Thursday, September 29, 2011


  Well, it's been a while since I've done any ranting about some of the stupid stuff I read on the Internet. I had kind of (hoped really) thought that the “Kyusho-Point” craze was over (for a while), but I had someone write me about Patrick Mc-whoever's book regarding the Bubishi.
  Strangely enough, I actually have this book, LOL. It had been a few year's since I thumbed through it, so I did so (yet again). It's still as un-informative as it was the last time I looked at it.
  The majority of the book is personal opinion (of the author, and of interviewed individual's. All of which, have an agenda. “$$”). Whether I agreed with any of the author's opinions/conclusions or not, is really irrelevant. But I was asked my opinion, so here it is.
  The Bubishi is about as relevant to anything that I do or teach, as a Betty Crocker Cook Book. The text is laced with irrelevant Acupuncture trivia, that has no correlation to anything that I do or teach. The included attempts at identifying “point” locations, are useless (and/or wrong). Basic Locations that I and/or my student's regularly utilize are not even shown/identified.
  Being familiar with (actual) Acupuncture “texts”, the manner which that information was presented was confusing at best (if not misleading).
  IMO, this text was published in the hope of profiting off of the “kyusho-craze”, and the lack of accurate information in regards to that subject (for which this text contributes nothing in adding to and/or correcting what is already available elsewhere).
  Basically, the book is an opinion piece. Take it for what it's worth. I've never felt the Bubishi amounted to anything more than a propaganda tool of misdirection, misinformation and general distraction. The included writings are basically quotations of popular martial arts sayings. I've never seen anything revolutionary or (even) “special” about anything that's (ever) been translated from it.
  I was curious as to “his” translations of the Chinese writings (in regards to the included sketches). They weren't exactly consistent throughout the text ? Considering that the original kanji wasn't included (throughout), it's difficult to determine how accurate his translations are (or if they were even complete).
  There are several versions of this text available (beyond this author's). This one is neither better, nor worse than any of the others, and IMO, they're all useless if one's intention is to discover/confirm actual Kyusho point locations. From a historical perspective, your provided with the author's viewpoint (again, take it for what you think it's worth).
  This text suffers from the standard western fallacy of “it must be true/accurate (just) because it's Chinese” How, or even Why that became a popular belief is beyond my own understanding. There's been plenty of Chinese teachings/beliefs that have been proven to be false and/or inaccurate before, so what makes this one any different?

No comments: