Welcome to Gaia! ::

Also, reading what has been said earlier, kata aren't the opposite of trying to kill someone.
It's a display of knowledge.
It hasn't got anything to do with killing, but that doesn't make it the exact opposite.
Many Iaido kata's, for instance, end with the death of the opponent.

It's like comparing water and coffee.
Both are liquid, one pure, the other destructive.
But does it make them opposites?
No.

You have to understand that many religions consider martial arts a way to achieve enlightenment.

The idea that only praying would bring spirituality is untrue in many religions, in fact.

Yes, all martial arts have to do with fighting. The question is why they were created.

This varies greatly from one martial art to another. Some were designed to be practiced in the battlefield, some to improve physical and mental processes, some to enhance spirituality, but all with the common purpose that you could be capable of defending yourself and others if and when the need would arise.

To go from there to say that all arts were originally intended as killing arts, is ridiculous.
Especially when you consider that many arts derived from other arts. The idea of the "original concept" is way to vague at this point.
Aikido, for one, was created with the idea of creating harmony between the physical and spiritual. But it was derived from Daito Ryu, wich was used (though mostly for capturing opponents) also for killing.
Kendo is closely linked to Zen buddhism because they believe the two complement each other.
Tai Chi knows many form that are mere prayers.
Katori Shinto Ryu was said to be a vision given by the god of war.
Karate is said to have roots in Chinese boxing. Who knows what the founder intended it for?

The final thing I wish to repeat is that a martial art is always what you make of it.
You can learn a "killing art" and never kill or a soft style and pick fights with everyone around you... it's up to you.

So to top this off, all the fuss about origins, intentions, concept, reason...
It's all unimportant.
What matters is that you do it.
What matters is that it teaches you something you find valuable.
There is no ultimate style, so stop arguing about wich is the best and why.
Especially if you're going to give original teachings as reason.

Many serious arts have been created between 1850 and today.
Religions linked to martial arts have existed for thousands of years.
That aikido sprang forth from Daito Ryu (an alleged killing art) does not mean Ueshiba ever meant aikido to do harm to anyone.
Please read, analyse, research, then post.
None of us are to judge martial arts as individual arts or as a whole.

We can judge the individual we face in battle.
We can judge values taught, techniques taught.
We can even judge wether what is taught is worth anything or not.
We cannot judge the origins of martial arts, nor the intentions of the founders.
Although we could assume "martial" arts were intended for battle, the founders alone could judge that.
And since there are many, many different styles, I find it prepostorous to think we could judge martial arts as a whole by judging the category "martial arts" as an averaged whole.

Yes, but there is also the art part in martial arts. Where does that fit in?
I for one find a martial ART to be the non-combative skills and state of mind gained through combat. The fact the way to these skills and physical and mental states go through the way of combat, would to me be the link with the word martial. The fact that these skills and states would come in useful during combat would be another.



Battlefields have changed, "real" martial arts are still taught. Traditional doesn't necessarily mean better, the word all is a ridiculous generalisation. The fact that a "real" martial art is unknown to you, doesn't mean it isn't "real".



You think so, but it's not necessarily so. Already many decades before Ueshiba, Samurai started focussing on other things in life than just martial arts. Like calligraphy, painting, poetry. So what proves you right? (what proves you wrong, for that matter) -Again, suggestive.



And others stress the importance of enlightenment before the physical aspect. Again, older or traditional or so-called "real" doesn't necessarily mean anything.



In both zen and kendo, for instance, the state of mind called "mu" or empty mind is very important. They believe it to be a state of enlightenment. Thus, fighting can almost become a meditation, as well as a way to improve the body and learn important skills (depending on era). So why would it not be spiritual?
The sword, for one, is a very symbolic weapon that can easily represent the good aspects that any true warrior should have.

For a less mind-requiring example, take sumo. It was originally a Shintoist ritual.
It is a martial art, yet it has only ever fought war with demons.

But still what I was trying to say is that most people think that guns are instant point and death devices, but they really aren't. I've been shot at (bloody farmers and their shotguns) and I used to shoot at a club, I would have shot for my country but I was too young sweatdrop
What you say is very true, being shot at is serious brown trousers time. Even if they miss the noise and muzzle flash will disorientate and confuze you. And 6 - 20 feet its time to put your hands up and pray to every deity you can think of. But at under that range, if they point the gun away from you at all you have a chance. And at 30 foot plus with a pistol, your average user with all the time they need and with no stress or pressure at all is going to find it hard to hit a body sized target, never mind a moving hunched up body sized target quickly when highly stressed.
I must stress that I am definately not suggesting that taking on a gun is a good idea, or even that the odds are with you, but if you definately think you are about to be shot it helps to be aware of the limitations of firearms

I have studied judo, aikido, kendo and iaido and experimented with bajutsu, ninjutsu, kuk-sool-won and wushu.

My take on martial arts? I don't have one. They are nothing to me, yet everything.
I live for them, yet they do not live for me.
I am inseparably tied to them, yet not always.

How do you explain something like that?... sweatdrop

It's just something that I do. I leave my interpretation to my state, need and experience. You cannot continue to perceive martial arts in the same at every given time.

But I suppose I have struggled most with the mindset that comes with them.
There is a very difficult mindset that leaves you without thought, yet with full knowledge and control of body and situation.
I strive to obtain this state as a permanent one.
I have seen myself do the impossible in this state, and I do believe there can be no true defeat at this point.

To tell you the truth, I couldn't give you an honest answer if you asked me why I took up martial arts initially; I don't even know if I know.

Well, I felt that if you want to learn a variety of styles, you cannot begin with just a single one. You have to learn them at the same time, or you will waste valuable time and also grow habits and body movement that might not be desired in other arts.

This is also the reason why I stick with Japanese arts, primarily.
They have basics and ethics that are very similar due to their roots, and therefor it is easy to switch from one form to another.

I decided that I could be proficient in several arts. So I started training in several arts. I've noticed that they all compliment each other.
Especially aikido lays a good foundation for all others.
I never took up karate, because I've seen how many karateka's have an extremely hard time losing their harsh body movements.
It looks crude in kendo and it's stiff in aikido and judo.
I might do it after I have developed sufficient basics to not have to fear the loss of correct body movement.

Trust me, I have the most technically correct kendo, iaido, bajutsu, judo and aikido among people of my level (and sometimes even higher).

I can handle it, apparently. I feel blessed and am very thankful for it.