"Preaching" in the dojo?

[stealth_monkey]

I'd also be very curious as to why a white supremacist would partake in an art taught and practiced primarily by members of Japanese communities.

In regards to kendo, I'm also puzzled. However, in general I've noticed that white supremisists tend to gravitate towards certain arts regardless of lineage. There's always been minor supremisist involvement in a lot of combat styles such as boxing and kickboxing which is starting to bleed over into mma. There's a couple of openly supremisist mma gyms in america teaching judo, muay thai and bjj, and while I don't agree with their argument at all, my understanding is that they justify it as fighting fire with fire, or using the tools of racial oppression against the oppressors, a common mindset in minority groups, which supremisists see themselves as.

I for one think that this is a nice thing to teach people, even if the teacher is not a paragon of morality.

I think this is a fine lesson to learn, however to stick mindlessly to it as the sole purpose of the art usually strikes me as revisionism. At the end of the day, we are practising an art focussing on the best analogue of a sword we have. And while we can attempt to attach all sorts of romance and mysticism to this object, at the end of the day the one and only reason it was invented is to kill, wound and maim in the most cold and efficient way possible. An object designed to kill that happens to save lives by performing its purpose is still an object designed to kill.

[atgm]

The revisionism already took place almost a hundred and fifty years ago when the sword was obsolete, I think.

[stealth_monkey]

While I understand your point, the japanese army was killing men women and children with katana, and learning sword arts to do it a few decades ago; Machetes and the like are still extremely relevent around africa and south east asia. Heck, to my knowledge no army in history has ever used a sword as their primary weapon, they were pretty much made obsolete by the invention of the spear, doesn't change the fact that strapping a 3 foot razor blade to your side is not the act of a pacifist. This is probably starting to drift off topic though.

[Kaoru]

One aspect of kendo that I really enjoy is that before and after the actual practice, sensei will often talk to us about other things related to kendo. Some of the things he has talked to us about in the past are: the relationships between jodo, kendo, and iaido; the history of kendo; the analects of Confucius; how to apply kendo principles to life.

He always emphasizes the idea that you need to have a "correct" heart/soul to do good kendo, and that if you live a good life, you can do good kendo. Correct meaning polite, courteous, considerate, and determined. He says that in kendo, you pick a target and give it everything you have, with no regrets; that we should do the same in life.

I have absolutely no problems with this. It's entirely secular and it's a good philosophy, both for me and for the kids he teaches.

I had never really stopped to consider that not all dojos might be like this; I've only been to one other place here, and the other place was chock-full of kids practicing more or less seriously. When I was talking to my sensei about kids graduating from our dojo and going to middle school this year, essentially halving our class size, I mentioned that the other dojo, which is very close, has tons of kids and I didn't understand why.

He said that a lot of kids in the other dojo started at ours, but they went to the other one after they learned the basics because they (or their parents) didn't like his talks. He thinks it's sad (and I agree!) because not all dojos teach the way he does and the other dojo in particular doesn't really focus on reigi, just the physical aspects of kendo, for kids, as a sport.

I'm hesitant to put all of this online, but I'm also curious about what other people think... does this kind of "preaching" have a place in kendo? Is it necessary? Does it add something to kendo?

I think that while it's not necessary, it does add a lot to kendo and helps in making good people as well as good kenshi. I can't imagine kendo without the philosophy.

I humbly agree with your sensei about what he said.

Imho, I also think the talks about what you mentioned are just fine in a dojo... As long as the sensei giving them actually practices what they are teaching. There is no sense in discussing reigi and the other finer points of kendo(philosophy of kendo, that is.) if one cannot even be bothered to follow it. It is being two-faced to discuss reigi, etc. and expect students to follow it, and then do the opposite.

I think teaching reigi and kendo philosophy is a good thing, because hopefully, kids/adults will learn to treat others with respect and learn to be polite and kinder to people through the sensei's instruction. And, I do believe one's kendo reflects a person's personality and character, so teaching such things may help a student's kendo greatly, imho.

Students also DO tend to copy the actions of their sensei, the more they spend time around him/her. I read something about this very thing, in the Ozawa kendo book. It's in the section regarding Shugyo at the back of the book. The sensei's character is observed whether they know it or not, by the students and it can rub off on the student. So, that's why teaching the things you discussed should be also practiced by the sensei doing the instruction or, it is worthless to do so, imho.

Teaching such things may not be necessary as you stated, but can be inadvertently be taught in a positive or negative way, by the sensei's character and personality alone. A sensei can have a bad attitude toward those he doesn't like, and the students will pick up on it, and think they ought to do the same to others, because they may respect him. Likewise, a sensei who is fair, polite and kind always to others, will be copied by his students as well, because they may respect him. This is the sensei's "philosophy" of kendo coming out in a way that is not taught, per se. However, it is observed, and therefore, inadvertently taught.

I am all for what you wrote, though. The reason for using swords(ok, shinai, since it's kendo, but same principle.) has now changed, so I again see nothing wrong with teaching such things, imho.

I can't imagine kendo without the philosophy either, because without it, it just becomes a bunch of people whacking each other with sticks to see who they can best. That is senseless to me. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh... But, kendo would feel empty to me without the reigi and philosophy behind it all.

Well, that's all I have for thoughts on this.

Kaoru

[Kokoro777]

But nothing automatically makes anyone a paragon of anything. Not teachers, not clergymen, not even parents. Your logic seems to suggest that no one should teach morals.

Blindly extrapolating logic doesn't always lead to further logical, hyuna! I certainly don't think clergymen should be telling people about morals, but that's another point I can only think where I got my moral values from-reading about it, from school and teachers and mainly from following my hero's examples which includes my parents (although the latter are only human too!). Now some of this teaching my osmosis was clearly flawed so what was it within me that led me to disregard what I thought was inappropriate? Kohlberg has broadly, three general levels of moral reasoning that we all seem to settle into:

1. Avoiding immorality to avoid punishment.
2. Avoiding immorality to escape the displeasure of our peers.
3.Avoiding immorality because we think that its the right thing to do.

Much of society settles into a life at level 1, many live at level 2 and a few to level 3. What is it that gets us to level 3? I'm not sure but I'd rather have an educated person-teacher, lecturer, parent- trying to elevate kids to level three than someone who's only good at bashing people with split bamboo stick! Of course that's not to say a yudansha can't be well educated and moral and be in one of those categories-I'd suggest that might be the case, but it not a certainty. ! In the dojo, just teach the art you have advertised you can teach and leave the 'Karate Kid', Master Miyagi lessons out (wax on, wax off...)

Moreover, I think that teaching morals to children in specific is a very subtle thing and very often doesn't require lecture. Moral lessons come from things as simple as allowing them to see how you treat others. I'm not sure if it's possible for someone who spends a lot of time with children not to teach moral lessons.

I think that's a very good point, well said, hyuna! Be careful of what one says and does in front of kids...

[Kokoro777]

This is true. The ideal is for people to develop in character as they develop in Kendo...of course all of us have probably met people who defy that idea. (Exceptions can prove the rule, of course.) But by and large, I'd like to think that Tom Bolling-sensei's quote holds predominantly true.
"People of bad character don't do Kendo. They either quit or they change their character."

Do you think Kendo is any different or more special in this regard than say Judo, Rugby, Ski cross, football, Basque Pelota...?

I'd like to hope that most sensei have the good sense to control their dojo in such a fashion that a Neo-Nazi would end up as neither sempai or sensei.

So you'd hold people back because they hold views that don't agree with yours? Is that morally correct? There are laws in the UK to prevent that holding people with minority views back.

I'd also be very curious as to why a white supremacist would partake in an art taught and practiced primarily by members of Japanese communities.

In the UK, members of the far-right party can often be seem eating there favourite food-Indian cuisine!!

[Kokoro777]

(In case you're not sure, I am playing devils advocate to stimulate debate, but I will deny this if you tell anyone)

[hyuna]

Blindly extrapolating logic doesn't always lead to further logical, hyuna!

This isn't much extrapolation.

Your argument appears to amount to say that because a kendo instructor may have questionable ethics, they should not be entrusted to teach ethics. Do you mean to say that kendo instructors are categorically different from other people? if not, then your argument is that because people belonging to some set X (in this case, kendo instructors) may have questionable ethics, people of set X should not be entrusted to teach ethics. That would seem to suggest that your position is that the only people who should be entrusted to teach ethics are those belonging to some nonexistent set Y that is comprised solely of "paragons." The only assumption/extrapolation I'm making here is whether or not kendo instructors are like "everyone else" for the purpose of this discussion. Do you think that kendo instructors are somehow different from "everyone else?"

I'd rather have an educated person-teacher, lecturer, parent- trying to elevate kids to level three than someone who's only good at bashing people with split bamboo stick! Of course that's not to say a yudansha can't be well educated and moral and be in one of those categories-I'd suggest that might be the case, but it not a certainty.

I think this is quite an unfair line of thought and perhaps suggests that you do think of kendo instructors as somehow different. You say that you would rather have "an educated person-teacher, lecturer, parent-trying to elevate kids," which presents a false dichotomy. Some kendo instructors are "educated people." I would venture to say that proportion of kendo instructors who are parents is probably not too different from the proportion in the population as a whole. Certainly, they are all, by definition, teachers.

That last point in particular is too obvious. Perhaps you mean some other kind of teacher, as though one kind of teacher is somehow more qualified to teach ethics than a teacher of kendo. What kind of teacher is it that you have in mind? To put it a different way, it definitely is not a certainty that a kendo instructor is more "educated" than an academic teacher in the sense of teaching "correct ethics." However, it is also not a certainty that the academic teacher is more "educated" than the kendo instructor in the sense of teaching "correct ethics." Why do you inherently trust the academic teacher more than the kendo instructor?

As an aside, I think discussion of Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a bit of a red herring here. In particular, they are orthogonal to your argument. Note specifically that Kohlberg's stages do not specifically assert any specific ethical framework (from the reference you cited: "He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion." [emphasis added]). Even though Kohlberg believed in a universal and prescriptive morality, I don't believe he made any real effort to defend why his particular opinion of the specific contents of that universal and prescriptive morality are the right ones. Therefore, it is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The neo-nazi that you are afraid to have teach your children may have a higher level of moral development, as assessed by Kohlberg's system, than you do. It doesn't matter, because it's still not the set of ethics you want your children to be raised with.

[ben]

So perhaps one doesn't expect one's instructor to be a 'paragon of moral virtue' (unless that person is literally Hanshi, in which case they have been declared to be exactly that by the AJKF, but that's another thread altogether). I would venture that most people have done things which in retrospect they have regretted, that have caused hurt or anguish and mean they are less than morally perfect. But I would also say that the vast majority of people are not monsters and so have not disqualified themselves from trying to uphold some kind of moral standard. They may have even had the need for a strong sense of right and wrong reinforced by their own, morally-questionable, experiences.

But then in kendo we have a specific case which is a bit like the kendo version of reductio ad hitlerum. Kyung Nam Kim. Here is a man who is, one the one hand, one of the most gifted and accomplished kendoka (can't really use the term 剣士 here...) of his generation, and on the other a convicted rapist, who, according to Korean court records (as quoted on this forum) raped several girls between the age of 15 and 18 who were his students. His sentence was 10 years initially but reduced to 3 years. Many people in previous related threads commented how they didn't care how good he was, they would never let him teach their children. OTOH only a short time later he was (somehow) allowed into the US and trained with some kumdo dojang on the east coast. I believe he also visited Taiwan. Given how hard it seems to be to find reliable information on his case in English, there is a good chance a lot of people who trained with Kim the convicted rapist were unaware of his status at that time (apparently the US Gov't was one of those 'people'...). But there were certainly people who knew of his crimes and chose to train with him anyway. They were obviously of the mind that he had 'done his time' and should be allowed to move on. For them the fact that he no longer had a leg to stand on with regards to ethics and moral education didn't exclude him from being able to teach kendo.

So it's not a hypothetical*, you don't need to wonder about potential neo-Nazi sensei. If KN Kim, one of the best kendoka you had ever seen, walked into your dojo and wanted to train, what would you do? Should he be entrusted to teach even just the bare bones of kendo? No ethics. No "human development via the principles of the Sword." Just waza and how to win matches. Would you let him? Would you let him teach you but not your kids? Would you leave the dojo? Would you do so quietly or noisily?

b

*Actually it is probably is, since your country would hopefully have better border security than the US and Taiwan and he would be refused an entry visa.

[ben]

BTW this topic is important to me as a teacher of kendo, and as a classroom teacher, and lastly as a classroom teacher who teaches kendo.

In the first role I teach kendo to a club made up of people who choose to be there, in whichever way I see fit, which basically means exactly as I was taught kendo by my sensei. This is how probably 99% of people on this board learn kendo.

In the second role I am charged with teaching the state curriculum (in subjects other than kendo) to a number of students who by law are required to be in school. I have no control over who, what and when I teach and a small measure of control over how.

In the last role I am charged by the school, as agents for the state education department, to design a curriculum for kendo that matches with the aims and objectives of the state school system. In this setting what I am doing is seen as providing an "enrichment" experience that is physically active and is also able to model desirable "values" (e.g. respect, perseverance, tolerance, courage, etc). In some cases this teaching is exemplary, in some it is explicit, in some it is by stealth.

This last role is the most problematic for me as it requires constant research and reflection. Is being explicit the best way? Do you tell the kids, "Now we're going to learn about trust, starting with self-trust and them moving to trust in other." Or do you get them to learn through pure experience: e.g. they do kihon men, receiving with the shinai just above their head and learn to trust in themselves, their partner and their teacher that way?

b

PS - BTW KN Kim would never get a second chance as a registered teacher in my state. He also would fail the police records check to be eligible for his "Working With Children" card which must be held by anyone who volunteers with children under 18. This is not a moral stance on my part, just the legal reality of teaching in my part of the world.

[Kokoro777]

Your argument appears to amount to say that because a kendo instructor may have questionable ethics, they should not be entrusted to teach ethics.

Yes, but I'd add that I think the vast majority of people go to learn Kendo as a sporting activity-kendo is a sport, so why bring 'ethics' into it beyond 'sportsmanship' when there are well established other routes for moral training.

Do you mean to say that kendo instructors are categorically different from other people?

As a self-selecting group of people, yes. They are attracted to physicality, to overwhelming others with violence, albeit in a sporting context, they are willing to endure physical hardship in order to perfect their violent abilities just like boxers and wrestlers et al., do. They don't sound like the people who live around me! I sometimes wonder whether all this 'life giving sword' stuff in the modern context isn't a bit of a smoke screen for people who like to dress up like-not even Samurai really-but at least pretend to be warriors and want some means of giving credibility to their preferred form of enjoyment. Are we that different from 'Battle Re-enactment' societies?

if not, then your argument is that because people belonging to some set X (in this case, kendo instructors) may have questionable ethics, people of set X should not be entrusted to teach ethics. That would seem to suggest that your position is that the only people who should be entrusted to teach ethics are those belonging to some nonexistent set Y that is comprised solely of "paragons." The only assumption/extrapolation I'm making here is whether or not kendo instructors are like "everyone else" for the purpose of this discussion. Do you think that kendo instructors are somehow different from "everyone else?"

Let me give you an example that I know a lot about. When a person decided they'd like to become a magistrate and so have the right to judge their peers and apply sometimes severe punitive penalties upon people who do not behave in the way deemed acceptable by our society, they must undergo strict, highly personal scrutiny by 'experts' in the field. This will include the obvious application form, a series of difficult interviews including giving moral judgements with explanations on a set of fictitious scenarios before a panel, police checks, declarations of any political party membership, membership or otherwise of the Free Masons, declarations of having done anything that may bring the judiciary into disrepute etc You have you life looked into under a magnifying glass and if you don't pass all those stages you cannot train to become a magistrate and serve your community (which is done in your spare time and with no remuneration by the way!). Thus I am satisfied that when I see a bench of magistrates, they are likely to be moral, measured and fair members of society who wish to help society without political (or other) agenda. A yudansha does not undergo anything like this type of selection other than their ability to teach a sporting activity that is Kendo. So let them do that and that alone.

I think this is quite an unfair line of thought and perhaps suggests that you do think of kendo instructors as somehow different. You say that you would rather have "an educated person-teacher, lecturer, parent-trying to elevate kids," which presents a false dichotomy. Some kendo instructors are "educated people." I would venture to say that proportion of kendo instructors who are parents is probably not too different from the proportion in the population as a whole. Certainly, they are all, by definition, teachers.

You'll see that I previously did say that some Kendo teachers may well be educated, highly moral people who are more than able to give moral/ethical advice, but holding a Dan grade doesn't make this a 'given'.

So lets keep it simple: yudansha should generally only teach kendo . I'll concede a little ground here by saying atht if they have studied Zen formally as part of their training in a Japanese Zen-related sport then perhaps they are able to pass concepts onto their dojo, but it should always be tempered with the statement, 'This is a particular world-view and many others are available for scrutiny and should be explored'

[Toecutter]

Yes, but I'd add that I think the vast majority of people go to learn Kendo as a sporting activity-kendo is a sport, so why bring 'ethics' into it beyond 'sportsmanship' when there are well established other routes for moral training.

As a self-selecting group of people, yes. They are attracted to physicality, to overwhelming others with violence, albeit in a sporting context, they are willing to endure physical hardship in order to perfect their violent abilities just like boxers and wrestlers et al., do. They don't sound like the people who live around me! I sometimes wonder whether all this 'life giving sword' stuff in the modern context isn't a bit of a smoke screen for people who like to dress up like-not even Samurai really-but at least pretend to be warriors and want some means of giving credibility to their preferred form of enjoyment. Are we that different from 'Battle Re-enactment' societies?

I think you'll find more than a few people that would take issue with you calling kendo a sport, most if not all of the old school people i know would very seriously disagree with this. Also I think you miss the entire purpose of kendo if you think its about a bunch of people who like violence and are drawn to it then maybe its not for you.

[Neil Gendzwill]

If KN Kim, one of the best kendoka you had ever seen, walked into your dojo and wanted to train, what would you do?

I would refuse. I don't want such a person in my dojo.

Yes, but I'd add that I think the vast majority of people go to learn Kendo as a sporting activity-kendo is a sport, so why bring 'ethics' into it beyond 'sportsmanship' when there are well established other routes for moral training.

People have varying reasons for studying kendo but I would have to say that the percentage of people in our dojo who are there for pure sports is very low. They are there to learn budo.

As a self-selecting group of people, yes. They are attracted to physicality, to overwhelming others with violence, albeit in a sporting context, they are willing to endure physical hardship in order to perfect their violent abilities just like boxers and wrestlers et al., do.

I'd say most kendo instructors I know are not self-selecting at all. They were put in the dojo at an early age by their parents and made a decision in adult life to continue. Most I know are well past the stage of caring much about tournament wins or physically dominating people - they just want to do the best kendo they can and help their students to do the same.

Having said all that, I'm not one for lecturing morals in the dojo. I believe the moral value in kendo comes from hard practice, from overcoming the mental barriers that prevent us from achieving our potential. If you don't think that has some direct value in real life, well then I have nothing further to say to you. If I serve as some sort of ideal to my students (hah!), I would prefer it be by example than by lecture.

[hugo]

sometimes wonder whether all this 'life giving sword' stuff in the modern context isn't a bit of a smoke screen for people who like to dress up like-not even Samurai really-but at least pretend to be warriors and want some means of giving credibility to their preferred form of enjoyment. Are we that different from 'Battle Re-enactment' societies?
[/COLOR]

There is a major difference between Kendo and Battle Re-enactment societies (SCA, what have you).
Those groups of people are ROLE-playing. In other words, they are spending their time concocting a fantasy persona and developing that character.
In Kendo, the person whom you are developing is yourself.

Note- I am not necessarily mocking everyone who engages in such role-playing. Plenty of said people are relatively well-adjusted and are simply involved in a healthy outlet.

[JSchmidt]

Yes, but I'd add that I think the vast majority of people go to learn Kendo as a sporting activity-kendo is a sport, so why bring 'ethics' into it beyond 'sportsmanship' when there are well established other routes for moral training.

A yudansha does not undergo anything like this type of selection other than their ability to teach a sporting activity that is Kendo. So let them do that and that alone.



So lets keep it simple: yudansha should generally only teach kendo . I'll concede a little ground here by saying atht if they have studied Zen formally as part of their training in a Japanese Zen-related sport then perhaps they are able to pass concepts onto their dojo

And this is where you go wrong. Kendo is not 'just' a sport.

The Concept of Kendo


The concept of Kendo is to discipline the human character through the application of the principles of the Katana (sword).


The Purpose of Practicing Kendo

The purpose of practicing Kendo is:

To mold the mind and body,

To cultivate a vigorous spirit,

And through correct and rigid training,

To strive for improvement in the art of Kendo,

To hold in esteem human courtesy and honor,

To associate with others with sincerity,

And to forever pursue the cultivation of oneself.

This will make one be able:

To love his/her country and society,

To contribute to the development of culture

And to promote peace and prosperity among all peoples.