A DOJO OATH

[Seth Rosenblatt]

No offense to those who have been participating in this discussion, but I just finished reading the entire thread. Please, go back and reread your words.

An oath or chant of any sort, in any context, is used to bring people together. Ostensibly, not a bad practice. However, it has always been my understanding that the non-physical gifts we receive in the dojo - respect, honor, confidence - are gifts that are best self-taught. How do you teach confidence? How do you teach respect? You can't. The only thing you can do is act a certain way, and hope that others pick up on your example.

Example: if you are asked to perform Sanchin in front of a class, if you walk up to the cetner of the dojo with trepidation and nervousness, your fellow karateka will pick up on this - likewise if you act with confidence. But telling somebody to 'be confident' does not actually impart upon the person *what* confidence is.

What a reciting a dojo kun does has nothing to do with imparting values, and everything with imparting the ability to recite words. Whether or not they have meaning does not reflect on your ability as a martial artist, and certainly has no impact on your behavior in the street.

I hope this rant hasn't come off as too harsh, but I think we really need to re-evaluate what we're talking about here.

[Panther]

What martial arts instructor is teaching students "how to kill"?!?! That person is a danger to the arts and heading for one heck of a lot of legal troubles!

Martial arts instructors and firearms instructors that I know, and myself when I taught, all taught based on the same principles... Self-defense! They (I) teach students that any use of force is predicated on stopping the imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm (garbage-mouth does not fit into that category ) and that once the threat is stopped, there is no more need for any self-defensive use of force. So, while martial arts (and other defensive measures) can certainly, permanently injure, maim or even kill, that is not the purpose in their use... defending yourself or innocents is the purpose. The injuring of the attacker is only a necessary (and perhaps unfortunate) by-product on occasion. A by-product, by the way, created by the attackers own actions. Most often, an attacker facing someone who is ready, willing and able to defend themselves will gain instant "enlightenment" and reevaluate their decision/desire eliminating the need for someone versed and trained in defending themself from the need to actually do so.

Will any recitation of "rules of engagement" stop someone trained that turns into a monster? I seriously doubt it. I _really_ like Coach Blauer's method of giving the legal ramifications associated with certain actions. That is the method employed by many instructors that I know. Also, it is and always will be incumbant on each instructor to be watchful for the individual who's training purpose is for use as an offensive, aggressive street-thug. With the amount of time that an instructor spends with each student between day1 and san-kyu, the instructor should have a pretty good idea where that student is headed. Granted there are those that can fool the best psychologists, but generally, there are indications long before a student reaches black or even brown belt. (Just MHO)

[Seth Rosenblatt]

Tony-san,

I could be wrong but I think you were agreeing with my position. I was NOT advocating dojo kun.

/.s./

[DavidT]

No....I'm right(j/k)

------------------
"Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos. Before a Great person can begin something brilliant, they must look follish to the crowd."--I Ching

[JOHN THURSTON]

HI;

I printed out and read all the great responses.

I feel the Martial Arts are a way of life. The humanists (starting with Socrates perhaps) (correct me if I am wrong) believed that Man could improve himself, without a "deity" and that this was worthwhile.

In this sense the Arts are independent of religion, cant, mind control, BS, fake oaths etc., etc..

We would not and could not in the West, of course, accept a Martial Art (generally) that tried to foist religion on us in a Martial guise. Although it has been tried. (Je Chi Christian Karate, Rockland, Mass.)

It should be noted that that tilt did not make for bad Karate (or better Karate).

However, the Art without a "Dojo Kun", interpreted in this 'humanistic' sense would, not to put too fine a point on it, be shallow.

I say this in the sense that the Art is intended to improve one, and and underlying code of proper behaviour is implied or, in the case of Uechi and Shotokan, explicit.

Mind Control.? Well, has your life been altered (and/or your mind) because of the principles implicit and explicit in Uechi and the the arts you study?

If yes, well that could be 'mind control', but as noted, it is learnt and absorbed and not a 'veneer'.

If you have not been affected----why not??

What I was suggesting has been done, in small effect, by the virtue of the fact that we ARE discussing the Dojo Kun and the guides the art gives us for life.

Of course reject what seems false to you and yourself.

If it is false, it is not part of 'self improvement'.

Naturally do not adopt or shout creeds that are contrary to this.

But the Dojo Kun are NOT negative and they are part of us.

Thanks.

John

------------------

[JOHN THURSTON]

Tony San:

Yang="Shallow Brooks Make Noise"

Yin="Still Waters Run Deep" ?

Perhaps we are all always trying to decide which we wish to be?

The imagery which could spring from your last post is endless-neat!

JOHN



------------------

[JOHN THURSTON]

Tony:

More, the conflict and run of the tides between Yin and Yang is in us, the art etc., etc..

But this is a discussion of "A Dojo Oath".

No false Oath would stand.

No American Okikukai (Shohei-Ryu thread) would dare to suggest or amend the Dojo Kun.

Perhaps each major OKK dojo on Okinawa has its own version and different ways of addressing the matter.

I will talk to my Senior (Jack Summers) and get a feel for what they do 'over there'.

Thanks

John

------------------

[Brian Barry]

Some of you have said that it is not the dojo's responsibility to cultivate any type of moral values in students, but I ask that you at least consider this:
Students are being trained to use their bare hands as possibly lethal weapons. Should not students, who are taught to kill, also be taught certain principles of practice, such as:
"A karate practitioner must never, even when drinking, call upon his strength in a quarrel, speak harshly, act roughly, or become troublesome to others."

How can you teach someone to kill without also teaching them to only use that ability only when it is an absolute neccessity?

--Brian


------------------


"Evil flourishes where it is not opposed, and those who are able to oppose it must protect those who cannot protect themselves."

[Jake Steinmann]

Brian,
I don't think anyone ever advocated not teaching students when it is appropriate to use their skills. Again...always should have a moral, ethical, and legal foundation for your actions. Otherwise, you turn into a thug.
The issues here are 1) The particular methodology, namely a chanted group oath and 2) At what point are we, as instructors, crossing the line from teaching proper use of force to teaching MORALITY.
We are martial arts instructors (or Defensive Tactics, or whatever). It is not our responsibility to raise the people who come into our schools...it's our responsibility to teach them martial arts (or self-defense, or whatever).
How far should we go? As Bill noted earlier...it's hard to tell.
For my part, I think swearing oaths is a step to far.

Jake

------------------
Defeat is worse than death. You have to live with defeat - Seal Team Slogan

[Brian Barry]

Jake,
I agree. A sworn oath is a bit overboard. Kinda why I like my school's student creed. It basically just says that we intend to (not swear to, but intend to) develop positive habits and use what we learn constructively, not abusively. No huge moral code, but a couple ethical and moral principles to keep in mind and do your best to accomplish. And no, we don't chant our creed every class, but are asked to be familiar with it.

--Brian



------------------


"Evil flourishes where it is not opposed, and those who are able to oppose it must protect those who cannot protect themselves."

[JOHN THURSTON]

Tony San:

I would never have heard the phrase "Dojo Kun" (Dojo Morals) had I not read CW Nicole's "Moving Zen-Karate As A Way to Gentleness". Unfortunately the book is OUT of print. I lent my copy out and = sayonara book.

I placed and out of print order for it at Amazon, and they said no joy.

It is definitely worth reading, perhaps you can find it at your library.

Two "Dojo Kun: were printed in this "topic" both excellent.

What gives? How did you miss it being a righteous dude? I don't know for sure but: a. nobody knows everything b. early instructors I had never mentioned it to me, being preoccupied with the 'physical', so, therefore c. I had to find it myself.

These forums help. I have learnt a great deal from Evan, Van, Mike, Jake, Panther, Sensei Bill, Gem, and all the other moderators and members.

Is this an adequate answer?

John

------------------

[BILLY B]

From my perspective, this has been a discussion of "needs". Folks have expressed

1)The need to avoid having their minds controled by someone else's ideology/moral stance.

2)The need to feel the techniques/"system" they are practicing has a sound moral/legal base.


I conclude that we all basicly agree on both numbers one and two. The difference seems to be that some feel the memorization/chanting of a philosophy is a dangerous practice. Some don't. Fine.

Here's my solution:

Instuctors should tell students that the martial arts as we know them have always been closely associated with the development of moral values though personal discovery.(A general statement)

The instuctor should then provide a list of books/documents that he feels points out the historical connection between technique and philosophy. (Not a "complete" list, clearly.)

The instuctor should then provide a breif discription of his own personal philosophy and conclusions drawn from academic, physical, and contemplative studies of his own.

This way students would know where the art is coming from, and where their own instuctor stands on these issues. Nothing is "forced" on anyone.

As long as things are kept general, folks can draw their own conclusions. Just like teaching general patterns of movement, instead of specific responses to physical attacks! Moral kata?

------------------
"There ain't no graduation from this kind of education"

[Rick Wilson]

You do not need a posted set of rules to instruct intelligent adults on appropriate use of the art!

I do in fact have a student creed posted in my dojo. However, it is there to review with my students who are CHILDREN. I review it with the CHILDREN so that there is no mistaking the message that is taught throughout each and every class, not only by words by by actions.

I have never reviewed this set of rules with my adult students because what we do and how we practice in my dojo espouses the proper application of force and respect expected of each and every one in every class.

What is wrong with a little well intentioned mind control?

"No American Okikukai (Shohei-Ryu thread) would dare to suggest or amend the Dojo Kun."

Sorry, but that pretty much says it all to me. Free will be gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Rick

[student]

The one organization (among the several) in which I train which has a membership oath which gets recited at the beginning of class is the Traditional Tae Kwon Do Chung Do Kwan Association. The TTCA split off from the World Tae Kwon Do Association; their oaths are identical.

"Membership oath - repeat after me:

"One: we, as members, train our spirits and bodies according to the strict code.

"Two: we, as members, are united in mutual friendship.

"Three: we, as members, will follow regulations and obey our instructors."

And I do not feel cult-like or controled for it. At least, no more so than for wearing a uniform/dobok/gi, bowing for respect, using terminology in the language of martial art's nation (Korean/Japanese/Chinese/Tagalog/French[Savate, Fencing]Russian/Hebrew - you get the picture). If you value free will over all are you going to do away with any uniform or unifying requirements?

Granted, an oath could be a danger, especially if it was the type of oath that started feeding in on and building the infallibility of the instructor/founder as the GreatestGrandMasterEver, NoOthersNeedApply, GiveMeAll: YourMoney/Loyalty/Condominiums/StockOptions! But my experience has been that our membership oath serves to aid transition from the mundane to the martial and adds a little to unit cohesion. And if it gets too much (I'm nowhere near that level of discomfort) I can always leave.

Your mileage may vary.

student



[This message has been edited by student (edited August 27, 2000).]

[Ron Goninan]

Interesting subject!

Regarding a "Dojo-Kun", this is in the main a Japanese practice arising out of Nihonjinron (National Identity).

Just a few ideas for consideration:-

When the arts of China's "Middle Kingdom" were tranplanted to Uchina (Okinawa), the native Okinawan's did not teach or pass on those arts in Chinese but instead used their own native language. The same occured when the arts migrated to Japan proper. Keeping things within a historical perspective, why is it that we should teach in a language different to our own?

Perhaps one answer may be in coming to understand the often poetic and descriptive language of the arts for example "Emperor Stamps His Seal" for within such terminology may be the understanding we seek from the technique?

Then again, would it not be easier for us to simply place those terms in our own language so as to make it easier to convey their meaning?

Regards,

-----------
Ron Goninan