Without Writing

The art of writing without writing… about fighting.

Skillfulness and Unskillfulness

Buddhism has long been associated with the Chinese martial arts. There is an old legend (often wheeled out erroneously as a fact) that some of the first organised forms of Chinese martial arts were born when a buddhist bodhisattva (a person who has totally dedicated themselves towards seeking enlightenment and liberation) from India came to China and taught the monks of a temple called Shao Lin (Mountain-forest) the rudiments of buddhist breathing meditation.

This prototype “Chi Gung” or “Energy work” became the basis of the increasingly demanding physical workouts for the monks, which (so the legend says) evolved into martial forms of Shaolin Gung Fu, which then evolved into various southern and northern styles of Gung Fu, and were re-worked and exported to other nations such as Indonesia, the Phillipines and Japan.

While often the buddhist origin story has been forgotten and discarded from styles and arts, there has been a buddhist component to some derivatives of Chinese martial arts ever since. All direct derivatives of Shaolin styles up to the present day’s San Shou, Wing Chun and Hung Kuen can trace some line back to this buddhist origin story. In this article, I wish to explore one of the concepts from buddhism which is most applicable to the study of a practical topic like combat. This concept is: skilfulness versus unskilfulness.

The main goal for the Buddhist is to reach Nirvana. Perhaps the best translation of the word Nirvana is “liberation”, meaning the freedom from the cycle of desire and suffering, death and rebirth which- the buddhists believe- plagues all beings except the enlightened.

Buddhists believe that only one’s own mental and spiritual self-development will lead to freedom from this negative cycle; there is no external saviour. One saves oneself, or one is not saved at all. The counterpoint to this is that only you yourself are your own jailer as well as potentially your own saviour. Either you hasten and strive towards nirvana, or you keep yourself chained to the negative cycle of life and the death that inevitably follows life, desire and the pain that inevitably follows desire.

A second major goal for a buddhist is to embody loving kindness; to be compassionate to others and to foster peace and self-improvement among others.

In the buddhist tradition, when one does immoral and/or harmful things to others, the main focus is on the negative impact on oneself. By stealing from or hurting others, one tightens the chains of desire and pain that bind one to the wheel of suffering. In this fashion, in the Buddhist tradition, “evil” and “good” are de-emphasised as concepts when it comes to one’s actions in the world. They are replaced with the idea that one’s behaviour is either kusala (skilful) – that which leads towards one’s goals of being compassionate and attaining nirvana, or akusala (unskilful), that which does not lead towards one’s goals. In other words, as the Buddha’s teachings state, it is in one’s own self-interest to behave compassionately and ethically to others.

Now, having said all this, the usefulness of such a mindset based on the counterpoints “skilful” and “unskilful” should become obvious, even if one is not a buddhist. This is a mindset in which all behaviour is easily classified as being either useful or counterproductive, and a mindset in which one takes total responsibility for one’s actions- and their repercussions- in the world. If martial artists took this lesson on board and strove to attain this mindset, there would not be so many misinterpretations of what constitutes “Self-defence”, there would be fewer “martial” cults and frauds, and there would be less frustration amongst martial artists who desire physical skill but have chosen an obviously wrong method of attaining it (e.g: the majority of styles of Karate, effectively all Aikido, and most Gung Fu practice too).

As regards self-defence, a skilful/unskilful mindset would lead one to define self-defence as an action or set of actions that most efficiently and expediently ensures one’s safety from attack. The common (and erroneous) idea of what constitutes self-defence is… a fight. A fight like the fights in the movies, where the good guy stays around to put a beatdown on the bad guy. In the real world, the good guys should run away, in case the bad guy pulls a knife, a gun or his bad-guy mates arrive. Why? Because the goal in self defence is to defend your life, then your health, then your property, in that order of priority (and property is not important at all compared to the first two).

As regards martial frauds and cults, it seems to me that one of the defining character flaws that allows one to be hoodwinked by a cult leader is a desire to give up responsibility for one’s decisions. In order to be skilful however, one must take responsibility for determining what course of action will speed one towards one’s goals, oneself.

And lastly as regards the selection of training methods, the skilful/unskilful mindset promotes a dispassionate view of what is practical and what is not. If one keeps in mind that one’s goal is to become a better martial artist through the only means practically possible: By becoming a better fighter, one will not train with Sid Sofos, Steven Seagal, George Dillman, Ashida Kim or any other fraud, and one will not study Karate, Aikido or any of the other non-martial arts that litter the globe.

If one genuinely takes responsibility for one’s own destiny, one is forced to practically and dispassionately determine what is skilful and what is unskilful, and then to discard the latter in favour of the former.

2 responses to “Skillfulness and Unskillfulness

  1. scotto 2012, September 24 at 5:54 am

    ‘Compassion’ and ‘skillful means’ are used as interchangeable terms in Buddhism – I agree with the thrust of what you’re saying. Also I have a kind of a question – much of the time it doesn’t seem very skillful to even talk about one’s art as martial, or whatever – so in other words the best thing to do most often is to keep it to yourself. Doesn’t this mean that one would not be oriented towards contests, or self-publicity, or wanting to prove whose is the ‘best martial art’? This isn’t intended as a criticism of your site or your writings, which I actually have found very interesting. It’s more a question about the wider martial arts scene.

    • withoutwriting 2012, September 24 at 4:29 pm

      Your comment is much appreciated, thanks.

      I must admit, as someone who came into the martial arts due to a desire to learn self defence, I actually had… and still have… a little bit of contempt for act of competition and for the competitive drive in people.

      Competition is almost always driven by ego. The majority of competitors in every sport want to be “the best”, and want to prove themselves to be “the best”. There’s a destructive, mean-spirited mindset in every competitor, dedicated entirely to foiling and beating their opponents. This is actually a very negative state of mind, and one that can be harmful outside the sporting arena. One only has to look at the microcosm of the “jocks” in American schools to see what kind of bullying, amoral society would result if competition was set up as an ideal for us all.

      In fact, scratch that, one can simply look at the cut-throat world of international business to see what kind of horrible destruction and pain will result from a society that’s based on competitive drive and lionises success in competition. In this case, financial competition.

      In an ideal world, no-one would compete or feel the need to compete.

      However, this is not an ideal world. As a practical man, I am forced to admit- as much as I may dislike the idea- that competition is the only way for a martial artist to hone certain essential tools in his or her arsenal.

      Other practical arts have no need for competition; electricians can practice their work by building electrical devices. Architects can design structures. Mathematicians can use their blackboards… etcetera. But martial arts are the arts of physically dominating other human beings. Without making a concerted attempt to dominate other people in competition, one would have no regular training at all, and one would be left with mere theory.

      And theory by itself is not practical.

      As for self-publicity etcetera… This is more part of professional competition than it is amateur competition. And while I may have an ethical problem with competition, I REALLY hate professional competition. Because money corrupts the art, and the more money that’s involved, the more corrupted the art becomes.

      You only have to look at the UFC’s bonus system to see a system where the promotion is trying to dictate how the athletes compete. And you only have to look at professional boxing to see how utterly mismatched some competitors can be, in order to “protect” a marketable fighter.

      So in short, competition is a must, although it is spiritually not ideal. Professional competition shouldn’t be allowed in my view. Not for combat sports. And lastly, which martial art is the best martial art? Well someone who knows a range of martial arts reasonably well can beat someone who knows one martial art very well. On the other hand, some arts are already mixtures, e.g: Sambo. And sometimes it’s altogether the other way around, sometimes the specialist wins. Competition has proved the unpredictability of this. The best martial art is therefore called *fighting*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: