Over the span of almost 28 years, I have trained with a wide variety of Bujinkan teachers. From some I've learned quite a lot, from some I've picked up some new perspective or technique and from others I've learned nothing at all. Yet, for all of them I am deeply thankful for their time and knowledge, as it all helped me in some way.
In the Bujinkan, there are very few standards when it comes to quality. We are not held back from exploring and venturing off on our own. For the most part, I believe we all veer off in some way to follow our own interests and ambitions. For many, it's a brief interlude and we return to our path having gained something, whether the experience was a mistake in judgment, an added skill set or that it provided a new way to look at what we have been doing already. For some, this also translates into what is taught in the dojo. Some instructors bring their outside experience and knowledge into their teachings, whether they find it fills a hole or deficiency, adds a new element to the training, or that it is pure ego-driven ambition to be a maverick or corner the market in some new, enlightened way.
And it's amazing how much bickering and finger pointing goes on in regards to what is "right" or "wrong", who is training and teaching the "real" Bujinkan, and so on.
Aside from the ones which are downright wrong or completely different, there are many reasons for such variance in the teaching methods and styles which exist. Just because someone teaches and trains differently than someone else doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. There are factors to consider when looking at such things.
The funny title to my article highlights what I mean. We may both agree that there is a tomato sitting in front of us. However, I may pronounce it "toh-may-toh" and you say "toh-mah-toh". I may call it a fruit. You may call it a vegetable. I may like a raw tomato, but hate it cooked. You may hate a raw tomato, but love it cooked. At the end of the day, what we're debating over is still a tomato, no matter how we pronounce the name, how we categorize it or choose to eat it. It's always still the same.
Now, if I put an orange on the table and told you it was an apple, we would have a genuine argument based on merit. An orange and an apple are different on all levels except one, that they both are fruit. Outside of that, they are different in color, texture, chemical makeup, DNA, cell structure, glucose level, and on and on. So, we could both agree that we are enjoying a fruit, but we definitely are not enjoying the same kind of fruit.
And if I'm going to make orange juice, I'd be a fool to think I can do it with an apple! (And visa versa)
There are literally thousands of those in the Bujinkan who are teachers, whether they have formal dojo schools or small shibu training groups. You can visit one after another and most likely each one will be different than the next. Some differences might be drastic while some are minor. But, they are all different because the teacher has his/her own unique way and the training they provide is influenced by that.
The trick is in knowing if what you are doing, the teacher you are training with, is trying to convince you an orange is an apple. Just because they might be training in martial arts does not guarantee that it is accurately Bujinkan martial arts, any more than eating a piece of fruit does not guarantee that you are eating an apple or an orange. But, if what you are being taught has the same components, same DNA, same cell structure, same parts on every level - but just looks different or trained differently, you can rest assured you are still likely training in the same art. It's just pronounced differently.
Something that is important to understand when training with a teacher or mentor is that their taijutsu evolved along their own natural abilities and capacity. For instance, a large, muscular man will have no problems using their size and strength to influence the effectiveness of their technique. Same with elusive, smaller teachers and mentors who seemingly can disappear within a technique and hit you where you can't see (not to imply larger teachers haven't developed the ability to do this, either, but it takes more training). They all use their natural, God-given abilities that have evolved parallel to their growth in the martial art they study.
This natural evolution will greatly affect their teaching, too, as most people teach what they learned and how they move. You can see this in each teacher's class. Some are natural grapplers and prefer going in close. Some are natural strikers and prefer to keep distance to use their limbs. Some are weapon oriented and train at those ranges. Some are elusive. Some are solid as a rock. Some are natural acrobatics. All of them will emphasize their talents in what they bring to teach. Those students who share a commonality with the teacher will evolve naturally in that direction. Those who are different will struggle to evolve, to the degree they are different. But, it is still good to experience a difference, to learn skills that are not naturally ingrained or part of our hardwired tendencies. I'm more referring to long term training and who we will subconsciously migrate towards.
Yet, even with differences in how each teacher is in their own natural state and what differences this brings to what and how they teach, they (and we, for those of us who do teach) should still all be teaching the same art. It all should still be a tomato, no matter how we choose to pronounce it or think of it as a fruit or vegetable. It doesn't matter.
But, if we're training and teaching in something so different that it's no longer the same, it's foolish to try and think (and convince others) that you are offering an apple when, in fact, you are offering an orange.
I hope my analogies are not too ridiculous, but I hope you can understand the meaning behind my words.
Gambatte Kudasai!
No comments:
Post a Comment