Famous Kenshi and Sword Sainthood...

[Fudo-Shin]

Is our image of famous Kenshi distorted through the passage of time...Are the stories we hear about them true? Or do we see them as something they were not?...This follows on from another thread in which Musashi was likened to be no more than a serial killer, other exponents of the Arts refer to him as a Kensei (Sword Saint).

If Mochida Sensei was born 300 years earlier (before film etc), would we hear stories about how he defeated "X" amount of men with his Ki alone? And if he took part in duels of that time (sometimes ending in death) would we see him in a different light also?

[neko kenshi]

I'd say it all has to do with the context of the time. If any of us were born in Musashi's day, we probably wouldn't have a problem with killing either. If Musashi were born today, he probably wouldn't kill. When viewing historical figures, it's important to consider their society. Not sure if that really addressed teh question, but that's my two cents.

[Kenshi]

People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so. Justification or not, most people tend to be remorseful after the fact. Those that dont are the exception and are probably mentally unfit. Then or now.

You certainly cannot say "it was fine to kill people a few centuries ago but it isnt now" because it wasnt/isnt. That argument is too simple. It discounts the fact that we are 100% the same psychologically and physically now as we were then (whenever then was). Society has changed rapidly, but humans have not and do not.

Killing someone to advance a selfish spirtual path is, I think, a pretty low justification. Killing people for money, fame, profit, has a higher justification and - Im guessing (its impossible to know the truth) - this is what was behind the so called "musha shugyo" of so many swordsmen of old.

All koryu have a brand to sell. They cant go about saying "hey, the guy who founded our ryu honed his skills by murdering people" so they make their history and their brand more palatable over time. Where there are holes they fill them. Over time a mythology is made. People see only what they want to. They are obviously the people with the least objective view on the matter. I believe many koryu act in very cult-like manner... but thats another discussion.

[neko kenshi]

I don't think it's so simple as to say that human psychology hasn't changed and be done with it. There's countless examples of how our morals are dictated largely, if not entirely, by our surroundings and upbringing. Take slavery. You could have been born in the southern part of America just 150 years ago, and you'd be just fine with slavery. In fact, you'd fight a war to protect it. But having grown up today, you're probably very against it. It's the same with duels. Even in western society, duels were fine and dandy for a long time, and probably much more so in Japan. The point is, if you grew up with it, it doesn't seem so bad.

[Kenzan]

People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so.

Death and killing, historically, are a part of our nature as human beings.
Without it, society, civilization, and probably you yourself would not exist.
You can only have the luxury to condemn killing as an immoral act because others have done so in the past that you may even have the freedom and the free time to even think of such questions.
It is also probably true to say that you live in a part of the world were killing may not necessarily be an option in order to survive.
The past is the past, and you cannot change it, nor can you judge it.
You can only learn from it.

You certainly cannot say "it was fine to kill people a few centuries ago but it isnt now" because it wasnt/isnt. That argument is too simple.

It is illogical as well as supremely arrogant to judge morality of the past by your own personal feelings; as your own morality is a reflection of your own present environment, so is ethics itself, as it always has been, a construct with temporal inflection.

It discounts the fact that we are 100% the same psychologically and physically now as we were then (whenever then was).

This statement is illogical as well as quite incorrect. A bit of honest research into the matter will ultimately reveal why.
Good luck with that.

[JSchmidt]

Is our image of famous Kenshi distorted through the passage of time...Are the stories we hear about them true? Or do we see them as something they were not?...This follows on from another thread in which Musashi was likened to be no more than a serial killer, other exponents of the Arts refer to him as a Kensei (Sword Saint).

I think you answered your own question and Musashi is probably the best example. Some people even claim that he's a mythical figure, whose exploits is a combination of several different characters.
But as George points out, it's very hard to discuss without stepping on anyones toes.

[ScottUK]

You can't do anything these days without stepping on someone's toes...

People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so. Justification or not, most people tend to be remorseful after the fact. Those that dont are the exception and are probably mentally unfit. Then or now.

Sorry, no. Do I look at pensioners and think they should be shot for defending our nation? They are esteemed for doing such an act - and there is no defending a country without killing.

All koryu have a brand to sell.

Then you have no idea about Niten Ichi Ryu and the mindset of the current soke. He uses his holiday allocation to teach us when we visit, and goes to significant trouble to do so. In return he will accept zero payment, which is embarrassing to us, representatives of Capitalist England. I have had to snatch the food & drinks bill out of a waitress's hand in order to get it before he does.

His actions sell his ryu, not Musashi.

They cant go about saying "hey, the guy who founded our ryu honed his skills by murdering people" so they make their history and their brand more palatable over time. Where there are holes they fill them. Over time a mythology is made. People see only what they want to. They are obviously the people with the least objective view on the matter. I believe many koryu act in very cult-like manner... but thats another discussion.

Musashi was a good swordsman and an excellent strategist. He killed a few (!) people while testing his skill during his youth and then in older age he realised he didn't need to kill in order to prove his technique. His ryuha was passed from student to student and has survived to this day. In his old age he discovered art, calligraphy, sculpture and a ton of other stuff he was good at. Thus, 'Sword Saint'...

As for Koryu cults, Musashi is important to us as he was the originator of what we do. He's not some mythical figure to us. Keiko with the Soke is more important.

As for Musashi the killer? We can all be forgiven our percieved errors over a long enough time period. No doubt George Dubya will get an aircraft carrier named after him like his old man did...

[gir]

Just my 2cents worth.

Trying to interperet Historic events/individuals given todays Morals and norms is a bit like beating your head against a wall. Its an almost idiotic thing to do. Sure you may break a wall but so what? People act in a manner that seems right to them at that time. You can't judge another culture even today against your own. Its a ludicrous thing to try and do. Imposing your own moral and ethical beliefs by judging others based on them is one of the biggest roots of evil this world has. Entire countries go to war these days STILL based on this stupid and idiotic belief that they know better than sommeone else based on Moral Belief/Race/Etc.

You can only look at someone's deeds in relation to the norm of the day and in the cultrure in the day. Trying to do otherwise is biggoted.

This is not to say that the origional question is aimed in this manner but arguments about this type of topic are. Who are we to say that they were little more than glorified merderers? What will humanity say about the actions of our own countries/individuals in 1000 years? Evolution of Ideas, morals, cultures means that we cannot answer this question, much like we cannot answer the original question posed without trying to place our world onto the one where the acts took place.

[Sakari]

Sorry, no. Do I look at pensioners and think they should be shot for defending our nation? They are esteemed for doing such an act - and there is no defending a country without killing.

Are veterans esteemed for the actual pull of the trigger or putting their own lives at risk for the common, good, cause? I would think that latter is more accurate. The actual killing would be considered a regrettable but necessary act, not something to be praised.

As for the whole issue of ethics in maiming somebody with a stick in 17th(?) century Japan: I do agree that making moral judgements about something that happened in the distant past and place with ouer own set of beliefs is not clear cut. We could claim, and I think that George at least hints at such a claim, that there is a built-in mental disposition against killing others and persons that do not exhibit this disposition are mentally ill regardless of the era in question. On the other hand this, even if it would be true, does not help very much in making statements about morals.

One way of furthering the discussion would be to consider the attitude to death and killing at the time. It is not altogether clear to me that actions of the person in question matched even with the sentiments of the time.

[Martijn]

I despise the Samurai that went around and searching for fights and triumphantly killing. I think that they led distorted lives and that it’s wrong for them to be admired. They left nothing.

[neko kenshi]

We could claim, and I think that George at least hints at such a claim, that there is a built-in mental disposition against killing others and persons that do not exhibit this disposition are mentally ill regardless of the era in question.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was an innate objection to killing humans embedded in our instincts, however, as clearly demonstrated by history, this is something easily overcome by upbringing. I don't think I need to come up with any examples of people who were brought up thinking killing is fine (or killing a certain group is fine) given their abundance. The very fact that Musashi was exalted to hero status shows that he wasn't opposing the morals dictated by his society.

[Rob W.]

Looking at more recent and culturally accessible legends like Davey Crockett and Wyatt Earp (for Americans, sorry I don't know any Australian folk heroes) there are stories known to be false but accepted as part of the "legend" of the character. Over time I think the popular conception of a person becomes more powerful and in some ways more important than the verifiable literal facts of their lives. Place this phenomenon in a time where people didn't have access to multiple sources of historical documentation or instant long distance communication and...

On Musashi, there's an expertly researched biography by Kenji Tokitsu called Miyamoto Mushashi, His life and writings. It compares documentation written by Musashi's contemporaries and examines the historical reality and legendization (?) of his life. It's a great book, highly recommended.

As for the serial killer argument, I believe we assume much more of our culture and morals are "inherent in all humans" than is actually the case. I was reading an anthropology textbook that mentioned how Maasai create little play families when they're around 8 that include sexual relationships, which seems horrific through our cultural lens, but is perfectly natural and in some ways essential in their society.

...Its a ludicrous thing to try and do. Imposing your own moral and ethical beliefs by judging others based on them is one of the biggest roots of evil this world has. Entire countries go to war these days STILL based on this stupid and idiotic belief that they know better than someone else based on Moral Belief/Race/Etc.

That's what I'm sayin.

[Sakari]

I was reading an anthropology textbook that mentioned how Maasai create little play families when they're around 8 that include sexual relationships, which seems horrific through our cultural lens, but is perfectly natural and in some ways essential in their society.

Do they suffer as a result?

Taking the relativist stance makes all moral judgements impossible - you lose the ability to claim that something is bad or good. This is not very satisfactory result as we must make judgements of desirable and undesirable actions constantly. On the other hand we seem to cope quite well with the unfoundedness of other knowledge.

[Kenzan]

In the case of Musashi's time, I think this may add perspective:

1. Duels would be and could be and needed to be officially sanctioned, otherwise, yes, it was murder.

2. Revenge killings could also be sanctioned/licensed.

3. It is my understanding that duels of this kind generally were fought with Shinken Shobu style, and often to the death.

4. Because of the rigid caste structure of Shi-no-ko-sho, unless you were a very wealthy merchant or favored scholar, the only real way for a man to advance in station was recognition by others in his martial prowess.
The people Musashi supposedly killed were not just some random people on the street as far as I know, but rather, people who's job it was to engage in killing themselves, by either keeping the peace, or protection of the people from war. They were, in fact, other warriors. A warriors' primary job is to kill, is it not?

That said, if the general consensus from that time and culture was that killing in that instance was wrong, then why was it:

a.) Sanctioned.
b.) Allowed that dueling be primarily engaged in with live blades, and in the case of the loser being a Ryu-ha head, his schools possibly closed or otherwise disbanded?

So was Musashi and others of his time engaging in "murder" or "serial killing" as has been suggested in another thread? Or were they simply trying to advance their station and make a name for themselves by following established and accepted rules set forth by the Government at the time?

Again, it is pointless and arrogant to place our own temporal values on a culture of another time and place.

[Kenshi]

Got a hangover induced headache... its great for putting life in perspective. Its raining heavily too. Urgh.

I will leave this thread to better minds than mine.... as Sakari noted from my earlier post, my argument was going to be an evolutionary one (not moral... dont even think I used the word?). I will leave it there though (sore head,other worries,etc).

This statement is illogical as well as quite incorrect. A bit of honest research into the matter will ultimately reveal why.
Good luck with that.

Thats a pretty sharp knife you carry with you!! Can you point me to some good books on the matter? Im seriously interesed in this. Im a Pinker/Dawkins type of guy, so it will do me some good to expand my horizons. I currently still disagree with you, btw, but im open to discussion (are you?). Even if I carried a knife I wouldnt use one.

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

Koryu-as-a-cults: not aimed at anybody or anygroup, so defence not-needed. Basically, I could make a strong argument and probably show evidence for this. Any group that has a founder, a leader (soke, usually infallible), (usually mystical) writings used in a bible-like fashion (eg 兵法家伝書), initiation rites, (sometimes sycophantic) followers, etc etc etc can fall into this category. You can even see evidence for this online.

Anyway... I need to rehydrate.