Читать книгу Secrets of the Samurai - Oscar Ratti - Страница 12

PREFACE

THE JAPANESE experience in, and contribution to, the theory and practice of individual combat, armed and unarmed, is certainly among the most ancient, sophisticated, and enduring ever recorded. One need only consider the present worldwide popularity of jujutsu, judo, karate, aikido, kendo, kyudo, and so forth, which are essentially modern adaptations or derivations, to appreciate the continuing influence of ancient Japanese methods of combat. The ancient martial arts were developed and refined during an extended period of direct experimentation on the battlefields of pre-Tokugawa Japan; later, during the centuries of absolute isolation which generated the proper conditions, they were thoroughly revised and ultimately ritualized into transmissible patterns of exercise and technique. The effectiveness of the modern adaptations is attested to by the fact that they have deeply influenced and, in many instances, almost completely replaced other national methods of combat practiced for sporting purposes and as part of the utilitarian and practical training programs of military and police forces.

The present work is a survey of the major specializations of the martial experience, known in feudal Japan as martial arts, or bujutsu. These arts are presented in terms of the persons directly or indirectly involved with, or subjected to, this systematic violence (part 1); the particular weapons and techniques which assigned to each martial art its position and relative importance within the body of bujutsu teachings, here termed the doctrine of bujutsu (part 2); the factors of inner control and power as well as strategies and motivations, which, when compared to the above-mentioned elements, were considered by the ancients as being of equal (if not greater) significance, due to their importance in implementing the various combat methods (part 3).

Any inquiry into the history, instruments, and strategic functionality of the martial arts of feudal Japan is bound to encounter serious and often seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the selection of basic reference material as well as in the interpretation of the terms employed therein. In this work, terminology should present no difficulties, for in the Index the terms most frequently used in the martial arts to define and illustrate their functional characteristics are listed along with the number of the page on which each term appears for the first time in the main text and where its meaning is briefly explained and/or illustrated. Decidedly more difficult to resolve are doctrinal problems—that is, problems arising from conflicting references (direct and indirect, ancient and modern, in both the original language and in translation) to the specializations of the Japanese experience in the ancient art of combat.

Among the direct sources of information used in the compilation of this book are translations of records contained in scrolls (makimono) and manuscripts belonging to masters and representatives of particular schools of the martial arts, whose founders were courageous enough to defy the age-old Japanese custom of secrecy and exclusiveness in order to add the results of their experience, as Yamashita phrased it, to “the common stock of knowledge” of the entire human race. Direct information of particular value to any study of armed bujutsu is also provided by a review of the huge collections of weapons and armor available in the major museums and art galleries of the world, as well as items of interest held by private collectors. Indirect sources of information on bujutsu in general would include the Japanese classics, religious and philosophical texts and treatises, and poems and chronicles of the nation—primarily works which concern themselves with aspects of the national culture other than the military but contain oblique and often highly illuminating references to the specializations of bujutsu.

All these sources are equally vital because they integrate, confirm, or modify one another, thus helping the student of bujutsu to determine their respective degrees of reliability, historical authenticity, and, consequently, their usefulness to any program of research and interpretation. In carrying out such research, it becomes evident that the doctrine of the Japanese martial arts is heir to that failing common to every doctrine devised by man; that is, the further back one’s historical research is carried, the harder it becomes to distinguish fact from fiction. The Japanese chronicles of antiquity are particularly susceptible to animistic and mystical interpretations of events, and this tendency—still very much in evidence in the records of disciplines of combat which have emerged during the last century—is further compounded by the highly individualistic approach of each master to the theory and practice of armed and unarmed combat. This approach is clearly exclusivistic and unilateral, being centered primarily upon the merits and virtues of this or that representative or founder of a particular school, with only a few obscure references to those techniques or methods of combat which made them famous.

When confronted with the wealth of available written records concerning the schools of unarmed combat (presumably issued in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), each extolling a particular school of bujutsu or a particular master, the modern observer is often forced to ask himself a question similar to that posed by a famous translator of Lao-tzu’s Tao Te Ching, in relation to the various philosophical schools active during a particular period of Chinese history: “May it not be the case that some of these schools were very much alike but each had to put up a different ‘slogan’ in order to be an independent school, since in the Warring States period, so much was to be gained by this claim?” (Lau, 50). This particular approach to the problems of combat (adopted by many ancient and modern teachers of bujutsu, and so reflected in chronicles of the martial arts) is historically misleading because it presupposes an initial originality at the root of each school, as well as a widespread and individualistic type of excellence which is very rare in any culture and must have been particularly unusual in the highly conformistic and restrictive world of feudal Japan. Numerous warriors, after all, had trained in many different schools of bujutsu, and almost all the masters of those schools had done exactly the same thing before opening their own centers of instruction—which would implicitly negate a basic prerequisite of strict originality: isolation. Such an approach, moreover, makes any attempt to produce a syncretic and anthological study of the martial arts extremely difficult, because it presents a kaleidoscopic collection of arts, each pulling centrifugally away from any concept of basic unity.

The aim of the present study, therefore, is to establish a platform of observation from which the martial arts of feudal Japan may be analyzed as expressions of a strongly unified and conformistic culture and, consequently, as methods of combat which, notwithstanding obvious differences in their choice of weapons, produced great similarities in their bodies of techniques and, above all, an almost identical conception of those inner factors and activating motivations which made those techniques relevant and effective in combat. This global and syncretic approach to the study of bujutsu is necessitated by the current abundance of specialized presentations of the individual martial arts and, in particular, of those derived from ancient bujutsu, which, as indicated earlier, have made such names as jujutsu, judo, karate, aikido, and kendo famous the world over. The authors’ aim has been primarily that of restoring a certain balance between the specialized knowledge of each martial art and the comprehensive knowledge of them all, even if only from a historical standpoint. The twin dangers which we have recognized and sought to avoid were those of overspecialization (an exaggerated emphasis upon only one expression of the Japanese experience in the art of combat) and superficial eclecticism (a dispersive and necessarily diluted exposition of them all). It is our hope that a general knowledge of all the martial arts will help to deepen and expand the reader’s understanding of each—the way a detail, for example, becomes even more significant when observed within that larger, richer, and more harmonious context of which it is but a part.

Those of us interested in the evolution of that experience in the art of individual confrontation throughout its many forms and specialized manifestations must inevitably seek to relate the parts to the whole. Thus a syncretic approach to bujutsu, intended to provide a general framework within which to comprehend clearly its various components, underlies and motivates the present study in its entirety.

In synthesis, for those readers particularly interested in bujutsu, it is to be hoped that this introductory study will satisfy an immediate need and constitute a broad foundation for further studies of the ancient Japanese martial arts, or at least provide a panoramic background for those already in existence.

It is also intended to provide the basis for another type of research, linked to the problem of human violence as systematically exercised in those practices man has found difficult to discard along the path of his evolutionary history. This type of research enters the domain of ethics, of those moral justifications which supposedly influence man’s actions and (within the context of bujutsu) will determine his behavior in combat against his fellowman. Unfortunately, considerations and analyses of the morality of the martial arts (viewed as being of primary significance by those masters who have provided interesting and varied solutions to the moral dilemma a man had to confront and resolve in combat) will, of necessity, be somewhat limited in this work, since its central subject is their historical background, their weapons and techniques, their strategies and phases of application—those factors and elements which made them extremely effective within the immediate and utilitarian reality of combat. The observations on the ethical implications of bujutsu which the authors have included in the text form the foundation for an ensuing volume (tentatively entitled Budo: The Way of the Warrior) which will deal almost exclusively with the motivations, ethics, and metaphysics of those arts which, throughout their long and bloody history, have seemed truly noble and worthy in a universal or comprehensive sense in only a comparatively few, exceptional instances.

As will become apparent from a cursory glance at the Table of Contents, this study embraces a variety of martial arts and covers an extensive period of Japanese history. Consequently, it revolves around and upon an immense amount of material which had to be considered, interpreted, and presented systematically if a more illuminating doctrine than the one available today were to be developed. It is not the authors’ intention to provide a definitive answer to all the problems of doctrinary interpretation found in the vast amount of literature on bujutsu, or to engage in a doctrinary monologue of their own which, however expressive or novel, would still, by its very nature, be unrelated to and radically different from that dialogue in which the “common stock of knowledge,” mentioned by Yamashita in his analysis of the secretive approach to bujutsu, is enriched through the active contributions of many individuals. In fact, the studies and opinions of many authors who have written about bujutsu, both ancient and modern, have provided the initial basis for this syncretic approach to the martial arts (as clearly evidenced by the extensive use of direct quotations, often from works presently relegated to undeserved oblivion, notwithstanding their value as pioneer attempts in the exploration of this particular aspect of an alien culture).

In this context it will doubtless be useful for the reader, wishing to retrace our steps through the oft-times confusing maze of the doctrine of bujutsu and personally refer to the sources of information we have used in preparing this work, to understand the “key” to the system of quotation and referral we have adopted. This system is, first of all, generic and comprehensive, as expressed through the lists of books collected in the Bibliography of this study and arranged in alphabetical order according to the names of those authors whose works have been invaluable in providing a first, panoramic view of bujutsu. But this system is also specific and specialized, as expressed through the many direct quotations which appear throughout the text, extracted selectively from the works of those authors whom we consider invaluable sources of information concerning particular aspects of bujutsu. The reader who wishes to explore any of these particular aspects will find, at the end of each quotation, in parenthesis, the name of the author and the number of the page in his book or article which contains the passage quoted. The reader may then turn to the Bibliography for details concerning the edition to which we are referring. For example, the first quotation in the section entitled “The Military Tradition in the History of Japan” is followed by parentheses which contain the name “Hearn” and the number “259.” The reader who refers to the Bibliography under the alphabetical listing of “Hearn, Lafcadio” will find the title of the book from which the quotation was extracted: “Japan: An Interpretation,” plus details of publication, “Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1962.” There are, however, a number of authors who have written more than one pertinent book on the subject of bujutsu. In those cases where more than one book is listed, each work has been assigned a number, and this number appears in the Bibliography within brackets and as a superior number after the author’s name within the parentheses which follow the pertinent quotation in the body of the book. Quotations from the three studies on bujutsu by Edward Gilbertson, for example, are identified by the name of the author with in parentheses at the end of each quotation in the text, then by a superior number 1, 2, or 3 after the name (depending upon which study is being referred to), and finally by the page number within that particular study. This will provide the reader with the necessary “key” to the bibliographical listings of Gilbertson’s works.

Throughout the book Japanese names are given in the order customary in Japan, family name followed by personal name.

It would be highly gratifying if, spurred by the present study, other students of bujutsu were encouraged to overcome any narrow or sectarian barriers of doctrinal, scholastic, or organizational isolation and exclusiveness which might be separating them from one another, and plunge courageously into the study and analysis of records, manuscripts, and current practices relative to the Japanese arts of combat. The resulting dialogue or debate would enable them to share their experiences and findings with others, thus furthering the development of a more comprehensive perspective. But a dialogue, as Socrates pointed out, can only begin to stimulate the interest by starting at a certain point and at a certain moment—which is exactly what the present study, in its own way, from its own platform of observation, and with its own method, has set out to do.

Finally, it is the authors’ fond hope that this book may prove as stimulating to the reader as its production was to them, especially when they surveyed the multiform landscape of an ancient culture and the often tragic but brave attempts of its subjects to cope, in their own way, with the demands of a harsh reality. Confronted as we are today with social and political turbulence, living under the moment-to-moment threat of nuclear catastrophe, all studies of man’s experience in the art of violent confrontation have acquired a particular relevancy. Almost everyone seems to agree that we must attempt to determine whether man will be forever trapped by his apparently constitutional inclination to employ any method, however lethal, to ensure his dominance over his fellowmen, or whether he may—in time—be capable of ritualizing and then, ultimately, transforming that pattern. In this endeavor, thoughtful studies of man’s past, with all its pitfalls and bloody errors, may prove to be a necessary and valuable factor in the final equation.

—The Authors

New York