The Nature of Self-defence?

If we're completely honest with ourselves I think you'll agree that fighting is one of the lowest forms of human expression. Whether it be a drunken punch-up on a friday night or bullets tearing someone asunder in a firefight - violence is the least desirable of all our life choices. It is my belief that the highest aspects of the "martial arts" involve not being there in the first place - that is to say that we should become so attuned to our environment that we are capable of sensing a possible threat & avoiding it before it becomes a physical reality to us.

If we look back to the early beginnings of humanity as we know it, it becomes obvious that we needed methods to ensure our survival against predators in whatever form they appeared. Animals rarely fight unless their life or ability to feed or procreate is threatened. Obviously, we learned from the animal kingdom and it is my belief that the early forms of "martial art" involved much posturing and very little, if any physical contact - one could easily become injured in a physical confrontation & this affects one's ability to survive in the world at large, weakening oneself & thus the tribe of which one is a part.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the desire to enter into competition & test one's skills & abilities, but this is a long way from the fighting arts our ancestors used for self (& thus the tribes) protection - it is not (or at least, seldom) a matter of life & death in the ring. Even the street is a very different proposition these days when firearms & blades are so common & unprovoked attacks are a fact of life. So where does the desire or need to harm others stem from?

The first, & to my mind, the only acceptable answer, is TO PROTECT ONESELF OR OTHERS FROM MALICIOUS PHYSICAL ATTACK. Otherwise one is forcefully exerting one's will upon another until they are either bullied into submission or incapable of protest.

As far as I'm aware ALL traditional martial disciplines recommend restraint & advise against excessive use of force - this is pragmatic as well as humane & reflects what I perceive to be the deeply compassionate wisdom of countless teachers throughout the ages - why apply 100 kilos of force when 1 kilo (or, preferably, none) will do the job? Why visit more harm than is necessary to stop a violent protagonist? On the battlefield this means conserving one's energy so that one can better protect oneself & others - minimum effort, maximum effect.

This brings me to one of the most gratifying paradoxes pertaining to the study of the martial arts - very few people who undertake & adhere to the training regimens of most, if not all of the martial disciplines, become or remain violent - on the contrary, the violent tend to become peaceful & the weak tend to become strong - this applies as much to violence within the mind & the spirit as it does to physically violent tendencies.

Indeed, it is a theory of mine that the martial aspect of the arts is in fact a devolution from techniques that were intended as a route for human beings to attain self-realisation - in other words, for us to fully realise all that we are capable of becoming - these techniques are NOT intended for us to use in order to gain power over others, they are intended for us to use in order to master ourselves. Bagua for example, began as a circle-walking Taoist meditation technique devised to harmonise the individual with nature. Shaolin techniques were also devised to maintain a suitable degree of command over the physical so that the spiritual could be propagated.

If we properly explore the idea of self-defence it becomes apparent that this works on many different levels. For example, our bodies have a natural inbuilt immune system - T cells - which can be boosted through the practice of martial techniques such as Taijiquan - in this context our inner warrior can be said to be defending the self against violence at the cellular level. Certainly Taijiquan methodology works equally well in hand to hand combat but of what use is this if we are so ill as to be incapacitated? The same can be said of our spiritual welfare - how useful is our martial art if we are incapable of dealing with stress? If we are unhealthy & susceptible to the detrimental effects of stress then how can we effectively defend ourselves in a full blown physical encounter where our own and/or others welfare is at stake?

In short, I think it is a mistake to view the martial arts that our ancestors have handed down to us as a means to defeat our fellows. We should view this rich heritage as a blueprint for stopping violence within our society & as a means to attain the very best within ourselves. I have been taught that no matter what the situation, there is no opponent other than the fear driven, ego fuelled view of ourselves as seperate to the rest of humanity & nature.

All is one & we're all in the same boat. It's way past time that we stopped fighting one another & started treating everyone as the extended family that we are.

It is my most profound hope that through our martial endeavours, we come to realise this fundamental truth..

"Heaven is my father & earth my mother & even such a small being as I finds an intimate place in their midst. Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body & that which directs the universe I regard as my nature. All people are my brothers & sisters & all things are my companions". (Chang Tsai)

Tao for now. Mark.  

[By the way, great post (I did not understant all of it because my english is not that good). But, you need to remember that some of the arts were made to kill and only praticed to be used on the battlefield. Jiujitsu for exemple, was used by samurai to defend themselves while unarmed on the battlefield against an armed opponent. I was used to disarm the opponent or kill him. TKD was created to fight mounted warriors. Muay Thai was used as a way to fight by the soldiers.I totally agree with you when you say that Shaolin and Wudang arts were made to be "moving meditation". And the goal of those arts were really to attain self-realisation, the destruction of the ego (the goal of the Buddhism).

By the way, I'm not saying that martial arts should be used to fight and do violence (I'm totally against violence and I hope to never use what I learned in a fight) but you need to see that some of them were made that way (I can add Mogolian Wrestling and Sambo and a lot of others to that category).
I agree with you when you say that MA should only be used TO PROTECT ONESELF OR OTHERS FROM MALICIOUS PHYSICAL ATTACK.

Peace

Any citations for the t-cell/tai chi connection?

Also, what are these "traditional arts" you speak of? 4,000 year old wrestling, or 80 year old Aikido? I think both of those would agree with not wasting energy unnecessarily, but I can think of several martial arts that advocate overwhelming an enemy with sudden violence quickly.

Also, I'm pretty sure that all the fighting aspects came first, with the other stuff you're mentioning being tacked on much later or in many martial arts not at all.

[QUOTE=MrGalt;10592309

Also, what are these "traditional arts" you speak of? 4,000 year old wrestling, or 80 year old Aikido?[/QUOTE]

It is believed that Martial Arts was also derived from the ancient art called "Wrestling", even before the Chinese invented what we've known today as Kung Fu/Wushu. Wrestling was one of the main sports of the "Ancient Greek" people, through the ancient, Spartans are the most feared fighters of the Western civilization, and wrestling was part of their training as well as sports, that test your ability.

Correct me mates if I'm wrong w/ this.
Over the year of the ancient Japanese people, wars are rampant.
There is this Samurai that is equivalent to a Knight in the European Medieval age.

During those wars(samurai), Samurai used different styes of Martial arts defedning themselves, esp. empty handed(w/o the samurai sword).

Instead of punching those fully armored enemy samurai's, they intend to turn them down using a "takedown", I think that's how Judo, Aikido, and Jiujutsu started, then being followed with a stab.

You are completly right, the origin of martial arts is as old as the times "Man" used to fight in war and amongst him. The were used by the warrior class to be able to defend themselves from enemies while unarmed. The true nature of martial arts was to be able to defeat or kill an opponent or defend youself, while no weapons were avaible (Like I said with TKD wich was used to fight mounted soldiers while unarmed and on foot).

Sure Shaolin Kung-Fu, Tai-Ji, Xing-Yi, Bagua, Aikido, Shorinji Kenpo and other put emphasis on the inner peace and the used of martial arts as a last resort, but if you search martial arts history, you will see there those were mostly created by monks who took martial arts as 1 - A way to stay in shape 2 - A moving meditation 3 - Probably tried to show the world that they can use an "Art of War" to achieve inner peace.

I will be honest, I have a great respect of the Inner peace, meditation, learn not the fight principles of those arts. They are really great for a spiritual person and I really think that should be more "universal" in martial arts, but you got to remember the true origins of those arts.

Ah the big debate of the applicability of martial arts in the modern times. Many martial artists have many different viewpoints on this situation. There is no right or wrong answer.
What you're saying is that competition is not a life or death situation:

"to enter into competition & test one's skills & abilities, but this is a long way from the fighting arts our ancestors used for self (& thus the tribes) protection - it is not (or at least, seldom) a matter of life & death in the ring."

But isn't all forms of fighting a life or death situation? There have been boxer's who broke their neck in the arena. There have been jujitsu practitioners that broke their back on the mat. Competition is a life and death situation, the difference is whether you feel that way or not. Treat your "competitions" with more respect and a more serious attitude and you will find that you will prosper. I guarantee that you won't feel that competition is seldom a matter of life and death if you go against someone like Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini with a lack of martial arts training.

I'm still trying to wokr out what this has to do with self defence :/

I don't think it has anything to do with it ,not in the actual context of defending yourself.

Sorry I don't agree there, I don't believe that fighting is one of the lowest forms of human expression, but quite the contrary. I do agree that in this day and age violence isn't desirable to a certain extent because of the consequences and repercussions, but there is a certain joy that comes from engaging in a "justified" fight. I do agree to a sense that avoiding a fight is better than engaging in one, but this planet isn't perfect and someone somewhere will meet an idiot who pushes them into a fight. So it is a physical reality, and in that situation to be able to defend yourself and come out on top is in my opinion is one of the highest forms of human expression, glorified by our many great fighters, generals, warlords, movies in history. It's in our baser instincts to fight, whether it be physically or mentally, to get to the top, to survive.


The street is different but many of the same principals apply, Martial Arts, fighting, self defence and self preservation have evolved. The desire to harm others comes from instinct in reaction to a need or want.

The desire and need to hurt someone doesn't stem from protecting or a defensive nature, someone has to be the aggressor, even though we today are conditioned into believe being the aggressor is not "acceptable", if you look at the most successful powers in the world today, their power came from aggression, it's a way of life survival of the fittest.

I'm not sure if "ALL" the traditional martial arts reccomend restraint but in answer to your question as to "why visit more harm than is neccesary to stop a violent protagonist?" Because, sometimes using less force than is needed may not accurately depict the nature of the situation. I might meet someone who I judge to be weaker than me, so I use less force, I underestimate them, they take this weakness on my part and use it against me to catch me offguard. Point one, no mercy. Point two, if I was to use less force than is neccesary to get the job done, what's not to say once I turn my back they take advantage, would they show me the same restraint I have shown them? What if they come back later, with a weapon, with some friends? Elimate the threat totally and utterly is point two.


Our "inner warrior" does not "defend the self against violence at a cellular level". If our cells are strong, then we are better able to defend and fight for ourselves, but it doesn't directly defend us. Stress can have two different effects, one it can be too much for someone to take and have adverse negative effects on their mind and body, Mr Darwin might call them weak, I might agree to an extent. Two, you can learn to cope with the stress, you can deal with it get on with your life, you can overcome adversity in a state of stress and this in turn will make you stronger.

It is not a mistake to view the martial arts as a whole "as a means to defeat our fellows", Martial Arts have many different benefits, to different people different things, some arts might be peaceful by nature others might be purely based on self defence.

Families fight too, maybe you forgot about the Simpsons? Or maybe World War 1?

Which is?

"Heaven is my father & earth my mother & even such a small being as I finds an intimate place in their midst. Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body & that which directs the universe I regard as my nature. All people are my brothers & sisters & all things are my companions". (Chang Tsai)

Tao for now. Shin.

Can everyone who has posted in this thread please do some serious research into the history of MAs rather than repeating the stuff they once heard?

Similarly, as Count and SuLin have said, I don't see how this is related to self defence.

Mitch, off to NOT kick anyone off anything.

Pitty you don't do aikido Mitch you could throw the horse at the soldier.

regards koyo

martial arts bring out the best in you.
real fighting brings out the beast in you.
know the difference.

I've done serious research, both on my own and assigned by university and martial arts teachers, which is why I asked my question of Whitecrow.

1. When you say "traditional" martial arts, do you mean truly ancient ones like wrestling, boxing, and Muay Thai, all of which tend to get maligned as mere sports and aren't about all the pseudospiritual nonsense, or do you mean martial arts whose entire history could plausibly have been photographed, like Aikido or modern Taekwondo? Or when you say traditional martial arts are spiritual do you define traditional martial arts as those martial arts that are concerned more with spiritual endeavors? I think that's circular reasoning. I disagree with your thesis in any case though since the word "martial" probably wouldn't have been used to describe them if you were correct. The arts of Mars are for war, not prayer.

2. Please cite some peer-reviewed publications in which a correlation between tai chi practice and t-cell counts is shown. I'll take the time to read them if you do, although I already suspect that I'll find that they merely show a correlation between mild exercise and immune strength if anything at all.

Also, did anyone else get a little squicked out by the article closing with a quote from a random Chinese guy and the tortured pun "Tao for now?" They kind of looked like shameless pandering to some sort of Asian fetish that we all of course must share since all Martial Arts are Asian, right?

I'm not trying to defend what he said or prove to you that it's real, I was searching the net to see what you could get and I found this :

" The research team assessed the impact of a 12 week programme of Tai Chi exercises on the T helper cell activity of 30 patients with type 2 diabetes and 30 healthy people of the same age. After the 12 week programme glycated haemoglobin (when excess blood sugar combines with the oxygen transporter in red blood cells) levels fell significantly from 7.59% to 7.16 in the diabetic patients. And levels of interleukin-12, which boosts the immune response, doubled. Levels of interleukin-4, which suppresses the immune response, fell. "

The article can be found there : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0331220843.htm

Found that too : http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s952853.htm

Can't say if that's good sources or if what they say makes sense... I did a degree in Urban Planning.

I am thinking there should possibly be some kind of quality control on articles, I have read some excellent ones here but some pretty woeful ones too!