|
Ritualised Techniques in Internal Martial Arts
Or “That Wouldn’t Work in a Real Fight!”
by Mike Hart
There are probably so many techniques in martial arts that it would be impossible to count them and that’s not including the ones that haven’t been invented yet. In my years of training martial arts, both internal and external, I have encountered some techniques that would appear to have no martial value at all, so what is the purpose or function of these ‘martial’ techniques. It’s probably something that you have experienced from time to time, seeing a new technique being taught and thinking to yourself “Well, that wouldn’t work in a real fight!” Am I right? Haven’t we all experienced that at some time or other?
So the question is that, if the technique is from a reputable system (maybe yours) but appears useless in a physical engagement, then why did the founder invent the technique? What purpose or function does it have in the system if it ‘won’t work in a real fight’? Is it possible that we’re missing something, some fundamental skill or state of being that can be accessed through the ritualised practice of this technique, if it’s taught and practised correctly? If the art has been passed down over a long period of time maybe some essential part of how the technique is performed has been lost. Essential elements may be missing from the routine, such as a specific mindset or kinesthetic awareness.
Now, stay with me for a little while, because I’m not suggesting that the technique has martial value in a physical, “take your opponent out with minimum fuss” sense, but what I am suggesting is that there may be some subtle skills or abilities that could be learned from the technique, if it was taught in it’s original form and with the original mindset that it was meant to be taught. As most of us have never studied with the founder of a system (they being mostly deceased) how do we know what was originally intended when they invented these particular moves for us to practice in a certain way.
In my experiences with Peter Ralston and Gordon Faulkner, I have come to realise that the techniques have a lot of value, but not in the application for combat sense. They are more like exercises to teach something beyond the physical. Consider that they may teach and train relational or perceptive skills for example. It is possible that the exercise may enhance your sensitivity to your partner’s position, balance or direction of movement. We may learn how to manipulate our partner’s mind and body; in fact, we may even begin to notice our partner’s mind and body! Any or all of these would help us to fight more effectively and this is not an exhaustive list of possibilities, just the tip of the iceberg. It would be useful for ourselves and our art if we could try to understand exactly what the purpose of the technique is. If not directly martial, i.e. to take out the opponent, then what else can it possibly be trying to teach us? If this technique or training exercise is an original one developed by the founder of the art, then surely they invented it with some purpose.
Many people that I have known over the years have disregarded and even thrown out such training exercises from their arts and maybe they have thrown away an invaluable training tool, simply because they did not truly and deeply understand its purpose or function. Perhaps their teacher didn’t explain the purpose, or maybe they didn’t know the purpose because they too were not taught it correctly by their teacher. This, I believe, is how exceptional (and not so exceptional) martial arts die out. Students will sometimes become teachers who become “knowers” and think that they have a right to interfere with an art that they nowhere near fully comprehend yet. This, I’m sure, does a great disservice to martial arts in general. With such a lack of understanding, these people have no real place in the evolution of an art, although at the time their work may be considered ground breaking.
My teachers always encourage me to question what they teach. If I don’t understand something they expect me to ask them to clarify or explain what they are doing. We are generally at the mercy of our teachers to a certain extent, we trust them to teach us and we trust that they have the necessary knowledge to guide us on our path to mastery. An example of the questioning I’m encouraged to participate in may be along these lines:
If my teacher says that “This exercise is good for the liver.” then I need to ask why, for my own understanding of the function or purpose of the exercise. I know from experience that if the teacher says “Well, because it stimulates the meridian” then I should regard that as an excuse not an answer. The teacher, to my mind, doesn’t really know how or why the exercise works, otherwise they could tell me which points on the meridian are stimulated and how those points affect the organ and the system. Statements like “This is the way we do this movement.” should trigger the question “Why do we do it that way?”
So, what I’m suggesting is that when we encounter these techniques, we should try to see beyond the technique, that we should be more open to other possibilities. There is a chance that this “technique” or exercise will teach us invaluable skills and abilities as a martial artist, even if these aren’t obvious at the time we learn it. I mentioned a few skills earlier on but I would also like you to consider some of the following skills; listening, joining, following, borrowing, outreaching, interpreting, complementing, sticking and yielding to name a few more. Which techniques in your system train these skills? Why not try to find out?
A lot of martial artists practice a technique many, many times in the hope that this will become a reflex reaction to a certain attack. Understand here that I’m talking of fighting, not self-defence. Self-defence is in a different category. The context of fighting that I’m talking about implies a willingness to participate in the situation, rather than a need to avoid or deal with the conflict. After years of training many of us like to test ourselves against other martial artists, to see how good we are. In this scenario you have a choice, for self-defence you may, but generally, don’t have a choice.
Now, let’s get back to the reflex reaction. You don’t have to think about it, you just do it. This is what you’ve trained for – the “no-mind” boxing state that you’ve heard talk of for years! Well I don’t think that this is that state of mind. What we don’t understand is that the “no-mind” state comes from a calm disposition, open awareness and heightened sensitivity, and what we have achieved with reflex reaction arises from a fearful state of mind. It is panic. Fear has a contracting, closing nature, our sensitivity lessens considerably. Our awareness closes down to only the immediate danger and somehow manages to deal with it. Why do I say this - because it’s never consistent, it doesn’t work 100% of the time, only at random. To truly respond to an attack, calmly, takes awareness of yourself and your opponent, awareness on your environment, enhanced sensitivity and perceptive skills and the ability to “relax under fire”.
The training of some of these apparently worthless techniques (I prefer to call them exercises), may go a long way to developing these skills if they are taught and understood in a skillful interaction context, not in a “stamp them down” context. You should understand why you are training these exercises, so ask.
I hope that this article has stimulated you into exploring your art deeper than you may have considered doing before and I hope that you have the same deep satisfaction that I get when I practice and study my chosen arts. If you have any questions or feedback please feel free to contact me at mike.hart@ntlworld.com or phone on 01792 415310 / 07901 870499
|
