As
I am looking over message boards, and reading various blogs, I see a
whole lot of “Smoke”, and nobody's looking for the fires.
This isn't “just” with other groups or schools, our own students
do it as well.
In
everyone's great quest for “bunkai”, it's appearing as if
any bunkai will suffice (as long as you have
something). There are numerous motions, in various kata that
“I” certainly haven't a clue as to how they should/can be
interpreted. I'm sure I could come up with something for most
of them, but certainly not all.
I
don't spend my days fretting over whether or not I know an
interpretation for every kata motion. Some motions I know 3 or
4 interpretations for, and some I know nothing. It really boils down
to what motion, are you going to do in conjunction with that motion?
Is it first, last, second? What's your intent? What's their
intent?
The
general consensus seems to be, that if you don't know, then anything
else that you claim to know is suspect. I've reached the point in my
study, that one can believe anything they want to (for bunkai). I may
find that what someone is believing to be “bunkai” ridiculous, but
that's for them and I certainly don't have to agree.
Most
of what I'm seeing appears to be (often very) involved, if not
downright complicated. From my own perspective, I don't
believe that's how or why the kata were compiled. From listening to Oyata
speak about the kata motions, he was (more often) talking about a
principle, than an actual “technique”.
Much
like many of the seminars he used to hold, the techniques that were
taught/shown, were to convey an idea (of/for application), rather
than being a list of techniques for the attendees to learn.
I
was looking at a video of someone who was (attempting) to demonstrate
something that they had (learned?) been shown at one of Oyata's
seminars. I'm very familiar with the application, but what this
individual was doing was (IMO), too... flamboyant ?.
Having
seen a video of the seminar in question, I was able to watch how Oyata was
instructing those attending to perform the technique. This individual
had included (several) motions that had nothing to do with performing
the application, and then changed how the kata motions were to
be performed (evidently to “justify” what/how he was
showing the technique to be applied).
Though
not being the only example of this tendency, the person in question
had (changed) modified the kata motions so that his
interpretations would make more sense (at least to him). And this
person is certainly not the only one to do so.
Back
when Oyata still did “open” seminars (allowing persons from other
styles/systems to attend), he would demonstrate and explain his
teachings (in a very simplistic manner). This was (obviously)
being done to recruit new students to join his association.
Persons
who attended these “recruitment” fests, seem to believe that they
had (then) “trained” with Oyata. Not so much. They were exposed
to something different (from what they had been doing), but
unless they changed the remainder of their training, they
weren't experiencing the same manner of training (that Oyata was
exposing them to).
I
tend to believe that attending these seminars, was akin to attending
a “rock concert”. The fact that you went to several of them, and
can sing all the words to the songs, doesn't mean you were a member
of the band (and could write/perform songs like the band does).
Numerous
“groups” (or at least their “instructors”) claimed to of
studied with Oyata (at least for a little while). The majority
did so in order to “pad” their resume. Very few actually learned
anything (about his system), and the majority went right back(wards) to what
they had always been teaching (just that now, they can make the claim to
have studied Oyata's system).
Oyata
was continually improving his system. Though most systems will
(doggedly) emphasize their adherence to the past, Oyata was always
striving to improve his system. What was taught (even) 15
years ago, had been changed/modified by the time of his passing.
The
beginning motions/methods remained the same (basics are basics), but
the resultant system had been modified to produce a simpler manner of
execution.
The
public's perception of Oyata's methodology, has become a whirlwind of
repetitive “Knock-outs”. These were such a small part of
what Oyata taught, that it's almost embarrassing to bring them
up. Yet “that's” what all the amateur’s want to talk about
(Hell, they've put together whole “organizations” about “kyusho”
and how to “knock-out” people, LOL).
These
(types of) groups have nothing (really) to teach. They are only there
to make a few people some money, and retain their ability to
not (have to) get a “real” job.
Focusing
one's training on (any) “one” aspect of defense, is
self-defeating. Every situation is different.
To believe that (any) “one” technique will suffice is delusional
and
(defensively) dangerous.
The Guiding Principles that Oyata endorsed, state that a student
should...
“Take
care not to develop only your favorite technique, neglecting others,
because that will leave a weakness in your defense. Be cautious about
becoming too theoretical or technical because these too are
weaknesses”.
In
other words, “Don't ignore the Forest, For the Trees”. By
emphasizing these (“trivial”) aspects, one's entire defensive
methodology will suffer.
