Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Discussion of Chinese historical swordsmanship from all styles.

Moderator:Scott M. Rodell

User avatar
J HepworthYoung
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:276
Joined:Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:19 pm
Location:Sacramento
Contact:
Re: Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Post by J HepworthYoung » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:11 am

You are right Michael, there is speculation here that does not do this topic justice.

I will address only two questions.
The first is about Tao, all I can say is that Tao is profoundly different and that matters only for those who follow Tao. Label it my opinion if you will.

The second aspect, as pertains to martial art. indeed sword arts are martial. However they are not complete martial art systems in the sense that the old eastern were systems. The word here that is key is not martial, but is system. The martial sword systems are not martial art systems in the same sense of those of Asia and India. They, the western systems, were more focused upon specific areas relating to the role of a soldier in war and peace. Such systems also existed in China and Japan, but are not the same as martial art systems. To give an example consider that Yang Luchan taught sword to troops, but did not teach his martial art system to them. Indeed he could have taught the use of every weapon common at the time and still not have taught his martial art system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
System (from Latin systēma, in turn from Greek σύστημα systēma) is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole.

So for a martial art to be a system it must form an integrated whole, however what does martial mean?
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war
So then to put the two together a martial art system is a complete set of principals (including techniques and other aspects) relating directly to war. If we look at weapons play we can see that as essential as it is to military prowess, it is but one part of war and military service, there are many others. So for a martial art to be a system it must be a complete set. I would argue that in these days many of the systems passed down have been passed down incomplete and no longer constitute martial art systems. Taijiquan is an excellent example, because of how fragmented it has become through its modification and introduction to the world. So according to my definitions, which although based on standard definitions are entirely personal, a martial weapons system is not a martial art system. So I consider the western fencing to be fencing and sword systems, but not martial art systems, rather in application they are a part of martial art systems, but do not constitute one. For practical example, any so called martial art systems that lacks instruction on how to procure and prepare food in martial settings (which can last a long time) is not complete and thus do not constitute systems.

But in modern times much of what reaches us from any culture is fragmented. So perhaps these distinctions are outdated and best reserved for historical accuracy rather than practical modern use. What need of knowledge of poisons have we in these modern times?

But then to address Tao once more, Tao was/is a system of living and existing which include(d/s) martial aspects, not a religion in the sense that we of the west are familiar with.
I think perhaps part of these distinctions may relate to the difference of warfare in ancient times.

In some cultures there was a warrior caste, this was found in Egypt, India, Japan and other places (Rome, Greece etc). Areas where this was practiced have different degrees of development in martial art systems than in areas where the basis of warriorship was not class/caste division. I am not aware of a warrior caste of Europe, while in other areas the martial arts were basically informative of the entire lifestyle of the warrior caste and thus by necessity included far more than combat systems.

Michael
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:116
Joined:Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:21 pm
Location:In flux

Re: Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Post by Michael » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:13 pm

J HepworthYoung wrote: So then to put the two together a martial art system is a complete set of principals (including techniques and other aspects) relating directly to war. If we look at weapons play we can see that as essential as it is to military prowess, it is but one part of war and military service, there are many others. So for a martial art to be a system it must be a complete set. I would argue that in these days many of the systems passed down have been passed down incomplete and no longer constitute martial art systems. Taijiquan is an excellent example, because of how fragmented it has become through its modification and introduction to the world. So according to my definitions, which although based on standard definitions are entirely personal, a martial weapons system is not a martial art system. So I consider the western fencing to be fencing and sword systems, but not martial art systems, rather in application they are a part of martial art systems, but do not constitute one. For practical example, any so called martial art systems that lacks instruction on how to procure and prepare food in martial settings (which can last a long time) is not complete and thus do not constitute systems.
Well I suppose then they would not fall into your definition, but I don't know of any martial art which is that all-inclusive, even in the East. Even among the koryu bujutsu, many of these more obscure skills(swimming in armor, tying an opponent with rope, etc) were considered to be separate arts, although possibly contained within the same schools. Surely, the Japanese paid attention to the perfection of small martial details as well as anyone else, but by your definition I would wonder if they would have any martial systems. More importantly, what about later-period styles which were not intended for direct use on the battlefield? Both in the East as well as the West, we can see a shift in martial arts from battlefield-oriented teachings to civilian combat. There are many reasons for this shift, each depending on region. But certainly if your definition does not include civilian-oriented combat, you have excluded most budo forms.
J HepworthYoung wrote: In some cultures there was a warrior caste, this was found in Egypt, India, Japan and other places (Rome, Greece etc). Areas where this was practiced have different degrees of development in martial art systems than in areas where the basis of warriorship was not class/caste division. I am not aware of a warrior caste of Europe, while in other areas the martial arts were basically informative of the entire lifestyle of the warrior caste and thus by necessity included far more than combat systems.
The knightly class was a professional warrior class in Europe. They are actually quite comparable to samurai in many respects.
Antitheses: A blog for martial artists in search of a good conversation.

User avatar
J HepworthYoung
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:276
Joined:Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:19 pm
Location:Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Post by J HepworthYoung » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:27 pm

So to be a knight was to be born into the knight caste?

what about later-period styles which were not intended for direct use on the battlefield?
Warrior caste arts were not limited to battlefield, the role of the warrior caste was not just for war, but when war took place they had specific responsibilities.
certainly if your definition does not include civilian-oriented combat, you have excluded most budo forms.
My definition of a martial art system excludes most civilian oriented combat. However the reason for that is not due to the civilian part, but to the fact that combat is but a meager part of a martial art system and a martial art system cannot, by my definition, be a system of combat, nor can it exclude a system of combat.

Budo itself is a term indicative of martial systemic practice, the term do meaning way or path I should note the connection of the term do to buddhism and sanskrit also. The experience of the martial path or life is implied in the term Budo, however in modern use it has become an inclusive term that is applied to Nipponese (japanese) martial arts and thus is used in contexts that do not apply to my definition of martial arts knowledge. Merely practicing a Japanese martial art does not mean one is living a way of life oriented around Bu, which has a totally different meaning than martial does in the western sense. So in the strict sense the term Bujutsu is more apt for use in regards to martial arts of japan than the term Budo is. Nor is the sense of Budo limited by any means to Japan, if someone meets the definition of the term then I find it valid, regardless of culture.

A martial art system informs life itself, it cannot be practiced in a dojo or at specific times of the week. It is always in effect, for it is a way or path, not a practice that begins and ends according to a schedule. For me this is the essence of martial art systems, that they are by their virtues systemic and thus infuse or relate to every aspect of being, not merely combat. However they cannot ignore combat and have origin in many cases in the warrior caste, which was not merely soldiers. So for me swordsmanship is a system of swordsmanship, not a martial arts system which follows the martial path, although a swordsman may follow such a path, it does not mean that the transmissions pertaining to sword are those that determine or inform the path, rather the path informs the practice of sword and combat, not the other way around.

So for this reason I do not see just any ___-Do (judo,kendo,shurikendo etc) as a martial arts system or as budo. The way of the sword is not the martial way, nor is the martial way the way of the sword. However that does not mean there is no place for the sword in the martial way. But keep in mind my definitions are personal, not for preaching, rather for the sharing of opinion and little more.

I am not a fan of the Samurai by any means. To say that knights are equivalent is derogatory to knights in my opinion. Nor do I care for any conception of the warrior caste, I rather find the concept of being a warrior deplorable and base. One may have to act as a warrior at times, however the mentality linked with being a warrior is one that I seek to avoid entirely. In short I want nothing to do with being a warrior nor do I care for the company of would be warriors. The concept violates my personal tenants, which are relative and subject to change, and thus any concrete or unchanging tenants that accompany a code of being violate my tenants. For me the highest virtue has no virtue, no agenda, and no ceremony.

I am a fool though, my opinion is not fit for others to adopt.

Michael
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:116
Joined:Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:21 pm
Location:In flux

Re: Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Post by Michael » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm

J HepworthYoung wrote:So to be a knight was to be born into the knight caste?
It's complicated, and varied based on region and time period. Birthright was involved, but it wasn't necessarily the only requirement.
J HepworthYoung wrote: Budo itself is a term indicative of martial systemic practice, the term do meaning way or path I should note the connection of the term do to buddhism and sanskrit also. The experience of the martial path or life is implied in the term Budo, however in modern use it has become an inclusive term that is applied to Nipponese (japanese) martial arts and thus is used in contexts that do not apply to my definition of martial arts knowledge. Merely practicing a Japanese martial art does not mean one is living a way of life oriented around Bu, which has a totally different meaning than martial does in the western sense. So in the strict sense the term Bujutsu is more apt for use in regards to martial arts of japan than the term Budo is. Nor is the sense of Budo limited by any means to Japan, if someone meets the definition of the term then I find it valid, regardless of culture.
I want to point out that whenever I've used the terms budo and bujutsu in this thread, I mean them in the sense that Donn Draeger uses them. I see koryu bujutsu as the old battlefield-oriented system, whereas budo as an outgrowth which places emphasis on concerned with personal spiritual development, at least as I understand it. But I'm referring to classical budo rather than modern budo, specifically during the Edo period, in which the old battlefield martial arts were declining due to the proliferation of firearms and relative peace.
Antitheses: A blog for martial artists in search of a good conversation.

Robert Bemoras
Rank: Frequent Contributor
Posts:18
Joined:Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:47 pm

Re: Why Chinese swordsmanship?

Post by Robert Bemoras » Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:43 am

This reply is from a middle aged perspective. Taijiquan is a martial art that I can practice as I age. For the younger people out there I know this doesn't mean much, but hear me out. I am 45 years old and through 25 years of external martial arts practice I have many injuries that I must overcome. Most styles of martial arts have merit, but as we age our bodies do not perform as when we are young. What I have found is that internal martial artists can improve with age and most external artists' physical prowess diminishes as they age.
As far as Chinese swordsmanship, I practice it because it is a part of the martial art I practice. Too many times people get into a comparison of styles as to which one is better. Don't fall into that trap. It is the practitioner and not the art. All can be deadly and all require many hours of practice to become proficient! For me, taijiquan is something I can practice long term where I simply can no longer practice external arts. Based on this fact, Chinese swordsmanship found me, not the other way around.

Bob Bemoras

Post Reply