No First Strike
On a recent trip to a used bookstore, I found a copy of Karate-Do Kyohan, The Master Text, by Gichin Funakoshi, translated by Tsutomu Ohshima, originally published in 1973. I couldn’t pass up the price of $3.98 so I picked it up having always felt my library was incomplete without it. I’ve often times perused it at bookstores but always put it back because the price kept spiraling up. It is about $40 now. This is a testament to its worth as a resource and reference manual after all these years.
When I first opened it, I started reading some of the names of Shotokan kata in chapter 4. Under the heading of Taikyoku or “First Cause,” (it is interesting to note that Taikyoku Shodan is almost identical to Genwa Ichi no Kata), I was astounded to read the description. In the second to last sentence, Tsutomu Ohshima translated the following passage, “Moreover, the student who has gained proficiency in basic techniques and understands the essence of the Taikyoku Kata will appreciate the real meaning of the maxim, ‘In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack.’”
What caught my attention was the use of the word “advantage.” Saying there is no “advantage” in the first attack gave an entirely new meaning to me of Master Funakoshi’s well known and often quoted maxim, “Karate ni sente nashi” or “In karate there is no first strike.”
If there is no first strike by the karateka, then we have a Dō-form because we are only interested in using karate for personal development. If there were no advantage in making the first attack, it would indicate the advantage is in defending against the first attack. This is definitely a different philosophical (and practical) approach. If we are talking about an advantage are we not talking about winning versus losing? If we are talking about not taking the first initiative and only protecting ourselves, are we not talking about a more defensive approach? This is the question that immediately surfaced upon reading the sentence, “In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack.”
I started pulling out books that referenced Master Funakoshi, and looked for other translations. I found that the majority referred to Master Funakoshi as a man who preferred the Dō focus as opposed to application or the winning of contests. However, in Patrick McCarthy’s translation of Master Funakoshi’s book, Karate-do Tanpenshu (page 151) there is an article by Graham Noble called, “Master Funakoshi’s Karate” which refers to the 20 precepts of Master Funakoshi. In the article he states, “Some writers have tried to point out the spiritual nature of Funakoshi’s precepts, but I don’t think they are profound in that sense. Funakoshi did believe in the “Dō” of karate, but more in the sense described by the Zen priest Takuan (1573-1646): “The law of the Buddha well observed, is identical with the law of mundane existence, The Way (Dō) is practical only.”
“Master Funakoshi wasn’t one to give metaphysical explanations for everything,” recalled Tsutomu Ohshima. (This is the same Ohshima who translated Karate-Do Kyohan). “He was very practical and was influenced by the teachings of Confucius who never talked about great mysteries or spiritual issues. Funakoshi, like Confucius, was more interested in the world of people, ideas and events.” So the precepts cover not only Funakoshi’s wider view of karate—its underlying social and moral basis—but also advise technical principles, on principles of self-defense, and on how to integrate karate into daily life. Thus, they are well rounded and complete—and moreover, they give us an insight into Funakoshi sensei’s philosophy of karate.”
In the same book, Tanpenshu, there is a copy of Shoto’s Twenty Precepts from Nakasone Genwa’s 1938 publication, “Karatedo Taikan.” (See below). Note the second precept is found in the top row; fourth line from the right. It clearly states, in kanji, “Karate ni sente nashi.” (However, if you look closely, you will notice the character for “shi” appears to have been added later. Master Funakoshi was an excellent calligrapher so it is easy to see that the “shi” character is weaker and larger than the rest of the kanji in that line. While interesting, I doubt the addition of the “shi” character would influence the rendering of the concept).
When I first opened it, I started reading some of the names of Shotokan kata in chapter 4. Under the heading of Taikyoku or “First Cause,” (it is interesting to note that Taikyoku Shodan is almost identical to Genwa Ichi no Kata), I was astounded to read the description. In the second to last sentence, Tsutomu Ohshima translated the following passage, “Moreover, the student who has gained proficiency in basic techniques and understands the essence of the Taikyoku Kata will appreciate the real meaning of the maxim, ‘In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack.’”
What caught my attention was the use of the word “advantage.” Saying there is no “advantage” in the first attack gave an entirely new meaning to me of Master Funakoshi’s well known and often quoted maxim, “Karate ni sente nashi” or “In karate there is no first strike.”
If there is no first strike by the karateka, then we have a Dō-form because we are only interested in using karate for personal development. If there were no advantage in making the first attack, it would indicate the advantage is in defending against the first attack. This is definitely a different philosophical (and practical) approach. If we are talking about an advantage are we not talking about winning versus losing? If we are talking about not taking the first initiative and only protecting ourselves, are we not talking about a more defensive approach? This is the question that immediately surfaced upon reading the sentence, “In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack.”
I started pulling out books that referenced Master Funakoshi, and looked for other translations. I found that the majority referred to Master Funakoshi as a man who preferred the Dō focus as opposed to application or the winning of contests. However, in Patrick McCarthy’s translation of Master Funakoshi’s book, Karate-do Tanpenshu (page 151) there is an article by Graham Noble called, “Master Funakoshi’s Karate” which refers to the 20 precepts of Master Funakoshi. In the article he states, “Some writers have tried to point out the spiritual nature of Funakoshi’s precepts, but I don’t think they are profound in that sense. Funakoshi did believe in the “Dō” of karate, but more in the sense described by the Zen priest Takuan (1573-1646): “The law of the Buddha well observed, is identical with the law of mundane existence, The Way (Dō) is practical only.”
“Master Funakoshi wasn’t one to give metaphysical explanations for everything,” recalled Tsutomu Ohshima. (This is the same Ohshima who translated Karate-Do Kyohan). “He was very practical and was influenced by the teachings of Confucius who never talked about great mysteries or spiritual issues. Funakoshi, like Confucius, was more interested in the world of people, ideas and events.” So the precepts cover not only Funakoshi’s wider view of karate—its underlying social and moral basis—but also advise technical principles, on principles of self-defense, and on how to integrate karate into daily life. Thus, they are well rounded and complete—and moreover, they give us an insight into Funakoshi sensei’s philosophy of karate.”
In the same book, Tanpenshu, there is a copy of Shoto’s Twenty Precepts from Nakasone Genwa’s 1938 publication, “Karatedo Taikan.” (See below). Note the second precept is found in the top row; fourth line from the right. It clearly states, in kanji, “Karate ni sente nashi.” (However, if you look closely, you will notice the character for “shi” appears to have been added later. Master Funakoshi was an excellent calligrapher so it is easy to see that the “shi” character is weaker and larger than the rest of the kanji in that line. While interesting, I doubt the addition of the “shi” character would influence the rendering of the concept).
Perhaps, when Karate-Do Kyohan was first written, in the mid- to late 1950s, Shotokan had taken a definite turn toward sport karate, culminating in the first Shotokan tournament in 1958. It was over 10 years after the end of WWII and karate was moving rapidly toward contests to determine which style was better, more effective, etc. This could have had an influence on the rendering or translation by Ohshima. In the 1922 publication of “Karate-Jitsu,” Funakoshi sensei states on page 300 of the latest translation and book renamed “To-Te Jitsu,” “Karate, as a martial art, must be understood that it will involve two individuals to cause harm to themselves; thus, a first strike can hardly be justified, and in a sense, is foolish.”
It appears that either Funakoshi sensei expanded his philosophy, perhaps due to the changing emphasis placed on kumite by his students, or Ohshima may have been a little too free in his translation having been influenced himself. I guess no one will ever know for sure. However, it is very interesting to reflect on these discoveries, especially in relation to the differences between Shotokan and Genwakai.
History tells us that the inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands (present day Okinawa) were generally peaceful people until the Satsuma clan invaded them in the late 1600s. During the Satsuma occupation the Okinawans were not permitted to carry arms. They relied on their farm tools, what little they learned from Chinese envoys, and others who visited China and learned some “boxing” techniques, which gave rise to Okinawan karate. There are many books written on this topic and the reader can find extensive sources of information regarding the Okinawans ways of defending themselves against the aggressors.
Given a country’s history permeates its culture, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Okinawan martial artists would have been more “defensive” in nature than their Japanese counterparts. This may be one reason all Shotokan kata begins and ends with a defensive technique as pointed out in Noble’s article, “Master Funakoshi’s Karate.”
As a student of Genwakai, can you name the Genwakai kata that begin or end with an offensive technique?
It appears that either Funakoshi sensei expanded his philosophy, perhaps due to the changing emphasis placed on kumite by his students, or Ohshima may have been a little too free in his translation having been influenced himself. I guess no one will ever know for sure. However, it is very interesting to reflect on these discoveries, especially in relation to the differences between Shotokan and Genwakai.
History tells us that the inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands (present day Okinawa) were generally peaceful people until the Satsuma clan invaded them in the late 1600s. During the Satsuma occupation the Okinawans were not permitted to carry arms. They relied on their farm tools, what little they learned from Chinese envoys, and others who visited China and learned some “boxing” techniques, which gave rise to Okinawan karate. There are many books written on this topic and the reader can find extensive sources of information regarding the Okinawans ways of defending themselves against the aggressors.
Given a country’s history permeates its culture, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Okinawan martial artists would have been more “defensive” in nature than their Japanese counterparts. This may be one reason all Shotokan kata begins and ends with a defensive technique as pointed out in Noble’s article, “Master Funakoshi’s Karate.”
As a student of Genwakai, can you name the Genwakai kata that begin or end with an offensive technique?