From: ras@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Shandross)
Subject: Re: Badass Karate (-Do?) -- note: lengthy post
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.194033.13755@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>Damien Kixk (kickda@studsys.mscs.mu.edu) wrote:
>: 
>:        I feel that the commercialization of the martial arts
>:   is grevious crime to the very martial spirit which was
>:   once the backbone of "the arts".  My reasons for feeling
>:   this way are uniquely mine -- since this is, by nature,
>:   very much of an opinion kind of a thing.  I feel that the
>:   capitalization of humankinds' skills, to turn what it is
>:   that a person can do into a commodity, is to fundamentally
>:   alienate humanity from itself.  Humankind becomes part of
>:   the very mechanism of capital which humankind itself created
>:   and the creator ends up serving its creation ...  This is
>:   a quasi-poetic attempt at voicing a bit of a neo-marxist
>:   view on the nature of captialism.  But not to stray to far
>:   afeild -- yes, I think that going commercial is a sell out.
>: 
>:        No wonder the old masters were reluctant to teach their
>:   art to outsiders ...
>: 
>
>
>I'll bet many in the newsgroup would love to find a master
>that would take them in and thoroughly teach them an art.
>However, the number of masters willing to do this is far
>fewer than the number of students wanting such instruction.
>Also those who are truly skilled can make a much more
>comfortable life for their families if they go "commercial"
>and offer to teach their skills for a fee to as many students
>as they can handle.  There is a benefit to the rest of us
>when they do that: they can reach many more students that
>way, thus making their skill available to more of us wanting
>to learn.  I admit it's not the best way to learn an art,
>and it certainly lends itself to abuse by shysters, but
>it gives the most people a chance to explore the martial arts.
>

This is a very complex question, and not being a master, I don't know that I
can put myself in one's place and know what they deal with and what kind of
perspective that level of skill endows.  But I have some ideas as to what being
"a master" means, and that has some bearing on the argument.

Being a master, as I see it, is being in touch with one's true self.  The art
is the *tool* the master uses to get there.  The question then becomes, "What
does the person's true self want to do with his or her life?"  For some,
teaching others is of prime importance.  For others, teaching makes no sense,
and they could do anything from being a janitor to being a high school
administrator, or maybe an official in a martial arts organization, or a
traditional doctor, or who knows what.

Damien seems to take the view that certain activities are "dirtier" than
others; in particular those involving money.  A true master is free, and
nothing he or she does is dirty because everything they do is from the heart
and they and everyone around them benefits from it.  We all have to work to
live - whether you find that to be true from the Bible or just observation on
life - and I have enormous respect for those who have found the occupation
which they love and which fulfills them.  Most of us feel that we are supposed
to hate our jobs, not love them, and we walk around miserable all the time.
The only thing that dirties us is our failing to search for that which we truly
love to do.  Should Frank Sinatra not sing for money?  George Burns tell jokes
in his living room and be an accountant instead?  The true professional gets
better and better because of the job (for example, compare our professional
basketball players to the non-professional Olympians).  The time to get out is
when it is *just* for money.

The sense I get is that the old masters - and some current ones - were
reluctant to teach their arts for a variety of reasons:  fear of others getting
stronger than they were (here I have to doubt if *those* were true masters,
though they may have been highly skilled; as I understand it, reaching higher
levels frees one from petty concerns like that); fear of students misusing the
art in the sense of hurting others; lack of students who might truly love the
art and thereby be able to accept it with a spirit which doesn't distort it; a
disinclination to teach or acknowledgement of the lack of teaching skills; or
any other reason which hinges on a belief that trying to teach to a particular
person would harm the art.  Also, a tradition of transmission within families
or villages.  (It's not easy to see through traditions.)  

And I understand that the decisions to teach more openly have come about for a
couple of reasons too:  fear that the art would die out if not spread...
especially with more sons and daughters deciding to hell with the old man's
ways, I'm going to make a buck; realization of the great power of the art to
help humanity and a desire to do so; the advent of modern weapons - bad folk
could just pick up a gun and do major harm now and would be less inclined to
study 20 years anymore; feeling a need to get fresh blood into the art to give
it more vitality and so it might benefit from other perspectives; and others.

*On the other hand*, there is no doubt that "going commercial" in the common
sense of the term, results in a lot of watering down, or potential watering
down, of an art.  I would expect that most real masters who do that are doing
so with the thought that what they are giving the average student is a set of
fancy calisthenics with the added benefit of increasing their odds of survival
in a fight.  And when they find a student who has the proper attitude and
discipline, they impart the art itself to that person.  As to the ethicality
(or whatever it's called) of this practice, I'd maintain that (a) the students
with lax attitudes and discipline are not really there to get the whole art
anyway, so they are getting what they paid for, and (b) there's nothing wrong
with making a living teaching beneficial exercises to people, and some people
love doing that - all the better that it's related to their beloved art, and
the serious students are their "icing on the cake."  But if all they are doing
is mass production black belt for $$ without really enjoying it and with little
care about the transmission of the art, I highly doubt they are really a master
as I define it.  Just a skilled hack.  It's amazing, but even *they* can turn
out a few people who eventually become real masters (elsewhere), because there
*are* people who's path in life includes the need to learn the true from the
"looks true" and these folks give them just that opportunity.

	Rich


Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts