|
THE REAL WEAPONS TRADITION
It was a large school in a local
shopping center, with a full class of students, children and adults, working out
on the floor. The owner had been in the arts for quite a number of years and was
eager to answer any questions about what he taught. “This is a traditional
school”, said the instructor as he pointed to a Bo and Kama that were displayed
on the wall. “And we only teach traditional weapons and katas”.
He is justifiably proud of what
he teaches; he has turned out an impressive number of advanced belts, and he is
a highly respected martial artist. But is he really following the weapons
traditions of the old masters? Is he really teaching his students what they need
to know now?
For the most part ‘traditional’
weapons were farm implements or tools that were commonly carried and used in
everyday life. There have been lengthy discussions, and some disagreement, about
what each of the ‘weapons’ were really used for. As an example, some say that
the Nunchaku was a rice flail, others say that it was a horse bridle. What they
were used for is not important. The important thing is that they were
unremarkable in that society. They were common, non-exotic tools. They were some
sort of legal, practical, non-threatening implement that doubled as a weapon of
defense.
Our martial arts fore fathers
were practical men and what they taught had to be practical as well. In those
times, a weapon was considered practical if it was useful, available and legal
to carry, anywhere, anytime. In those days carrying a weapon that was banned was
dealt with harshly and swiftly, often with severe penalties including lose of
life or limb, and there was no board of appeal. What good would it do to teach a
student the use of a weapon that would land them in jail or even get them
killed?
The teachers of yesteryear taught
only what was effective and what could be used. They were duty bound to do so.
They established the tradition of teaching only those weapons that their
students could have with them at all times, weapons to defend themselves and
their loved ones. What kind of teacher would teach their students something that
did not work or would jeopardize their well-being or the safety of their family?
The teachers of old would never teach a student the use of a weapon that they
could not have with them at all times. What would be the point? The Bo, Kama,
Nunchaku, Eku, Tonfu etc. are the by-product of that tradition, not the
tradition.
Does anyone think it possible
that the old ones are spinning in their graves at the idea of teaching old
weapons in new times? I asked a self-described traditionalist why he insisted on
teaching the Bo. He replied that it was taught for exercise. Exercise!?!?!?
Swinging a cane would give the same level, or more, of exercise, and the student
could have the cane with them - and know how to use it - when it was needed. I
can, and do, carry a cane with me when I travel, and I would have never
considered carrying a Bo. Another instructor said that Bo kata taught balance
coupled with coordination. I responded that mopping or sweeping the floors would
accomplish the same thing, with the added benefit of clean floors. In fact the
students would more likely have a mop or broom with them in public than a Bo.
Weapon traditionalism, as
practiced today, is not traditional at all, but is instead an exercise of
remembering a tradition. And in remembering that tradition instructors fail
their students. The one true tradition is teaching weapons that are legal and
practical as dictated by the laws and practices of the land where the
instruction is given. The teachers of today must recognize the impractically of
teaching weapons that are forbidden on public streets or public transportation.
If the weapon that is practiced is a weapon that cannot be used, in any arena,
then it is not a ‘traditional weapon’. It would be like a Tae Kwon Do instructor
teaching kicks during class, then making the students leave their legs in the
Dojang when they went home. What would be the point of teaching kicks when the
students didn’t have legs?
Times change. It has been pointed
out that we no longer use the medicine or communication methods of the 1800’s,
why should we restrict our use of self-defense weapons to what was taught in the
1700s. Weapons that were accepted yesterday are not accepted today. Weapons that
were legal yesterday are not legal today. The rules have changed, but the need
for protection has not. Now more than ever practical, legal protection is
needed. And present day instructors, teaching out-dated, illegal weapons are not
meeting those needs. Teaching weapons that cannot be used at all times, in all
places, is doing a disservice to the student, to the community and to
themselves, but more importantly, it is certainly doing a disservice to
tradition.
As the great haiku poet Matsuo
Basho (1644-1694) wrote, “Seek not what the old masters did; Seek what they
sought”.
|
