|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Jutsu
or Dô? Some Thoughts |
This
is a question that seems always to be on peoples'
minds and there are as many definitions as
there are instructors. Many will call their
arts something-jutsu or something-dô
and never really understand what they are
saying.
To begin to understand these terms we must
go to the kanji, or character, used for each.
In the reference Kanji and Kana by Hadamitzky
and Spahn, the kanji for Jutsu is defined
as art, technique, means or conjury. The kanji
for DÔ, [TÔ], michi: means street,
way or path. Right away we can see that there
are some differences in meaning.
It is clear that the use of -jutsu indicates
the concept of an art or something that implies
the use of a technique. In other words, physical
actions. On the other hand, -dô makes
us think of a direction or way of thinking;
it is a more cerebral connotation.
Of course, it is not all that simple, but
let's take a look at what these simple definitions
mean when applied to what are usually called
martial arts (bujutsu) these days. First,
let's make it clear that "martial"
actually means military. Thus martial arts
are military arts. Here we can see that anything
that does not emphasize actual fighting must
by elimination be something else.
When an art is used in combat, whether on
the battlefield or by someone who is under
attack, the nature of the art, of necessity,
must be that of actual physical techniques.
If, however, the art is intended for competition
or exercise we should no longer consider it
a martial art. If the art is exclusively for
social or personal improvement, again, it
should be defined as something other than
a martial art.
So it seems the key here is the term, martial.
Can we find a suitable word to replace the
martial in martial art? That something is
either an art for use in real fighting, or
it is not, is too narrow a definition. Some
arts I don't consider martial can be used
with limited effectiveness by a few especially
skilled practitioners, should they become
involved in a fight. While I may get some
argument on this statement, I believe that
although modern aikidô is based on a
martial art (the jûjutsu of the Daitô-ryû)
it really can't be defined as a martial art.
Most forms of modern aikidô fair very
poorly as fighting arts. I consider most modern
aikidô to be more properly termed a
form of exercise (and excellent in that regard),
or a system of philosophy, but not really
a martial art.
What about those arts we refer to, in general,
as karate? Here we see people punching and
kicking at each other, but does the activity
qualify as a martial arts? The fact is, many
forms of karate are actually sports and are
designed for competition. There are still
some styles of karate intended to be combat
systems, and we should term those systems
designed for combat karate-jutsu.
How about arts like Jûdô? Clearly,
today's Jûdô is not a fighting
art, but in fact a sport. In comparisons between
the original form of Jûdô and
today's form we can see marked differences
in the art. While it is not a martial art
these days, at one time it was, because it
was derived from Jûjutsu and arts employed
by civilian police in Japan.
So, should we label those arts we define as
non-martial arts as dô forms? Not really.
We find ourselves missing a piece of the puzzle.
As noted, dô means "a way or path,"
which implies a personal search or direction.
The fact is that any martial art (bujutsu),
when fully lived by someone for their entire
lives, may in some cases become a dô
- for that individual. Today, if an art has
the -dô after the name we can consider
that the emphasis of that art is no longer
combat but rather personal or social development
(as found in modern aikidô).
Does all this mean that sport arts should
have some other term? Not an easy question.
I think we should give some consideration
to this possibility, however. A good beginning
would be to remove the term martial from any
description of any art intended for social
or competitive use, and limit use of that
termto those few arts today that truly emphasize
application in combat. (Which would be only
a handful, though once again we get into the
problem of what each system, or even instructor,
would define as combat.)
As can be seen, the question of the use of
the term jutsu or dô is complex and
rooted in the dichotomy of tradition and modernism.
Perhaps what we should do is use "jutsu"
with those arts clearly descended from fighting
arts and that still emphasize the combat reality
of their arts, and use "dô"
for those arts which are descended from jutsu
arts, but which today are used for sport and
personal development.
We must also distinguish non-traditional,
non-Japanese arts (developed, say, in the
last 50 years) that emphasize combat through
use of different, non-Japanese terminology.
If an art is intended for sport, personal
development, or simple exercise, the term
martial should not be used.
A simple enough concept perhaps, but marketing
still seems to get in the way. If all of us
in the various traditional arts were to make
an effort to maintain such a stance perhaps,
in time, some changes will take place.
|
 |
 |
|
Lynn
Reafsnyder is the chief instructor
of the Sanindô Budôkan
and can be reached via e-mail addressed
to sanindo@sprynet.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
Lynn Reafsnyder
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Interview
with Student Arjan Stavast
by Paul Swainson |
 |
|
Spotlight
on Your Dojo
by Paul Swainson |
|
|
Aikido
Poem
by Jim Gilbert |
|
Jutsu
or Do
by Lynn
Reafsnyder |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
