Numerous individuals
inflate their association with recognized experts, regardless of the
field being addressed. This happens with diplomats/world leaders,
musicians, political figures and other popular individuals. It's done
as a way to legitimize
whatever the individual is promoting. Whether this equates to
promoting a business, a product or just as an attempt at legitimizing
whatever the individual is attempting to sell/promote. The falsehood
of that promotion is (generally) known to
those individual's who actually have
experience and associations with the stated individual's and/or
material.
Although this “problem”
occurs in numerous fields of study, it is particularly problematic
within the various martial arts. Throughout the years, it has been
accepted (whether rightly or not) that particular aspects of a
defensive methodology should be kept “secret” (from the general
public). There is a general belief that just having “knowledge of”
(something, I.E. that “secret” knowledge/ability), equates to
having the ability to utilize
that knowledge. This is commonly recognized as riding
the coat tails of
the acknowledged expert (who has
proven themselves to possess that knowledge).
Whether done for monetary
gain or only to inflate the ego of the perpetrator, it is (at best)
an exaggeration of
those abilities and/or knowledge, or it is an outright lie.
More often (than not), the claimed/stated knowledge and/or abilities
are more limited than
the individual would care to admit to (or even realizes). There are
individual's who (actually) believe
that they do possess
the claimed knowledge. If/when they “go public” with what they
know (or think they
do), They are commonly proven to be incorrect.
For the most part, persons
of this ilk are
ignored by the individual's who do
have knowledge of the stated/claimed knowledge. Those individual's
making the (commonly incorrect)
claim, will rarely present themselves (or whatever they're promoting)
for public
review/critique (if not simple
“questions”) in regards to the stated claim(s).
Individual's of this type
(who make numerous claims)
rarely (if ever) will meet with individual's who are (publicly)
recognized as having experience/knowledge with the claimed
knowledge/persons who the individual is claiming their (own)
association. If that association is confirmed,
what difference would it make? It would only increase
that individual's legitimacy. If that association was more limited
(than claimed), it would (obviously) cast doubt
upon the subject's claims.
There have been numerous
individual's who previously studied Oyata's methodology (at varying
times over the past 40 years) that have attended our classes. Those
individuals possessed varying degrees of knowledge (in regards to
what was instructed during the period of their claimed attendance).
The knowledge that they had was (generally) "correct", for
the time period that they
studied with him. The amount of that knowledge was commonly limited
to the amount of time that they (actually) studied with him (the
attendance of a “seminar” was not considered actual
“study/instruction”). Many had knowledge in regards to individual
aspects (such as what was commonly shown/demonstrated at a seminar),
but few had (any) amount of comprehensive (much less complete)
knowledge in regards to his later/final teachings.
“Open” Seminars were
not considered “training” (by Oyata). Their purpose was to
recruit student's (and demonstrate/expose attendee's to his
methodology). Many of those attendee's only sought to learn
motions/techniques to add/include with their (already) studied/taught curriculum's. To a limited extent, this could be achieved, but the
system that Oyata
taught was intended to include (all of) the numerous additional
aspects of his teachings (which were never completely included within
the provided seminars).
Many of Oyata's teachings
were in direct contradiction to commonly adhered to practices. The
use of the makiwara, sparring, stances, weapons, the list of those
differences is extensive,
yet individual's claim to have (full) “knowledge” of/in regards
to his system (after having only attended a few
of his early seminars?). During the final 10 +/- years (of his life)
Oyata only provided (training) seminars to his association's
membership. Though being restricted to the present (at the time)
"membership", those
seminars were intended to emphasize individual aspects of his
teachings. What was shown was intended to be incorporated into (the
attending student's) general
instruction. Oyata had ceased
any increase of his personal students. What was shown in those
(his own) classes was (intended)
to be passed on (by
those Yudansha) to the general student membership. A number of those
Yudansha choose not to
(readily) share that instruction (one can formulate their own
reasons why that was the case, IDK).
If/when someone (actually)
studied with Oyata
(personally) for 5 (or more) years, then they acquired a
decent/respectable
amount of instruction. Depending on the time/period
of that study, dictated what
was shown/learned.
As stated within his own
writings (and repeated within the writings of others, including
myself), Oyata was modifying/improving his defensive system
continually throughout
his life. He believed (as do/did many of the prior “masters”)
that “Te” was a continually
evolving and improving art. If/when it became "stagnant",
it would be surpassed by those systems that continued in that
improvement. This was why Oyata never ceased to improve his
methodology, Oyata would (readily) admit that "he" didn't
have all of the
answers/knowledge (for any/every question regarding the practice of
this art form). He expected his students
to continue with the advancement of that instruction. Oyata was not
afraid to "cease" those practices that were not (or proved
to be less than)
"productive", as well as those that were
"counter-productive". If/when he discovered/developed what
he believed to be an improved
method, and following extensive experimentation/research (often using
his Yudansha students as “Guinea Pig's”), he incorporated it into
his instructional methodology.
Oyata stated that there
was only “1” Te,
it was only being taught in varying
ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment