I was recently viewing
various publicized versions of what is being taught as/for bunkai.
Technically, I suppose anyone's “guess” is as good as any other
(really). We don't know what the original creator's envisioned
the motions to of represented. What's being taught today is only what
recent practitioner's are speculating those motions to of
represented.
Having stated that, I do
feel that a lot of what's being taught (as being bunkai) is
cobbled together nonsense (that has neither practical
application, nor any beneficial study/practice value).
To qualify that opinion, I have to convey my own
interpretation of what/how bunkai is ascertained and interpreted.
First off, I view kata
motion(s) as having been assembled for convenience (for the
originator of the kata). Not being aware of what was going
through that individual's mind at the time (of the creation of the
kata), it's difficult to ascertain what their intent was (or
if there even was any particular intent) beyond
creating a (easily repeatable) sequence of motion for future
practitioner/student reference.
We can speculate
that the creator would of combined similar “idea's”,
“circumstances”, or “types” of techniques into a particular
kata, but that is (still) only a guess. They could (easily) of
just been the favored techniques of “that” creator
(thereby justifying the need for additional kata to be
taught).
It's (already) known that
the master's (of old) only taught a few kata to their own
students. Only since the capitalization of “Te” (via
Japan, the U.S. As well as numerous “other” western countries)
has the preference for for a larger number of kata (to be
taught to students) been propagated.
Instructor's of old,
(each) had their own beliefs as to what was necessary to be learned for Life-Protection. This was not that much
different from today (there's just a LOT more instructor's that are
pushing their own beliefs instead of effective ones).
Today's instructor's just seem to believe that “theirs” is the
only way.
I'm sure that many of
those (various) “ways”, are perfectly acceptable (for
their stated purpose), I just believe that what someone
is “proposing” as being what a system should be instructing to
students to do, should hold-up to outside scrutiny.
I also do not believe
that every system, can (or even should) be
successfully performed by every student (of that
system). I believe that is one of the major problems
with “advertized” instruction of the martial arts today.
Prospective students are
not being guided towards the defensive systems that would best
serve them. All methodology's are not created equally
(and for good reasons). They weren't designed to be used by
the same (types of?) people, nor for the same results.
Yet every instructor that
I've heard selling (preaching) their particular style/system,
will claim that it was designed to be utilized by
anyone. And I have to say, Bullshit.
I tend to believe that
every system was designed (specifically) for a particular individual (type?),
and to deal with particular
circumstances. That system may well of been (able to
be) utilized by a number of other (similar) individual's, but
initially, it was designed for just that one individual, or type
of individual.
Any systems value,
lay in it's ability to be utilized by a wider selection of
(other) individual's. But that doesn't mean (automatically)
that it can be used efficiently, by every individual.
I understand the debate
about (individual) “techniques” and/or how they're being
taught/utilized (in regards to their effectiveness). But that debate
has to include the physical attributes of the prospective
student as well.
This will have a direct
influence on how “Bunkai” will (or should) be determined
from the kata motions. By “attributes”, I'm not (necessarily)
referring to physical strength. Any system that depends on
physical strength (IMO), is flawed to begin with, and
shouldn't be considered a viable Life-Protection system.
When determining Bunkai,
there should be established “standards” as well. It would appear
that those standards vary, depending on what one determines to
be “valid” bunkai.
For myself, motions that
do not illustrate a purpose (meaning a valid
application), should not be considered to be bunkai. The question
then becomes what is “valid”.
For training purposes,
every motion should be considered to be applicable. It is our
purpose (thru our training), to establish the purpose
of each performed motion.
The majority of the
motions that I saw being illustrated on the videos that I watched,
were simplistic, and rarely “realistic” (at all).
Their main “purpose” was to promote their interpretations
(thus promoting themselves). Their standard “CYA” is to
claim that some motion is “basic” (or intermediate and/or
even “advanced”). This allows one “wiggle-room” to backtrack
or change one's story at a later date (ie. When it's
demonstrated to be ineffective).
Within the posted videos,
the motions (techniques?) I observed were riddled with extra and
unnecessary motions. Those motions only apparent purpose, was
to illustrate the instructor's supposed ability/knowledge.
When deciphering the
motions, they should accomplish the desired effect in the most
productive and effective manner possible. This should be done without
any extraneous (non-productive) motions that do not produce
effective/productive results.
Kata motions (bunkai)
should not be interpreted as “set-up” motions or be for producing
responses that don't accomplish any effects that don't directly
result in an aggressor's (probable) neutralization.
If a debilitating result
doesn't occur within 3 motions, the technique should be considered
invalid (being considered too long to
accomplish the task).
That premiss is
repeatedly illustrated within the Naihanchi kata, and within all
of the instructed kata. If an interpretation is shown to be a
“sparring” technique, then it is some instructor's wet-dream
interpretation (having no value for Life-Protection).
Techniques that provide
effective application are rarely (if ever) “Pretty” or stylish.
They only perform a required function (commonly the
neutralization/immobilization of an aggressor and/or their attempted
action).
Correctly combining those
kata motions should not entail extra (unnecessary) actions (that
don't directly produce an effective result).
Though the movements often
contain all of the necessary actions to do so, motions from other
kata are often incorporated as well.
My own evaluation of the
Pinan kata, is that (because) they are composed of motions from the
traditional kata (and are thereby redundant). The
motions shown within them are already present in the
traditional kata, so I don't (always) feel they need to be taught as
well.
My own interpretations
are that they were developed to be utilized as stepping stones
(to performing the traditional kata), but in fact, are creating
hindrances to proper technique application (through the
inaccurate interpretation of the involved motions).
And why do I say that?
Look around at the emphasis made on sparring techniques (as
being the “interpretations” that are most often presented as
“bunkai”). These are wishful thinking (only). When the
original (traditional) kata were developed (which the Pinan
were derived from), there was no sparring (why would motions
pertaining to it of been included?).