For those interested here in the 1964 Interview from Blackbelt Magazine (all rights reserved by Blackbelt) by Ned Paige interviewing Chitose Sr with translation provided by Tsuruoka Sensei. Of note within here is Chitose Sensei talks about his medical career and also some ideas around karate. Paige notes the charisma of Chitose.
​

One doesn’t have to study or be involved in ‘martial arts’ long before the myths start to appear. The Bodhidharma is organising the Shaolin, the mystical mountain hermit with secret Daoist techniques or the mythical visions that led to the founding of various ryuha. While both Japan and China have a rich heritage of such stories and indeed a great legacy of storytelling, such accounts must not be interpreted as historical fact.

In this blog, I want to explore two legends that raise their heads once in a while about Chitose Gochuku that require historical verification. Neither story is repeated in either of the works that Chitose authored. However, they appear in various places across the net and indeed in manuals which should engage with better historical research before passing on such legends. 

As I said at the outset of this exploration of Chitose’s life, the goal here is to return him to his historical place. I sincerely hope that those who head organisations following Chitose’s linage will provide evidence to counter what I believe is a more accurate historical presentation of O-sensei. Indeed I would argue that the two legends I explore in the coming blogs may have been intended to cast Chitose-sensei in an impressive light, however, in the light of day they may detract from his real legacy and character.

The first legend is that in 1922 a 24 year Chitose having asked who was the greatest budoka in Japan he is pointed in the direction of Nakayama Hiromichi (中山 博道)(whose name is more commonly read as Nakayama Hakudou). The story then unfolds that the young Chitose went to Nakayama’s dojo and ‘challenged’ him. Nakayama with a naked blade faces off against the young Chitose until, after an hour or so, both realising the greatness of the other, they smiled and agreed that is was a draw and became life long friends. 

This historical evidence of this story, however, needs to be questioned. Firstly, the story is itself a typical budo archetype that can be seen from Yoshitune’s time through to Funakoshi’s experience with Kogura at from Keio University in the 1930s(see https://shotokai.com/gichin-funakoshi-sensei-informal-biography/). The idea of a brave budoka facing a naked blade has been and continues to be a part of the Japanese storytelling that unfolds in many manga and other forms of the popular press.

The date 1922 is also relevant. According to Collins (https://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/article33.htm) the young Chitose just returned to Tokyo after having quit his military job due to a severe case of typhoid. This is also the year when, under the invitation of Kano Jigoro, Funakoshi was invited to the mainland to help promote karate following his demonstration before the Crown Prince and other members of the military elite at various points in the early 1920s. The goals were to promote karate as one of the new Japanese Budo that would be a gift of Japan to the world (Funakoshi, To-Te Jitsu, 1922/25 (Trans) Ishida). It is hard to believe that Funakoshi, who was Chitose’s senior and teacher would have condoned such behaviour as Nakayama was a leading light in the revising of Budo in the new Post Meiji Japan. {For an excellent, researched account of Nakayama and the whole movement to revive Koryu and reframe Kendo, please visit Mark Tankosich http://www.marktankosich.com/ accounts of this era}. 

​
Nakayama was born in 1872 and created the Shindo (Shinto) Muso Ryu Iaido Ryuha. By the mid-1920s he was recognised as one of the great swordsmen of Japan and was a founding principle of the Toyama Military School. Moreover, as part of this school which also developed its style of swordsmanship, there were precise expectations that the sword should be used to develop the self, like a mirror that reflect the inner person. Indeed, after Japan’s surrender, Nakayama was a leading voice encouraging the Japanese not to lose heart and to understand that great bravery came from accepting their loss and in working towards a better future. He also urged the Japanese to treat the US occupiers with great respect for this reflected the soul of the samurai (Nippon Times, August 28, 1945, p. 2). Indeed these ideals led him to help for the All Japan Kendo Federation in the mid-1950s. Nakayama was a recognised 10th dan in Koryu Jodo, Kendo and Iaido. 

For a young Chitose to walk into a Nakayama’s dojo and challenge him would have not only made Chitose look like a country bumkin unaware of the political movements of his time, but it would also have risked the wrath of Funakoshi and other karatekas who were desperately trying to establish karate on the mainland. In Japan, one did not throw down a challenge to a man of Nakayama’s standing without risking social and political exile. Indeed the gap in the 1920s between the new karate movement and that of the Judo and Kendo dojos could not be starker. We know from Funakoshi’s biography that during these early years in Tokyo he worked as a custodian (Funakoshi, 1956). In contrast, we know that Nakayama was regularly performing for the Imperial family and the military elite. Karate was not yet on a ground where socially, politically or physically, it could take on a man on Nakayama’s standing.

The other aspect of this story is that the young Chitose would have to have been pretty cocksure to take on a live blade in the hands of an expert such as Nakayama. For anyone, who has ever used a katana this is not something you would undertake lightly, especially for bravado. Moreover, he risked being arrested as such duels were illegal, and as an Okinawan, he would not have been judged well by the judicial system on the mainland.

Additionally, there were other candidates who Chitose, had he so wished could have challenged such as Motbu Choki, who would shoot to fame after his match against the western ‘wrestler’ John Kentel. However, Motobu’s brother taught Chitose, and he was of a much higher caste that Chitose so challenging him would again, have been not acceptable. There were also his dojo mates at Funakosihi’s school or Judoka at the Kodokan to name but a few.


If Chitose and Nakayama did have a meeting, the likelihood is that it was far more cordial than the current legend portrays. The young Chitose (who will not be awarded his Judan until 1968) was still learning his art and Nakayama would have recognised that. Given Nakayama’s standing and what we know of his as a person, he would have had too much to lose and nothing to gain by killing or injuring the young Okinwana. They may have faced off against each other, but chances are it would have been with a shinai (wooden sword) or bokken, and it was as a teacher and student, not as adversaries. 

Most importantly, that neither men mention this event and that is bears all the hallmarks of an archetypical Japanese story suggest it never took place - at least in the current guise presented. Besides the young Chitose also had much to lose too, as he would soon become a father for the first time.

In my next post, I will explore the legend, although not as popular as the one above, that Chitose was part of the Japanese fighting force in China, and learned King Fu (i.e. Wushu or Quan) from a villager he befriended.

​

Still learning the tools of the trade when it comes to SNS - hopefully the new layout is less clutter than the last
cheers
​J

As a professional teacher and part-time researcher I know the values of models, strategies and other heuristics when trying to make sense of the complicated world of learning. Of course academic  learning is both ontological and epistemological and therefore the need for a framework to understand past and help formulate future learning is vital. Likewise, as a social scientist I can use a plethora of data collection approaches but when I start to make sense of this data I need a sense making paradigm, commonly referred to as a methodology.

It is along this line of reasoning that I offer the following in relation to the teaching and by extension learning of karate, or indeed any classical budo.

While most budo offer official teaching licenses, dig deep and you will find a pedagogy rooted in rote learning. I do not know of a ryuha/system that grants such licenses where an actual understanding of how we learn and teach is expected. Rather, it seems the assumption that you learn as you go along and then pass it along to the next generation. Given the historical and cultural milieu out of which most of modern budo emerged this is understandable. However, pedagogy has over the past 100 years undergone significant development.

Let me start with a statement by the founder of the karate ryuha I study. In an 1979 publication put out by the North American body overseeing the promulgation of Chito Ryu there, ascribed to Chitose-sensei, is the statement: 'The old masters never left us clear instructions on what the kata's meant'. While, I have been unable to verify if this statement is actually Chitose's the sentiments expressed resonate with his contemporaries such as Mabuni, Funakoshi and both Choki's.

If this utterance is true then the argument going forward must be how can we make sense of the soul (i.e. kata) of karate without an empirical framework. More importantly, I would argue, without such a framework to enable exploration, kata remains a form of physical exercise, bereft of any true self-defense principles aside form how to defend against a reverse, straight punch and a forward thrust kick. Maybe an odd lapel or wrist grab also.

In Chito Ryu it is true we have set bunkai for kata but these bunkai form a very basic explanation of what the kata means. The vast majority of the techniques in our kata are not explained thus. There is a suggestion within the official NiSeiShi bunkai that all may not be as it seems, for example there are elbow strikes where none appear in the kata.

Then we also have, what I believe has been misguidedly passed on a separate GoShinJitsu or 2 persons self-defence drills. Indeed to anyone truly delving into the meaning of Chito Ryu kata these drills offer insights into an alternative interpretation of the kata. But then it stops. That is, the data which we are left with (i.e. the kata)remain complex and unexplored suggesting perhaps something else lies within their depth. We have returned to Chitose's quandary - if the old masters did not leave us the answer then how to we 'make sense' of the kata. This was a point I reached about NiDan level and have spent the past 20+ years trying to solve. Thankfully my work as an academic offers a suggestions and it lies in using a methodology to understand the data.

Using such an approach the kata are the raw data and the methodology I use has been that developed by karate researcher and writer Patrick McCarthy, Hanshi. Using his work in translating the Bubishi and exploring other systems of self defense McCarthy developed his HAPV (Habitual Antics of Physical Violence - see https://zanshinkai.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/habitual-acts-of-physical-violence/) and suggest that it was these acts that kata originally sought to answer. The McCathy HAPV theory, which I believe is actually a "Law' in the scientific sense, accounts for the various poses, hand techniques and other items possible in kata.

Kata, as a training device for 'fighting' bears little relevance to the modern point or full contact karate tournament. However, under the McCarthy Law it doesn't have to, as it wasn't designed for that purpose. It does nonetheless account for kata that addresses a no-holds barred, rich self-defence heritage that includes many anti-social actions that was banned when it came from behind the veil of secrecy and into the Okinawan school system in 1904 or so. Spitting, twisting, strangulations, gouging, head-buts etc were all removed from the modern karate curriculum at this time, as it purpose underwent radical rejigging.

Furthermore, looking at kata as data in need of a methodology, encourages deeper growth both in understanding and passing on the learning that is karate, Kobudo or social science. It liberates the practitioner while also holding them to account. It moves ryuha on from their potential stagnation and adoration of an individual into a richer experience and level of respect for what is ultimately the human condition.

So my 32nd year in karate is coming to a close. It has been an exciting year - one of modulated ups and downs. However, it was a year in which once again, I focused on karate and Kobudo. Watching the unfolding of discussions on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, there is excellent research being done to shed light into those areas of this tradition which millions of us worldwide do. 

Nevertheless, in essence, what I do not see emerging is a shared meaning of what is karate. Aside from the use of uniform, itself open to interpretation, and general use of Japanese terminology, what constitutes karate remains open to the interpretation of the individual instructor. That the industry of karate is a multibillion-dollar one that remains, for the most part, unregulated no doubt contributes to the opaqueness of the term. 

Below, I informally present a few ideas around sign-post we may use to identify what constitutes authentic karate, as defined by historical context. Given the inclusion of karate in the Olympics (and its exclusion from future ones), the end of this years seems appropriate to consider the above.

The key markers are:

Karate must be grounded in self-defence. Any form that deviates beyond this principal as a founding stone cannot be considered karate. While testing one's mettle through competition may be helpful, it cannot be the essence of what is done.

Karate should have its roots traceable to Okinawa. Karate is not only a form of self-defence; it is also a cultural artefact of Okinawan history. Any system which does not have a lineage to Okinawa cannot indeed be considered karate. It may be a highly effective form of self-defence or sport such as Japanese Kempo, kickboxing or other, but cannot be considered  'karate'.

Karate must be a focus on empty hands and as such, should utilize all aspects of what empty hands can entail and do, including throws, chokes etc.  An over-focus on the clenched fist is not historical karate as it limits the ability of one to self-defence.

Part of the karate experience must involve Kobudo. Historically the two were unified and supplementary. 

Kata must be utilized as a primary vehicle for enabling self-defence learning. However, caution here and also a bit of controversy as kata must not merely be taught as a static form. Instead, its underlying principles and individuals nuances must be explored by student and teacher together.

You will note that I have left off 'essential' items such as character development, use of Keiko go or even a dan system. As these were later additions or, in the case of character development, utilized to develop an individual perspective defined by space/place, they may not be essential to karate as a form of self-defence.

Of course, as a Catholic, a teacher and a human being, I believe all we do should develop our character and as such karate can serve as a vehicle. However, such power given to karate must be done cautiously, especially when the teacher has exposure to the young or the easily influenced.

From my years in karate I know this list can expand, contract etc. but what I am proposing is to start a conversation where we can at least begin to consider karate as a discipline worthy of academic exploration and consideration. To do this, we must first define our terms.

I wish you all a healthy, balanced and joyous 2020. Keep your foot on the floor and your Kiai active!

One of the great benefits of international education is the ability to work in an environment with people who come from various educational backgrounds. 

A good friend of mine, Theodor is a trained Romanian physicist, a fantastic footballer and a genuinely great mind/soul/body embodiment. While Teo heads up our Science program and I work in a few roles we still find time to catch and chat about 'stuff', usually on the morning tea break. Recently, we have been discussing God, the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics and the need for an observer - yes, this is usually the kind of stuff we chat about. However, this past Friday, we had a conversation about our mutual concerns around the lack of 'freedom' and 'exploration' we now both see in education. 

Universities, although becoming more open to social and economic clientele have arguably redefined themselves as work-place preparation; a situation exacerbated by the ranking of them, along business model lines. Part and parcel of this movement have been a lack of pushing the new frontier of our knowledge. This mindest has filtered down to secondary education. In a 'publish or perish world' reproducing and revisiting established knowledge is a safer bet than going out on a limb, and such a mindset is likely to embed itself in the minds of students. 

If we explore academics and what is being produced, we find a reproduction of more in-depth explorations of items we have known about for a century or so. My field, education, is still being driven at a basic level by the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey all of who are dated. Likewise, Teo's field of astrophysics is delving into the frontiers already known such as QM, but not actively seeking out new ones. While there is no denying the excellent benefit in going deeper - surely it is time to explore new frontiers? 

What aspects of knowing do did we need to uncover? Given present trajectories, the whole area of ethics and moral development of our collective species requires work. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. 

​The access to and speed of knowledge and its production have, arguably, outstripped our ethical growth; to say nothing of our ability to meaningfully process this knowledge. To know is not to understand, but to understand is to know. We can make choices about our now and our future - surely freeing up the current generation to push new frontiers is necessary, timely and ethically imperative?