Interviews with Kenji Tokitsu Sensei
Part 1. This is the first in a series of interviews granted by Kenji Tokitsu-sensei to the French magazine Arts Martiaux.
I have here a number of Japanese budô and karate journals where you appear on the cover. You are also a technical editor of some of them. So what exactly is your activity in Japan?
My activity in Japan is two-fold. On the one hand, I teach and do research on martial arts; on the other, there is a social education project. Let me explain that further. For several years now, at the request of the dôjô at my old university and also at the request of certain groups of karatekas, I've been travelling each year to Japan to teach karate and Chinese martial arts. The two major martial arts journals contacted me, so now, for the past three years, I have been writing on budô theory for Karate do, while for the magazine Budô, published by Nipon Budôkan, I write on budô issues from a planetary point of view. My articles have been well received and are going to be published in book form this year.
My other activity is, for the moment, no more than a project and doesn't have to do with martial arts. Many people have talked to me about initiating social, cultural and educational action projects in Japan.
Let's talk about martial arts, then. Your writings on method are based on your own practice and reflections, aren't they?
On other occasions, I've explained why I was led to question certain things. It wasn't for the pleasure of raising doubts, but in order to train properly. In the course of my practice, I've encountered different problems that I have tried very hard to resolve. That is how I've been able to progress.
So your course has been empirical from the very beginning?
Naturally. Practice is above all empirical. I was a very serious practitioner of Shotokan karate, but I came up against problems with technique, the katas, the manner of practice etc. The doubts raised by these problems led me to investigate other styles and schools of karate. I see the problems of karate as general in scope, rather than as pertaining to a given style or school, because the isle of Okinawa, a source of karate, is only half the size of the island of La Réunion, and only a seventh the size of Corsica. So on such a small island there cannot have been differences in lifestyle. The walls separating contemporary styles and schools of karate are a contemporary creation, due mainly to organisational problems having to do with politics and finance. Therefore, if you want to access the true quality of karate, you have to overcome these barriers. You have to deal with karate itself, not some institutionalised form of it. This is what I try to do, since I want to find out what actually existed and get close to the historical truth in order to learn the method as well as possible. Naturally, this path has led me to the Chinese martial arts, which is logical since historically the karate of Okinawa emerged from certain branches of the Shaolin-quan school. In France, Chinese martial arts are linked to the Karate Federation, but historically, it was karate that was linked to Chinese martial arts.
Have you studied different disciplines of Chinese martial arts?
I have studied all the disciplines that I've been able to find, but let's be clear. Studying and practicing are two different things. I have encountered many people who teach Chinese martial arts. All of these encounters have been very beneficial because there is always a great deal to learn simply by observing their practice. Whenever I've been invited to do so, I have practiced with them. At the same time, as part of my studies I have read numerous documents, so I've been able to study many disciplines simultaneously with my own practice. I think that if you truly want to explore a martial art in depth, you must extend your knowledge. It is important to become familiar with the features of other disciplines, because, from the martial point of view, their practitioners may become your adversaries, and also because the peculiarities of other arts may give you a different technical vision. As the Japanese proverb says: a frog in a well can never dream of a wide ocean. If we remain confined to our small vision of the world, we risk falling behind in combat. This is what I have learned by breaking out of a single style and school of karate.
Have you said so in your book?
Yes. I felt that thoughts based on experience would be easier to understand, because the path I have taken was a search for a method. At the beginning of the 1980s, I re-encountered Master Nishino and studied his breathing method. M. Nishino was a pupil of M. Sawai, founder of Taiki-ken. I immersed myself in the practice of these two disciplines, always studying tai chi chuan and continuing to practice karate. At that time I spent almost all my days practicing martial arts.
In 1990 I re-encountered M. Yu, who introduced me to different yi chuan masters in Beijing. Re-encounters are a rare and exciting thing in the course of life and research. Yi chuan is the origin of taiki-ken. So I was able to compare the two and naturally develop a synthesis that I continue to practice. I call the standing meditation exercises ritsu-zen instead of zhan zhuang, because I began with the Japanese term and also because I like its meaning better. These exercises do not belong to yi chuan though. They are practiced in other Chinese martial arts. There are equivalent exercises in Japanese sword combat.
I have presented and analysed the methods of yi chuan and tai chi chuan. My analysis is based on experience gleaned from the teachings of different masters, the text of countless documents, and above all, my own practice.
My articles in Japan have met with different sorts of criticism, most of it very positive. Some readers have criticised me because somehow I have dared to write about taiki-ken, about yi chuan and about tai chi chuan without using the official language of the discipline, without belonging to an official group, and without practicing only karate, only taiki-ken, only yi chuan or tai chi chuan exclusively.
I have answered these criticisms regarding the fact that my practice does not belong within the framework of a single discipline. I do not belong to karate or to taiki-ken, not to yi chuan or to tai chi chuan. I have practiced each of these methods intensively, but none has seemed to me fully satisfactory. They are important and I continue practicing them, but not exclusively. I have built a synthesis from them. I continue my research on the method of martial arts, investigating and developing the best practice for myself. I cherish and defend my right to relativise the different methods that I study and practice.
For example, I devote about two hours a day to my practice of yi chuan, but I don't call myself a practitioner of yi chuan because I also train in tai chi, in karate and the sword, etc. Now then, people who train less than I do and call themselves practitioners of yi chuan because they don't train in anything else, claim that what they say is therefore much more valid than my teachings. There are karatekas who claim that I am not one because I practice yi chuan, tai chi, etc. This just makes me laugh and I couldn't care less. In any case, this is how, little by little, I have been defining the position on which I base my doubts and thinking.
But do you have objective criteria for examining a method?
My criteria are simple and clear. I practice an unarmed martial art, which is principally an art of percussion combat, or boxing. This is my starting point. Next, the method must ensure efficiency. But efficiency in what? Efficiency in combat, of course, but not combat in general. If you talk about combat alone, you will quickly find yourself in a dead-end. What I practice is the art of percussion combat. Even if it is extended to holding techniques, the pivotal point of my art is percussion.
There are two types of efficiency: the immediate and the long-term. Whatever technique is being executed, it must be immediately applicable and effective. Technical capacity and skill must be obtainable in very few years - one or two at the most. But technical capacity must increase and develop much further over time. If someone who is very strong at the age of 20 or 30 becomes less effective after the age of 40, and his capacity diminishes year by year thereafter, we have to recognise that by the second yardstick, something is wrong. When this is the case, my judgement is that the method is not good. On this score, the contemporary method of karate poses problems. So, if we take duration into account, the search for efficiency also entails the quest for well-being and good health.
This means that a good martial art method must guarantee efficient technique plus an energy principle, as the basis of longevity.
How can we test the two measurements of efficiency?
For my part, I only have to test the adequacy of my method on myself. I experiment and examine the first aspect of efficiency daily, through combat exercise. I think that in the art of combat, it is necessary to advance step by step, making each hour count, through combat exercise. In any case, I am now 52 years old and am better today at free combat than 10 or 20 years ago, and I truly love combat exercise. My outlook is to continue improving in combat even after I reach the age of 70. If we remove ourselves from combat, we risk building up the mistaken sensation that we are the best and strongest in the world. By engaging in combat, our illusions crumble and we are made very aware of reality, which is often not as beautiful as we had imagined. For several years now, I have been doing combat exercises wearing head gear and light gloves that allow me to execute holds. Even wearing protective gear, we control what we do, but if you engage in combat where actual blows are struck, even without full force, things change considerably. It breaks down all illusions. The technique and movements that you've constructed in your mind are put to the test. Most of it is shown to be unreal and you're forced to re-examine things. This is what is interesting. I have made many discoveries these last several years, particularly concerning the direct relations between combat and the exercises of yi chuan, tai chi and qi gong. Combat becomes much more consistent and even enjoyable, as it allows you to sweat from the very depths of your body. I have always done a lot of combat, but this form has proved itself to be the most satisfactory for me. It is truly interesting and at the same time fun. Most of my pupils feel this way too.
What do you really teach?
I mainly teach combat tai chi, where I condense my experience and my knowledge of karate and other martial arts that I've practiced. With tai chi exercises, I have given my pupils the possibility of working both on energy and technique.
Sommaire des pages de cet article :Document d'archive écrit en ??
par Kenji Tokitsu - publié dans ??