Buddhism and Martial Arts

[PorkChop]

Would've never found Buddhism if it wasn't for martial arts.
From my first kung fu sifu, to my muay thai coaches, to my current boxing coach - Buddhist martial arts instructors have been a huge influence in my life.
In other words, not sure I can even speak on this subject objectively.
I will say that when I started taking Buddhism more seriously, I felt like I'd finally found the part of my training that had been missing.

[gregkavarnos]

I will say that when I started taking Buddhism more seriously, I felt like I'd finally found the part of my training that had been missing.

Ain't that the truth!

[Johnny Dangerous]

I'd be interested to hear more on you guys experience in this vein.

When I was doing Judo, one of the best experiences on a personal level in retrospect was getting beaten really badly (which was most of the time lol), especially by pin. Being able to let go of the desire to win, but still try to win was for me, a big deal...if that makes sense. Of course, plenty of people train with the desire to win as a central thing - how do you view this?

[GrahamR]

I'd be interested to hear more on you guys experience in this vein.

When I was doing Judo, one of the best experiences on a personal level in retrospect was getting beaten really badly (which was most of the time lol), especially by pin. Being able to let go of the desire to win, but still try to win was for me, a big deal...if that makes sense. Of course, plenty of people train with the desire to win as a central thing - how do you view this?

Johnny,

I can understand ho you feel. I have done most of the major Japanese martial arts over the years. Now I would not want to practice or teach any martial art which involves striking techniques.

My favourite is Aikido, this was designed along Buddhist/Shinto principles and is non competitive and non violent. If you read about the founder's life (O-Sensei) he seems to believe that he obtained enlightenment through his training.

With metta

Graham

[Johnny Dangerous]

Aikido comes from Daito Ryu, which in turn comes from Jujutsu, which was a battlefield art. The techniques are not that much changed minus modern flourish.

Many of the techniques in Aikido are designed to dislocate shoulder joints, break wrists, drop people on the back of their head etc. It contains no hand strikes because for the most part neither did Jujutsu, why would it....swords and armor and whatnot. It does not lack strikes because it's more peaceful.

The fact that it is taught in a certain context or way does not mean that somehow you have "eliminated violence" from your martial art, there is no such animal, using martial arts on another human being means that if you have made the decision to not just run away and use it (almost alwayspreferable to just run) you have made the decision to end the fight, which means injuring them in some way, however minor. Not acknowledging this is just ignoring reality of martial arts, easy to do today because mostly we don't have to use them as they were designed.Something like Kote Gaeshi is anything but a "peaceful technique", it's meant to tear up someone's rotator cuff and dislocate the shoulder. Irimi nage? Welll, look at where the opponents head goes when you properly perform it..not exactly "peaceful" intention there. Whatever the philosophy of Ueshiba was.his own training was most definitely martial in nature..the difference was the WAY he taught, not what he taught.

Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine, I've spent years hearing this nonsense argument from Aikidoka as a Karate person, in terms of what training does or does not do to make you violent, that has nothing to do with technique - because they are all violent unless you choose to just ignore what they are designed for. If training manages to still the mind and transform violent impulse (which it can definitely do) into something better, it is the context and method of the training, not the techniques or material itself. I have spent more than half my life in Okinawan Karate, an art which is in the main about percussive striking, but which is traditionally taught in as "non violent" a way as is possible in terms of philosophy. Even the old masters before the modern age stressed a basic morality, and the subduing of one's own faults and violent impulses as a reason for training.

Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the philosophy of Aikido, but the technique (again when divorced from it's modern, performance-based flourishes) is straight up Jujutsu, and is just as "violent" as any other martial art on the planet, arguably more in places. Completely naive to say that an art which involves no striking is "more peaceful", as well as ignoring the history of said arts. It also doesn't really have anything to do (from my point of view) with whether or not one is obsessed with winning and over competitive or not. Plenty of people in Judo like that with no strikes whatsoever.

[PorkChop]

I'd be interested to hear more on you guys experience in this vein.

When I was doing Judo, one of the best experiences on a personal level in retrospect was getting beaten really badly (which was most of the time lol), especially by pin. Being able to let go of the desire to win, but still try to win was for me, a big deal...if that makes sense. Of course, plenty of people train with the desire to win as a central thing - how do you view this?

Not sure where to start on this one...
I tend to look at martial art as mainly sport, something I can do with another willing participant.
When it comes to self defense, my main theories are preparation and situational awareness.
If I never use what I know, that'll be great.
If I have to use what I know, it'll be a combo to set up an off-balance, and then run.
It's all about keeping proper distances & creating opportunities to escape.
For my house, I have a dog that doesn't like people approaching the house, I have a nice alarm system with the cops on speed dial, I live in a decent area, and I have a pretty modest lifestyle.

As far as training itself...
I'm not really that competitive of a person.
I do it because I enjoy the training, pushing myself, testing my limits.
I also like helping other people, so I tend to function better as a trainer, pad holder, and sparring partner for others.

When I get ready for competition, I tend to start hating it if my sparring partners want to compete instead of working together.
The day of competition is not about anger or aggression, it's mostly fear and nerves.
Some people try to use anger or aggression to get through the fear and nerves, but that often leads to performance anxiety & no gas left in the tank.
A rare few can find that quiet place inside & not let it bother them, so in this sense it's very much a meditative practice.
Met one of the top 3 muay thai fighters of all time (Samart Payakaroon) and found out that he would meditate all night before a bout.
This was consistent with what I know about Thais in training, it's not common for them to get upset or angry in sparring.

Striking vs grappling:
When I do striking practice, whether it's forms, bagwork, mittwork, or even sparring, I'm always working on execution in some way: balance, power, technique, placement, etc.
I don't get too hung up on causing damage or hurting somebody, I don't really think of it like that.
It's more of a dance or a flow.
I think of that old adage: in the beginning a punch was a punch, as I progressed a punch was no longer a punch (but a complex equation of proper technique), and once I got better a punch was just a punch again.
Aside from takedown & standing clinch practice, I've never been much for grappling - especially when it comes to grappling on the ground.
I haven't had much luck putting myself at the complete mercy of my partner, as is required in groundwork.
I also have a very hard time losing myself in the practice; having someone laying on top of me is a huge distraction that makes me claustrophobic and keeps me from finding any "flow".

Err... I hope that's kind of what you're looking for...

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sure, looking for whatever you want to share man!

Anyway yeah, the whole "self defense" bit is actually about knowing how to 'not fight' rather than fight, if that makes sense. There's a continuum involve in the not fighting bit I think, if one is actually training for self defense, then physical technique should by definition be a really, really small part of that. Oddly..the larger part of it is similar in some way to meditation I think, confronting one egoistic reactions to human interactions that might spark violence, knowing how to detect, avoid, and circumvent situations that might give rise to anger or violence..in oneself and in others. That's the "meat" of self defense to me, not physical technique. Hopefully this can also translate to skillfull ways of interacting with others personally too, when one can see violence, anger, even simple contentiousness coming from far away in oneself or others, it is much easier to cut it off before it surfaces. I think though it's good to know the history of martial arts, and the history is pretty well tied tin with various kinds of violence, for better or worse. Even combat sport like wrestling was at one time training for militaries and such. Even the idea of a "pin" counting as a win in some grappling arts can be traced to some very morbid stuff. For me, knowing this fact allows me to be dispassionate about it, rather than trying to whitewash the violence of it, I don't mean to sound like I think it's good to obsess over it or anything. If one is training for any kind of self-improvement, it's something to be acknowledged in practice, but not glorified. For me a big part of training has also been the transformation of violent impulse and aggression, and I find that in that context it's helpful to keep the historical stuff in mind.

One of the nice things about striking training is all the stuff you do on your own in terms of practicing structure, eliminating telegraph etc. Literally more than a lifetimes worth of work right there if approached on the level of an "art" with no end point.

One thing I have found with partners, it is not easy to find partners who will go the golden mean of earnestly trying to beat you for mutual benefit, rather than trying to beat you to win for themselves. Judo at least teaches this as a philosophy outright, though still especially being connected to the Olympics, that philosophy seems now to takes a back seat to competition outright in most dojos. If you read some of the early works by Kano on Judo, while they are not Buddhist..they jive really well with Buddhist ideas I think, especially with regard to helping others. For this reason, for most of my later time in martial arts i've tried to only work with people I really trust to "turn up the volume" in training. It's hard enough trying to deal with my own garbage, if someone is training in a way where they don't even if think it's a problem, I usually assume we won't gel too well. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, not sure.

On the groundwork stuff..I have enjoyed what I have done of it. I can never imagine it being my primary thing, I am awful at it. However, it is insanely fun and very "playful" in the best way possible, there's also wonderful benefits in knowing how to fall without injury, and knowing how to move another body in a different way, the whole "soft" side of the arts I like more and more. I found I only got past the claustrophobia when I took my friends advice and made it about the claustrophobia, giving my partner big hugs!

[PorkChop]

...
Oddly..the larger part of it is similar in some way to meditation I think, confronting one egoistic reactions to human interactions that might spark violence, knowing how to detect, avoid, and circumvent situations that might give rise to anger or violence..in oneself and in others. That's the "meat" of self defense to me, not physical technique. Hopefully this can also translate to skillfull ways of interacting with others personally too, when one can see violence, anger, even simple contentiousness coming from far away in oneself or others, it is much easier to cut it off before it surfaces.

This is consistent with what I've experienced.
I've gotten very sensitive to my own moods and other people's moods.
It's why I hate sparring when the other person doesn't want to have fun with it or if I find myself reacting with emotion - even my own anger feels like poison.
I also tend to notice people's body language, like if they're looking for a fight, if they're paying attention to someone else in the room.
One of the last times I went out with my friends, I noticed a guy at the bar who's body language was screaming aggression & commented on it to my friends.
Later on he knocked out a dude in the parking lot as we were leaving (a guy who was so drunk he was out on his feet, mind you).

I agree that the goal is to be dispassionate about it.
I try to realize passion arising (in myself or others) in order to leave the situation, to stay calm in the face of a bad situation so I don't get wrapped up in it, and/or to still be able to function if I'm already wrapped up in it so I can find a way out of it.

I've studied quite a bit of martial art history.
The 3 sport arts I do are muay thai, sanshou, and boxing - all 3 used by various militaries in history.
Of those 3, sanshou best fits my concept of a real life situation because it blends striking with off-balancing (muay thai meets judo), which I believe is optimal in order to react & walk away from a situation gone bad.
Eventually though, I'll probably go back to taiji and/or hung gar mostly for health reasons.

re Groundwork: I've just had bad experiences with bad partners. If I find someone I trust & a good training situation I might.

[gregkavarnos]

I've studied quite a bit of martial art history.
The 3 sport arts I do are muay thai, sanshou, and boxing - all 3 used by various militaries in history.

Muay Thai (and especially Muay Boran) is not a sports art. It is a martial art.

[PorkChop]

I've studied quite a bit of martial art history.
The 3 sport arts I do are muay thai, sanshou, and boxing - all 3 used by various militaries in history.

Muay Thai (and especially Muay Boran) is not a sports art. It is a martial art.

True, the traditional (bare knuckle) form of Muay Thai that we do at my gym is Mae Mai Muay Thai Chaiya (master tricks from the south).
We use "Muay Thai" to refer to the ring sport.
Usually thought of Krabi Krabong as the battlefield art.
Mae Mai techniques will really mess someone up, a lot of it's just brutal.
Sanshou's focus on speed, getting positional advantage, and getting the heck out of there is more up my alley these days.

[lojong1]

re Groundwork

Keep It Playful Movement
Rener Gracie: the art of sparring vid
More time on the mat!

[GrahamR]

Aikido comes from Daito Ryu, which in turn comes from Jujutsu, which was a battlefield art. The techniques are not that much changed minus modern flourish.

Many of the techniques in Aikido are designed to dislocate shoulder joints, break wrists, drop people on the back of their head etc. It contains no hand strikes because for the most part neither did Jujutsu, why would it....swords and armor and whatnot. It does not lack strikes because it's more peaceful.

The fact that it is taught in a certain context or way does not mean that somehow you have "eliminated violence" from your martial art, there is no such animal, using martial arts on another human being means that if you have made the decision to not just run away and use it (almost alwayspreferable to just run) you have made the decision to end the fight, which means injuring them in some way, however minor. Not acknowledging this is just ignoring reality of martial arts, easy to do today because mostly we don't have to use them as they were designed.Something like Kote Gaeshi is anything but a "peaceful technique", it's meant to tear up someone's rotator cuff and dislocate the shoulder. Irimi nage? Welll, look at where the opponents head goes when you properly perform it..not exactly "peaceful" intention there. Whatever the philosophy of Ueshiba was.his own training was most definitely martial in nature..the difference was the WAY he taught, not what he taught.
<snip>

I think it depends how you are taught. If you are initially taught only to use techniques from counters that is the one step. If your sensei promotes non violence that is another step.

I have used koto gaeshi to remove an object from someone's hand and also to bring them to their knees. To me this is a peaceful action to prevent violence.

Again with irimi nage you can do it more as a discomforting warning push to off balance someone rather than a full throw.

Techniques like nikyo, sankyo and yonkyo can be used as restraints which cause no physical harm.

I would prefer to use these techniques rather than punch someone.

I have small children (3 and 6), I teach them tai sabaki and ikkyo from pushes, they can do this safely with each other.

I think if you have a good teacher who keeps out the bad students and teaches appropriate use of techniques, aikido is a safe and peaceful art. My former sensei would not welcome me to the dojo if they thought I would use what I had learned for violence.

http://www.northsideaikido.com/download ... ayings.pdf

With metta,

Graham

[Johnny Dangerous]

Using "peaceful" techniques is great..I have seen scarf hold/ kesa gatame end multiple would-be fistfights without a blow being thrown or anyone being injured.

However, this is only possible in some circumstances, in others, your choices are either essentially inflicting harm, running away, or a combination of the two. A fightfight or run up to one isn't always the same sort of category as self defense, people don't act the same, and tactics don't work the same IMO. Particularly techniques like nikkyo or sankyo when used as pain compliance are a whole different ballgame with a certain level of adrenaline involved.

Of course for first-worlders in their respective countries, most with high enough income don't really need to worry about this anyway, and of course there are a million things that are more important. Nonetheless, IMO it is naive to teach any art as if "self defense" means one thing, that can always be dealt with in the simple of manner of "don't hit someone", or dealt with using one level of response - in your example the lowest level. It's also completely untrue to associate arts that teach percussive fighting as somehow being more "violent" in terms of how they are taught.

Again I don't believe that grappling (which can certainly be used in a non-violent manner) is any less violent, it's just that the situations IT CAN be used less violently tend to not escalated situations where actual safety is in jeopardy, but situations involving non-violent restraint etc. - This is not the same kind of situation that many percussive arts were created for. For that matter, it is not the situation that most grappling arts were created for, Aikido included..though they can be used that way.

I would prefer to use these techniques rather than punch someone.

Sure, so would I. However, clearly personal preference is not the determining factor in personal safety though, other stuff comes into play that makes your preferences null and void. If you are actually trying to view your training through this lens of realism (rather than simply as recreation etc.) you have to have to acknowledge this stuff to some degree, in my opinion of course. On the other hand, if one just wants to do martial arts as recreation, that is great..and honestly probably the best thing for the vast majority of folks...but i'm not gonna confuse it with training that is trying to actually adhere to real world principles.

[GrahamR]

However, this is only possible in some circumstances, in others, your choices are either essentially inflicting harm, running away, or a combination of the two. A fightfight or run up to one isn't always the same sort of category as self defense, people don't act the same, and tactics don't work the same IMO. Particularly techniques like nikkyo or sankyo when used as pain compliance are a whole different ballgame with a certain level of adrenaline involved.

I remember a police officer and a black belt in karate relating how he kicked someone several times in the groin in an attempt to incapacitate him. The man was so steamed up it didn't stop him. After this incident he gave up striking techniques with violent criminals in favour of locks and holds to incapacitate the attacker as they were simply more reliable.

Most aikido techniques work very well on people with heightened adrenaline levels and they often do not feel the pain of blows but will rush forward and being focused on attack rather than their on safety are easily thrown. Holds against the joints are equally effective.

Graham

[PorkChop]

Most aikido techniques work very well on people with heightened adrenaline levels and they often do not feel the pain of blows but will rush forward and being focused on attack rather than their on safety are easily thrown. Holds against the joints are equally effective.

When it comes to cops, I have serious ethical issues with them using striking techniques; namely the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the possibility that the "perps" aren't the ones throwing the first shot.
While I agree with using joint locks when trying to subdue a suspect, I think it depends on the size of the joint.
I've seen a lot of small joint manipulation in Aikido.
I've broken fingers and toes in training without stopping, same goes for about 90% of Judo players, I can only imagine someone cranked up on PCP.

Your initial story smells of a cop losing his cool; I can't see any reason for kicking someone in the groin more than once or twice if it's not working.
Losing your cool's a major no-no. Even training with anger has long term harmful effects, this is common theory in Chinese medicine where anger can be harmful to the liver.

The biggest benefit of training striking for me is an intimate understanding of the mechanics of a strike, not necessarily an outgoing one either.
I can read punches and kicks in much the same way that most people can tell when someone's about to sneeze.
This lets me know to leave the situation, or at least lets me know how to avoid & off-balance in order to be able to leave a situation.
Like I said, I have to question the motive of a cop who's training not to subdue, but to inflict damage.

[gregkavarnos]

Most aikido techniques work very well on people with heightened adrenaline levels and they often do not feel the pain of blows but will rush forward and being focused on attack rather than their on safety are easily thrown. Holds against the joints are equally effective.

Throws? Yes! Most definitely. Pins? No! Especially if there is a large difference in weight and size between the attacker and the defender. In that case it becomes 100% necessary to strike first (normally to a soft spot) in order to proceed to the pin. Otherwise, fat chance of the pin working.

[Johnny Dangerous]

However, this is only possible in some circumstances, in others, your choices are either essentially inflicting harm, running away, or a combination of the two. A fightfight or run up to one isn't always the same sort of category as self defense, people don't act the same, and tactics don't work the same IMO. Particularly techniques like nikkyo or sankyo when used as pain compliance are a whole different ballgame with a certain level of adrenaline involved.

I remember a police officer and a black belt in karate relating how he kicked someone several times in the groin in an attempt to incapacitate him. The man was so steamed up it didn't stop him. After this incident he gave up striking techniques with violent criminals in favour of locks and holds to incapacitate the attacker as they were simply more reliable.

Most aikido techniques work very well on people with heightened adrenaline levels and they often do not feel the pain of blows but will rush forward and being focused on attack rather than their on safety are easily thrown. Holds against the joints are equally effective.

Graham

This is contrary to my experience, and also is not borne out by the experience of the vast majority of people I know who have worked security, Law enforcement, etc. using Aikido techniques as pain compliance rather than an actual trauma is effective mainly on semi-compliant individuals, which is why one finds them in police arts - they are for arrest of people who are kind of half-compliant, but do almost nothing against someone with real intent and no regard for pain. About the only solution for that is true incapacitation, running away, or shutting down the brainstem through trauma - such as hitting or twisting. Throws and takedowns can often be more dangerous than hitting, look up the statistics on the amount of fights/altercations where injury is caused by a head hitting the ground - which in fact is the original intent of many throws, they are altered in combat sport and practice to safely transition into pins and to preserve one's partner.

in addition, we have to consider the big picture of what we are talking about, the way a cop needs to operate is entirely different than the way we need to operate as civilians, the idea people have of restraining a truly violent attacker "nonviolenty", waiting for the authorities to show up etc. I have only ever seen in movie, and I consider it a martial fantasy for the most part.

As far as pain people can work through - that is the whole point, people can work through any kind of pain, people keep moving after being shot in the gut, much less having a pain compliance technique applied. So the use of pain as a compliance thing works in some situations, but is completely useless in others. What techniques you use is a tactical choice, it is not a moral one. That's what i'm getting at, if you actually want to do martial arts for realistic "self defense' then the moral bit comes completely from context, it has nothing to do with what techniques you use, only that you use the right ones at the right time.

Also what Greg says jives 100% to me, outside dojo/competition type environments etc..it is very hard to throw or pin someone without using striking. it can happen for sure, but again there you are talking about a "drunk uncle" type of altercation, a semi-complaint individual who is out of hand, not someone with no regard for their own safety - people like that are really where low level responses will fall apart.

[gordtheseeker]

Interesting discussion. I used to cross train (BJJ, wrestling, kickboxing, boxing) for many years and competed. I haven't for several years but have had the itch to start boxing again. Although I worry from a my new Buddhist perspective if that would be good for me or not. When I trained and competed it gave me a bit of an ego as well as attachment to the idea of what I was doing. I tried several times to quit, but couldn't because of the attachment and it was a cause of suffering. I wish I knew back then what I know now. Maybe now I will be better equipped to deal with it.

On another note, I as well never trained or competed with the intention to hurt anyone. Training with your sparring partners was always like friends hanging out, having a good time. Even competing there was mutual respect between opponents. I don't see the 'violence' that Buddhism is against as the same violence we see mostly in martial arts.

[gregkavarnos]

Just to put things in perspective check this out

[gordtheseeker]

Just to put things in perspective check this out