmanship that prescribe specific special methods of stepping. Applicable to much swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Five Attitudes: Summary of 5 basic guards/kamae. Very general description as high, middle, low, left, and right - at this level of generality, most or all of these should be recognisable in many styles of swordsmanship. Not applicable to all swordsmanship. Applicable to much swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Way of the Long Sword: Less clear than the previous sections. I would summarise this section as "you must cooperate with your sword when you move it, not force it to move in ways not suited to it". Applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The Five Approaches: Relatively technical and detailed. How to counter attacks and counter-attack from the 5 guards. The techniques described will work for a variety of two-handed swords and are applicable to a variety of swordsmanship, including Chinese two-handed sword and European longsword. The descriptions are general enough so that they are also at least partly applicable to one-handed swords. At worst, those from other styles of swordsmanship can try these counters/counter-attacks and decide whether they make sense and/or are useful with their weapon/style. The "Attitude No-Attitude" Teaching: (a) Don't be married to your chosen stance/guard. You can change from one to another. Use the appropriate one. Applicable to all swordsmanship, and other weapons. (b) "Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement." Applicable to much swordsmanship. To Hit the Enemy "In One Timing" through to The Smacking Parry: Some of it is technical, but much is at the level of principles. The principles are broadly applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. At least much of the technical bits are applicable to much swordsmanship, especially with a sword in two-hands, and other weapons (again, especially two-handed weapons). There are Many Enemies: The general principles of fighting multiple opponents is applicable to most, if not all, swordsmanship, and fighting with a wide variety of weapons. The specific instruction to "Draw both sword and companion sword and assume a wide-stretched left and right attitude" is not widely applicable. The Advantage when coming to Blows through to the end: The written word is not enough - you must train diligently. If you want to learn a particular style, get a teacher ("direct communication"). Applicable to fighting in general. So, much that is very broadly applicable. Not enough to actually learn swordsmanship from - technique is not described in anything close to sufficient detail. Learn your technique elsewhere. Based on what i have seen of your posts, i doubt, very much, thatnyou would be open to taking the water scroll to its natural conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Apr 23, 2017 20:04:30 GMT
Just an example, if the way of moving the feet is right, in go rin no sho, most kendo, all olympic fencing and the attempts to recreate 19th cent sabre from it. All of the prevailing efforts at 1.33, and mosy chinese recreations are wrong, according to the water scroll.
What do,you make of that?
Do you think all of the modern efforts, from "intuition", are correct? Do you think Nigel, the Geography teacher from Ohio has guessed it right, or do you think musashi's school is correct?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 23, 2017 21:27:54 GMT
Just an example, if the way of moving the feet is right, in go rin no sho, most kendo, all olympic fencing and the attempts to recreate 19th cent sabre from it. All of the prevailing efforts at 1.33, and mosy chinese recreations are wrong, according to the water scroll. What do,you make of that? As I already said, "Not applicable to styles of swordsmanship that prescribe specific special methods of stepping." I wouldn't call kendo and olympic fencing footwork "wrong" - the contexts are different. There are two major reasons for the difference in stepping: (a) dojo vs naturalistic settings (both kendo and fencing), and (b) a single one-handed weapon (fencing). As you should be aware, both kendo and olympic fencing are sports, and the desire for scoring points strongly drives footwork that works in context - their footwork is correct in context. Musashi disagrees with kendo footwork. So what? The arguments against the practical usability of Five Rings were (a) it's not swordsmanship at all, just philosophy, (b) it's so tightly tied to Musashi's art that it's not applicable to other swordsmanship, and (c) it's super-cryptic. Musashi's injunction to step naturally is clearly practical advice about swordsmanship (not some abstract philosophical statement). It's clear and direct, and not cryptic in the slightest. Finally, it's applicable to much swordsmanship. For example, natural stepping dominates in Medieval European martial arts where we have sources (sword + buckler and longsword; I see a lot of people do messer with fencing-style footwork, not sure whether that's their personal background or the sources), FMA, and CMA. So, it's an example of Musashi's writing that's practical, clear and understandable, and widely applicable. So what if some styles have different footwork for different contexts? Or even different footwork for the same context? What else could you say isn't widely applicable? Musashi's main guards are high, middle, low, left and right, compared with, e.g., high, middle, low and hanging in Medieval European longsword (and left is rarely used), so he doesn't say what to do from hanging, and his technique from left isn't very useful in longsword. This section is essentially useless for foil fencers. The section on the smacking parry needs a teacher to demonstrate what is meant (IMO). The text tries to explain something that is much easier to demonstrate than explain in text. So what? That's a small fraction of the Water book. Most is widely applicable, most is clear, and most is overtly about swordsmanship. I think that to say "such-and-such section doesn't apply to kendo or olympic fencing" completely misses the point about how broadly applicable the content really is. The nit-picking: I.33 and much Chinese sword uses natural stepping. The Chinese recreations I have seen mostly use natural stepping, so I think your "mosy chinese recreations are wrong" is wrong (I'm not calling CMA with surviving direct transmission of technique "recreations", just the lost ones re-created, but natural stepping is also common, perhaps dominant, in transmitted CMA too). 19th century sabre is not recreated from olympic fencing; we have plenty of 19th century sabre manuals and photographic and video sources too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 23:39:59 GMT
You don't have to adhere dogmatically to every single nuance Musashi outlines in order to find a great deal of his writings applicable! Even if you ignore the literal technique a lot of what he writes is very inspiring and useful.
I think it is a huge mistake to try to start learning via salad bar approach of taking a little of this and that that looks nice to you if you don't know what you're doing, after you get some grounding it starts getting a little more useful to look at different sources to either find things that can work for your purposes or to get a new lens to see yourself through.
When Musashi disagrees with my sensei then sorry Miyamoto-sama, we're just going to have to diverge and if we can meet up again later then cool, and that really should be the same if you're learning from a fencing coach, free scholar, provost, or whatever title the BBMFIC goes by.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Apr 24, 2017 14:22:33 GMT
I've always viewed Musashi's writings on the combats arts to be relatively meta (similarly to Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do). There seems to be an understanding that the reader isn't a novice, but instead has a thorough grasp of the principles being discussed. There is a world of difference between telling an experienced martial artist to adopt natural footwork and giving that same instruction to someone who doesn't appreciate the importance of balance, measure, and tempo. One can't strip away notions one has never held.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 24, 2017 15:55:29 GMT
Also what is "natural" footwork? I.33's footwork looks strange to people used to modern shoes who walk with heel strikes. But walk that way in most medieval footware and you'll be hurting. It was likely natural for them to walk more on the balls of the feet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 16:53:36 GMT
We typically don't dart in and out on the way to get a beer out of the fridge or use a classical fencing lunge to reach for our jacket before heading out the door.
I'd call natural movement casual motion, not stumbling over yourself but not rigid as though you had a polearm improperly stored on your person.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 24, 2017 16:58:14 GMT
I always lunge for beer!
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Apr 24, 2017 19:04:56 GMT
Just an example, if the way of moving the feet is right, in go rin no sho, most kendo, all olympic fencing and the attempts to recreate 19th cent sabre from it. All of the prevailing efforts at 1.33, and mosy chinese recreations are wrong, according to the water scroll. What do,you make of that? As I already said, "Not applicable to styles of swordsmanship that prescribe specific special methods of stepping." I wouldn't call kendo and olympic fencing footwork "wrong" - the contexts are different. There are two major reasons for the difference in stepping: (a) dojo vs naturalistic settings (both kendo and fencing), and (b) a single one-handed weapon (fencing). As you should be aware, both kendo and olympic fencing are sports, and the desire for scoring points strongly drives footwork that works in context - their footwork is correct in context. Musashi disagrees with kendo footwork. So what? The arguments against the practical usability of Five Rings were (a) it's not swordsmanship at all, just philosophy, (b) it's so tightly tied to Musashi's art that it's not applicable to other swordsmanship, and (c) it's super-cryptic. Musashi's injunction to step naturally is clearly practical advice about swordsmanship (not some abstract philosophical statement). It's clear and direct, and not cryptic in the slightest. Finally, it's applicable to much swordsmanship. For example, natural stepping dominates in Medieval European martial arts where we have sources (sword + buckler and longsword; I see a lot of people do messer with fencing-style footwork, not sure whether that's their personal background or the sources), FMA, and CMA. So, it's an example of Musashi's writing that's practical, clear and understandable, and widely applicable. So what if some styles have different footwork for different contexts? Or even different footwork for the same context? What else could you say isn't widely applicable? Musashi's main guards are high, middle, low, left and right, compared with, e.g., high, middle, low and hanging in Medieval European longsword (and left is rarely used), so he doesn't say what to do from hanging, and his technique from left isn't very useful in longsword. This section is essentially useless for foil fencers. The section on the smacking parry needs a teacher to demonstrate what is meant (IMO). The text tries to explain something that is much easier to demonstrate than explain in text. So what? That's a small fraction of the Water book. Most is widely applicable, most is clear, and most is overtly about swordsmanship. I think that to say "such-and-such section doesn't apply to kendo or olympic fencing" completely misses the point about how broadly applicable the content really is. The nit-picking: I.33 and much Chinese sword uses natural stepping. The Chinese recreations I have seen mostly use natural stepping, so I think your "mosy chinese recreations are wrong" is wrong (I'm not calling CMA with surviving direct transmission of technique "recreations", just the lost ones re-created, but natural stepping is also common, perhaps dominant, in transmitted CMA too). 19th century sabre is not recreated from olympic fencing; we have plenty of 19th century sabre manuals and photographic and video sources too. Of course i did not mean any of they were utterly(?) wrong, i meant they were wrong from the eyes of go rin no sho, and what do you think of that? Cannot pick and choose from go rin no sho was my point. The "way of moving the feet" does not say to be natural, and natural is how walking is being interpreted by you. The feet in go rin no sho says, To move from one place to another, you slightly raise your toes and push off your foot from the heel, forcefully. According to the situation, you move your feet with a large or a small step, slowly or rapidly, but always in the manner of walking. There are three ways of moving it is necessary to avoid: jumping, moving with a floating step, stomping heavily. The essential instruction related to moving from place to place is alternate movement of the two feet, positive foot and negative foot. Which means you should not move just one foot. When you slash, when you back away, when you parry, you must always move the right and left feet alternately. You must never move only one foot. This should be examined with care. End So the term "walking" means something other than "natural" footwork, all footwork is natural, it means to alternate the feet. I hope this is enough to satisfy. Edit. Interstingly, the way the message is split bh and admonishment, is probably indivative of his way of expressing himself. The scrolls were written only for these two brothers, and musashi probably was running his mind in them. The essence remains. And there is nothing "natural" in the way this school moves it feet. It is counter to most JSA.
|
|