ok, you write this line: "The following is presented to help dispel certain myths concerning the Kata of Karate, in an effort to get back to what Bunkai should be intended for: The study and understanding of the transmission of fighting knowledge via classical Kata, as it was intended to be understood"
if it was intended to be understood, why was it not transmitted consistently the same way between masters of the first generation or beyond?
then you later say "Donít misunderstand. I do not pretend that I know what every movement in every Kata is trying to convey. Neither do you"
so therefore, you are admitting you (and everyone else) don't know how it was intended in all cases. therefore it's open to interpretation and opinion. what is the basis for accepting or rejecting myths if there is no solid ground to stand on?
so why do some have it wrong while others have it right?
does the most intellectual and/or poetic argument win?
does the one with the most convincing interpretation win?
does the one with the most demonstrably effective win?
does the one with the most direct lineage win?
each one of those have strength and weaknesses....but don't tell me, YOURS is the right one, yes?
Edited by Ed_Morris (08/26/14 09:46 PM)