Subtle Shades of Japanese & Assumptions

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Mike Sigman]

I was watching a television show yesterday and I knew of a couple of the advisors who made various commentaries. Listening to some of the explanations they made brought to my mind, once again, the strong feeling that a lot of translations we get in the West are based often on the depth of knowledge of the translator, the translator's complete (or not) understanding of idiom and colloquiallisms, the subject being discussed, etc. I know for a fact that many of the current translations about the so-called "internal" martial arts are going to have to be modified or discarded in light of some of the more-recently available information on "internal martial arts".

A brief example that I often use is use of the tranlation "energy" for "jin" (which is further compounded by the fact that "jin" is often transposed with the term "qi" because "jin" is considered the physical manifestation of "qi"). Here's a discussion by a Chinese martial artist about "jin", which is the essence of the physical skill called "kokyu":

http://www.taiji-qigong.de/info/articles/jumin_transljin_en.php

One of the questions I'd like to bring up is the use of "kokyu" as this essential jin force/skill. Jun mentioned in a previous discussion (I can't remember exactly where or when) that he'd recently encountered "kokyu" in a usage that implied something other than "breath" or "timing"; more of a "force". I published a bit of someone's (not Jun) email in which at the dojo in Japan where he was studying, the term was used to imply moving with a certain type of force/skill.

Now the point I'm getting at is that this usage of "kokyu" was sort of a new meaning to experienced Japanese speakers. Whatever previous comments they may have simply heard or read about "kokyu" would have been translated in terms of what they thought "kokyu" meant. I.e., this new idiomatic usage of "kokyu" throws an entirely different light on something that they thought was commonplace and understood (more or less).

Thinking back about conversations in regard to translations of O-Sensei's works, tangential literature about training methods, "Misogi", "Kiai", and many other examples, I get the feeling that there is a reasonable amount of commentary about Japanese martial arts that uses the same terms but is shifted into meanings other than the original.

For instance, I listened to a couple of sentences about what "Kiai" means and it mentioned the "ki" and "spirit" in such a way that the words were close to mentioning what abdominal-generated sound does with the pressure/qi, but the contextual meaning it left was radically different. It was more of a vagary than anything else, in the television pronouncement. The term "spirit" was loosly tossed in, yet "spirit" has very important connotations as part of the complete discussion on Ki and Kokyu-power.

Notice in the webpage reference that I gave above, the interviewer asked about using "energy" as a suitable translation for "jin". Westerners have been talking about and making sophisticated analyses of "jin" as "energy" for decades.... yet they totally missed what the real implication was, so all those conversations were for nothing and led people into doing regular body mechanics while talking about assumed meanings that were fruitless at best.

In past months when I mentioned my opinion that I thought a lot of "experts", particularly in Aikido, might have somewhat skewed some translations, I was met with some outrage by at least one expert in Japanese life and language. Yet, it happens. Look at the "kokyu" example. And the use of "kokyu" as a force/skill is only one piece of a logical web that encompasses "kiai", Misogi-breathing, and a number of other things. They're immutably intertwined and it doesn't take a very high accomplishment of these skills to see how they're all tied together. At least, that's my opinion. How viable is this idea that there has been an acceptance of subtle shades of some Japanese terms that have been translated based on slightly wrong assumptions?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Duarh]

I'm not qualified to discuss the 'subtle shades' of terms in aikido discourse, but I've come to conclude that we often misunderstand and mistranslate terms even at the most crude, biomechanical level. Case in point: the word 'koshi'.

'Move from the hips' is a common suggestion in aikido, and 'koshi nage' is often translated as 'hip throw'. I accepted this at face value for years, until I went to Japan one summer and had the chance to work together (at a scientific project) with some elderly Japanese mine workers. After a long day, they'd always be rubbing their lower backs, muttering "koshi itai, koshi itai" (itai - hurt). I asked one of them about it once, pointing at my hipbone and asking "Isn't this koshi?" The gentleman shook his head vigorously, saying "No, no", pointing again at his lower back.

Now it's entirely possible this is a regional/dialect thing and that what aikido instructors mean by 'koshi' is, indeed, 'hips' (though, the way I've seen it practiced, koshi nage really is 'lower back throw' more than 'hip throw' a lot of the time. And then there's the part of the hakama called 'koshiita' or 'lower back board'/'hip board' - the former translation fits much better, obviously). My dictionary does list both "hips" and "lower back' as translations of 'koshi'. But the incident got me wondering.

And then a couple of weeks ago I attended a Tai Chi seminar with Master Yang Jun (great-grandson of Yang Chengfu) - and he remarked that everyone said you should "move from the waist" in Tai Chi, but what the original Chinese really meant was "move from here" - and he pointed out a part of his lower back! Now Tai Chi isn't aikido, but this remark certainly did nothing to diminish my doubts.

At the moment I'm not sure if all the exhortions my seniors have piled on me over the years to "use my hips" actually meant, in the original Japanese, "move from your lower back". The distinction in organization of body movement may be slight, but it's there! (Input from native Japanese speakers on the board would be appreciated!)


So it's clear that a widely accepted translation of something as simple as a body part can be ambiguous. I think it goes without question that the situation is much worse when discussing such more elusive concepts as 'jin' and 'qi' - I think the real question is not whether ambiguosity exists, but whether it makes sense at all to discuss these topics by using words and concepts borrowed from another language. Perhaps those westerners who have already successfully internalized these principles in their _physical_ practice should develop a framework for discussing them that does not rely concepts external to English for explanation and reference.

At the very least, it should be only such individuals translating texts on these concepts. As a translator myself I think translators of a treatise dealing with highly technical skills and principles who do not actually have a mastery of these skills themselves are unlikely to be good at conveying the nuance and detail necessary for such translation to be very useful in the reader's own development.

[Upyu]

Ding ding ding! Nice post Toms :)
Koshi generally means lower back, although it refers to that general area (which is why the chinese would get specific about which parts of the "kosi" they were referring to, though I think Mike would be more qualified to talke about this than me)

[Robert Rumpf]

How viable is this idea that there has been an acceptance of subtle shades of some Japanese terms that have been translated based on slightly wrong assumptions?

Its true in every other field of endeavor - be it science, the arts, or personal relationships. There is an implied context that an individual carries with them every time they say or do anything.

How could this be any different in terms of discussing ideas and concepts that have been concealed in the past, or are at least a victim of an inherent cultural reticence to be explicit?

Formal processes in software and engineering address this issue by such things as a data dictionary or comprehensive glossary, but often many terms are difficult to define, definitions are subject to differing interpretation (who watches the watchers), and definitions are useful only to the extent that they are used consistently and widely accepted.

A lot of heartache that I've had in Aikido class in the past has been cured by the idea that I should figure out what an instructor (or sempai, or kohai) is trying to say (or do) instead of taking it at face value.

This idea that there may be differing context, and that I have to decode another person's language is something that I apply here, too.. which is why I was looking for references that spoke your language on another thread.

Another translation shift that sparked some light for me:

one with causality vs. not blind to causality

I've found it useful in the past to pick up multiple translations of the same book.

Rob

[Mike Sigman]

Excellent post, Toms, and part of the heart of the matter. The Koshi/Goshi-Hara-Dang-Yao-Tanden area presents a lot of problems, particularly if it gets into our pet bugaboo of whether one is using "power from the center", etc.

Someone can "use his hips" for power and "use his middle", but still not be "moving from the hara". And so on. The point I was getting at is that there often seems to be an accumulation of errors that can lead to, for instance, one school doing a technique/method completely different from another. As an example scenario, the misunderstanding of "hip" and "hara" combined with a mistaken idea of "kokyu" and "relax" can lead to wildly different interpretations because those four terms allow for many different combinations of errors. Yet each practitioner or school will swear that they must be doing things rights because they are all "applying the buzzwords". Maybe that's what the title of the thread should have been.... "applying the buzzwords".

I've been mulling this over a long time, the effect of slight distortions of meaning that are caused by the individual translator's perspective of various terms. Not to mention the penchant of the readers of those translations putting their own take on top of the slightly distorted translation. It gets complicated.

When I was watching that TV show with the knowledgeable commentators, I heard a passage about "kiai" that had all the right words in it, but the meaning and emphasis was shifted just enough so that all the original perception of "kiai", as a piece of a greater puzzle, was gone and "kiai" became a stand-alone curiosity, a piece of "here's how the Japanese do it". And I wondered just how much all of us, even the supposedly most knowledgeable, are affected by variations of this morass.

Maybe it would pay to take some of these words and assign short general meanings? Or maybe not. For instance, it's very helpful to know that koshi/goshi refers to the lower back area, although if you learned a hip throw called O-Goshi or Koshi-nage under a qualified instructor, the general technique probably didn't suffer too much. However, the use of the hips can get very sophisticated and that brings in another set of variables on top of the original problem. Different arts pick and choose among the possible combinations of power-addition factors (like the hips, for instance) and they place varying emphases on each factor. So, for instance, one art may "move from the hara", but only in a general way, and another art may also "move from the hara", but they mean it in a very sophisticated way.

Rob's analysis via Akuzawa goes down to very basic principles. By doing so, he avoids a confusing discussion of, let's say, all the variations of hip usage. Ultimately, I think the clearest discussions are going to involve going to the core principles and let the various emphases and permutations be up to the individual. There is no doubt that there are variations and permutations between the Aikido of Ueshiba, Tohei, Inaba, Tomiki, Shioda, Sunadomari, etc., etc.,.... yet they all still use the same core principles, so their Aikido can be said to be the same Aikido, in a legitimate sense.

FWIW

Mike

[Robert Rumpf]

Ding ding ding! Nice post Toms :)
Koshi generally means lower back, although it refers to that general area (which is why the chinese would get specific about which parts of the "kosi" they were referring to, though I think Mike would be more qualified to talke about this than me)

So where the "koshita" of the hakama is? :D

[Mike Sigman]

A lot of heartache that I've had in Aikido class in the past has been cured by the idea that I should figure out what an instructor (or sempai, or kohai) is trying to say (or do) instead of taking it at face value. Good ideas, Rob. I got pretty frustrated with this idea of "kokyu force" when I was doing pretty comprehensive Aikido practice because few instructors knew much about it, some knew bits, some had some skills but wouldn't even talk about it, etc. This carries over into other arts as well.

Even though Ushiro Sensei obviously knows his Kokyu (I'm saying this from the little while I observed him in Glenwood Springs recently at the Aikido Summer Camp in the Rockies), his take on it involves variations and focuses. As I mentioned, in Aikido, there are variations and permutations, but the core is the same. The core in Ushiro's power is the same... but his take on it and his emphases, complexities, etc., are somewhat different. What it boils down to (other than just the difficulty in getting information) is the problem of finding a roughly singular source on how to do these things. As an art disseminates, changes creep in and it's difficult to put your finger back on the "original Aikido" or art of choice. It gets back, once again, to understanding the core principles, not just following any one teacher, I think. Of course, that's only an opinion.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[statisticool]

Westerners have been talking about and making sophisticated analyses of "jin" as "energy" for decades.... yet they totally missed what the real implication was, so all those conversations were for nothing and led people into doing regular body mechanics while talking about assumed meanings that were fruitless at best.


Probably it is safe to say that not all martial arts practicioners, non-"Westerners" included, agree with the opinion of the author of that article, or with your opinion on it.

For example, a thesaurus shows:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/energy
Lists power, strength

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/strength
Lists energy, power

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/power
Lists types of energy, and strength

Linking these is natural, especially considering martial arts articles aren't exactly papers in peer reviewed physics journals.

To debate over 'jin' being translated as power, energy, or strength, and that this therefore shows that all talk of these concepts is therefore for naught, is somewhat dramatic. Kind of like saying if someone happens to translate taijiquan as supreme ultimate fist, that therefore they don't know anything.


In past months when I mentioned my opinion that I thought a lot of "experts", particularly in Aikido, might have somewhat skewed some translations, I was met with some outrage by at least one expert in Japanese life and language.


How did that unverifiable-anonymous-as-presented-expert take it?


Justin

[Mike Sigman]

To debate over 'jin' being translated as power, energy, or strength, and that this therefore shows that all talk of these concepts is therefore for naught, is somewhat dramatic. Kind of like saying if someone happens to translate taijiquan as supreme ultimate fist, that therefore they don't know anything.Not really. All that anyone does who translates "jin" as energy is show that they don't know what they're talking about. You keep demonstrating that you don't know what "jin" is only because you've read it somewhere different, but you don't really know enough to engage with any personal knowledge, do you? You want to, for some reason, "battle" me ... don't you think it's a little obvious?

I know many Chinese experts that I've worked with and the side discussions and demonstrations of "jin" and how it's sourced, etc., are not personal interpretations. It's just a fact of life what jin is. You're arguing from the assumption that "jin" is somehow an unresolved issue, but that's only true if you're used to hanging around a bunch of guys who simply don't know. It's not a "here's my opinion on it" thing.

http://www.taiji-qigong.de/info/articles/jumin_pj_en.html

Do me a favor. If you want to argue something, argue something you know... not whatever you've seen written somewhere only.


Mike Sigman

[statisticool]

Not really. All that anyone does who translates "jin" as energy is show that they don't know what they're talking about.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/browse_thread/thread/596f5c5aa4f560f8/0151966b9955921a?lnk=st&q=energy+Chen+jin+jing&rnum=4&hl=en#0151966b9955921a

you write:


From: Mike Sigman
Date: Mon, Oct 14 1996 12:00 am
Email: msig...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman)
Groups: rec.martial-arts

David, I think it may be safely said that you have no idea what to make of the "following post". Reeling Silk Energy exercises are done in exactly the same way of body movement that a Taiji form is done. So "Reeling Silk" energy could be termed "Taiji" energy. In that sense, RS is the heart of Taiji.... but both Reeling Silk and Taiji use the sophisticated
jing (which is referred to as "peng jing" by not only the Neijia but by
CXW and others) as the core of Reeling Silk.


But, you just repeated your assertion. The words energy, power, strength are in fact all regularly used to describe jin depending on context.

The glossary at http://www.chenstyle.com/glossary/Glossary.html#J has jing:energy.

http://www.chenstyle.com/articles/czlint.html has an interview with Chen Zhenglei, and has fajing (release energy).

http://www.chenstyle.com/articles/wenxian.html has silk reeling energy

And many more.

Not to mention tons of dictionaries and thesauruses that list power, energy, strength mainly together in usage.


Do me a favor. If you want to argue something, argue something you know... not whatever you've seen written somewhere only.


I will continue to quote others freely. If you disagree with it, you're welcome to debate the points, rather than pretend you can order others to stop quoting what has been published.


Justin

[Mike Sigman]

I will continue to quote others freely. If you disagree with it, you're welcome to debate the points, rather than pretend you can order others to stop quoting what has been published.Hmmmm.... I glanced at 3 of your references. I don't see anything that contradicts anything I said. The only point I thought was interesting was the one where you found one of the administrators of the Neijia list who had kicked Peter Lim off for various reasons. Other than that interesting point, there's nothing that contradicts what I said.

The important point you should remember is that I'm quite happy for you to believe what you want to believe about Jin, Justin. I want you to achieve all the success in Taiji that such a belief will bring you. I want you to spend as many years as you can with your current beliefs, in fact.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[raul rodrigo]

I can't decide whether Justin's "stalking" of Mike Sigman is rather unseemly, or if it's just part of the entertainment value in Aikiweb.


R

[Mike Sigman]

I can't decide whether Justin's "stalking" of Mike Sigman is rather unseemly, or if it's just part of the entertainment value in Aikiweb.Hi Raul:

Just to put in my vote, I think it is excellent entertainment. Weirdly, I have had this same thing happen with 3 or 4 Cheng Man Chinger's over the years (the internet "stalking"). There is a sort of "filter" effect to the Cheng Man Ching religion that is mesmerizing to watch. A friend of mine who is a psychologist once suggested writing a book about the Cheng Man Ching cult and the people in it.... does it produce them or are they of a certain type that is drawn like a moth to a flame?

;)

Mike

[statisticool]

I can't decide whether Justin's "stalking" of Mike Sigman is rather unseemly, or if it's just part of the entertainment value in Aikiweb.


If a person posts and asks questions on a public board, don't be surprised when people answer.

I find correcting misrepresentations and bias important to do.

I also find such things like a book that says the best translation of qi is ground strength. So I'll ask about it.


Justin

[statisticool]

A friend of mine who is a psychologist once suggested writing a book about the Cheng Man Ching cult and the people in it.... does it produce them or are they of a certain type that is drawn like a moth to a flame?


Another anonymous person. Another unverifiable story. I see a pattern with you here.

Was Chen Weiming in this "cult"? Yang Chen Fu? (not that you answer any questions) They seemed to be impressed with Zheng.


Justin

[statisticool]

Other than that interesting point, there's nothing that contradicts what I said.


Silk reeling is spoken with 'jin' on the end. You refer to it as energy. Many well known Yang and Chen stylists do, since they realize that power, energy, and strength are all used in common speak, so it isn't really a big deal as you'd like to make it appear.


The important point you should remember is that I'm quite happy for you to believe what you want to believe about Jin, Justin. I want you to achieve all the success in Taiji that such a belief will bring you. I want you to spend as many years as you can with your current beliefs, in fact.


I'll put as much weight on your opinion and advice as I always do... ;)


PS. What about that book that says the best translation of qi is ground strength? What is the title? The author?


Justin

[Ron Tisdale]

Jun, is there a bounty on internet stalkers on aikiweb?
Can I collect?
;)

B,
R

[Mark Freeman]

Jun, is there a bounty on internet stalkers on aikiweb?
Can I collect?
;)

B,
R

What do you need as proof, a head? a tail? :D

[dps]

Jun, is there a bounty on internet stalkers on aikiweb?
Can I collect?
;)

B,
RJun, Do you need a license to go trolling on Aikiweb?

[Ron Tisdale]

Ooops, my license has been revoked... ;)
B,
R

[John Matsushima]

I think it is more important to look past translations, and try to get at the essence. For example, in Japanese the colors of a traffic light are "aka, kiiro, and ao". Translated, this means "red, yellow, and BLUE". Now, if all you did was look at the translation, you might think that all the traffic lights in Japan are red, yellow, and blue. However, if you look deeply, you would find that while they say blue, it is of course, green!

I think the same goes for Aikido. Instead of just looking at a translation, we should be thinking "What do the Japanese think, imagine, and feel when they say "koshi"? (such as in the example stated by someone else in this thread).

Sometimes I think that once a westerner has found the essence and principles of Aikido, it might be better to just teach it in English and avoid all the confusion.

[statisticool]

Jun, is there a bounty on internet stalkers on aikiweb? Can I collect?


"stalking" apparently now means "answering posts directed towards them and everybody else on an internet forum". Who knew that we're all a bunch of stalkers?


Justin

[Alfonso]

Kind of hard to ignore the translation and go for the essence if you don't speak/read japanese :-D

I remember my teacher explaining that kote could refer to the forearm and not the wrist, and how that changed my understanding of kote-gaeshi and so on. It's a very bothersome thing.

[Mark Freeman]

Sometimes I think that once a westerner has found the essence and principles of Aikido, it might be better to just teach it in English and avoid all the confusion.

Hi John,

my teacher has gone along way down this path, we learn most of our aikido in english, the names of the techniques remain ikkyo, nikkyo etc. Just about everything else is in our mother tongue. He should qualify as knowing the essence and principles, he's in his 51st year in aikido.
I am at a bit of a disadvantage on a forum like this though as when people discuss issues using the japanese terms, most of them I have to do some reserch on. I would have little trouble if I was in a dojo and could 'see' what is being described. Oh well, I'm happy to take the rough with the smooth.

regards,

Mark

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

I think it is more important to look past translations, and try to get at the essence. For example, in Japanese the colors of a traffic light are "aka, kiiro, and ao". Translated, this means "red, yellow, and BLUE". Now, if all you did was look at the translation, you might think that all the traffic lights in Japan are red, yellow, and blue. /../

Good point John, this is something a real Western expert like Peter Goldsbury could shed more light on. As far as I am aware, the Japanese culturo-linguistic connotations of indigenous words (as opposed to Sino-Korean imports) is quite vague and requires context. For instance, "ao" refers to something bluish-green - for more detailed colors recourse is taken to Chinese characters and their readings ("kon-iro" for the dark blue dyed cloth of Kyoto, for instance): note that for several distinct characters the Japanese reading would still remain "ao" but a more specific word might be added in front of it. Then, a word that Westerners learn to mean green, namely "midori", actually connotes "greenery" as in vegetation, not the color as an isolated quantity. This difficulty of wide association and qualitative hinting is a characteristic that makes learning aikido for Westerners in a "technical" sense very difficult. Of course, if one understands the principles already (kokyu power) then one cuts right through the apparent vagueness. And this kokyu and its training can be explained in a Western sense, it is simply a matter of enough native Westerners getting the skills and formulating explanations that make sense to other Westerners in the same culturo-linguistic context.

Sometimes I think that once a westerner has found the essence and principles of Aikido, it might be better to just teach it in English and avoid all the confusion.

Very good point, see above... Mark has hinted at a related problem: his teacher may know basic level kokyu skills, but it is still a problem for the students to get these skills via their teacher. Until a great number of people get them down pat (at a basic level), the individual explanations are going to be difficult to understand and follow for all but a few people. A core of common understanding has to exist for all the variations on the theme to be seen for what they are.

[Mike Sigman]

Very good point, see above... Mark has hinted at a related problem: his teacher may know basic level kokyu skills, but it is still a problem for the students to get these skills via their teacher. Until a great number of people get them down pat (at a basic level), the individual explanations are going to be difficult to understand and follow for all but a few people. A core of common understanding has to exist for all the variations on the theme to be seen for what they are.Just to throw in some from-the-hip thoughts....

If a teacher is deliberately *not* showing some things and holding in reserve (I'm emotionally neutral on this; people can do what they want with their personal knowledge), explanations clarity means little. Jumping back to Mark's comment about his teacher doing Aikido for 51 years... I don't know his teacher, so I reserve judgement... but how *long* someone does Aikido or any other art is a useless way to judge what anyone knows. People can do things wrong for a hundred years without any problem... time means little in judging someone's abilities. I judge someone by what I see and feel because that's all I can do... and even then there are limits to my ability to judge, so I could err in my judgement.

Regards,

Mike

[David Orange]

To get back to the real heart and intent of this thread, it's not really about misunderstanding of koshi being hip or lower back, or of kote being the wrist or the forearm. Those are not the kinds of mistranslations Mike really wanted to get at. His real intent is stated clearly in his first post in this thread. He wants to say that the Japanese term "kokyu" and the Chinese term "jin" are basically the same thing.

Mike and I have had this discussion before and I have to say again that he is missing the truth when he tries to overlay these two concepts to find the same meaning.

A brief example that I often use is use of the tranlation "energy" for "jin" (which is further compounded by the fact that "jin" is often transposed with the term "qi" because "jin" is considered the physical manifestation of "qi"). Here's a discussion by a Chinese martial artist about "jin", which is the essence of the physical skill called "kokyu":

http://www.taiji-qigong.de/info/articles/jumin_transljin_en.php

If we read that link, we can see that Jumin Cheng does not use the term kokyu. Mike makes the connection himself, here:

I published a bit of someone's (not Jun) email in which at the dojo in Japan where he was studying, the term {kokyu (D.O.)} was used to imply moving with a certain type of force/skill.

Having read that e-mail, I said then and repeat here that the e-mail provided no basis for saying that "kokyu" is a "force". Especially, kokyu is NOT an "issued force" like jin. Kokyu is a coordination of mind, body and breath. To say that one has "kokyu" is akin to saying that he is "coordinated" or that he is "tuned up." You can hit someone while you have (or are in the state of) kokyu, but, unlike jin, the kokyu cannot be issued to the other person. You can hit the other person with jin--meaning that you can issue your jin and the jin will hit him. But if you have kokyu and hit him, the kokyu does not hit him. Kokyu is nothing more than your own internal organization.

Now the point I'm getting at is that this usage of "kokyu" was sort of a new meaning to experienced Japanese speakers. Whatever previous comments they may have simply heard or read about "kokyu" would have been translated in terms of what they thought "kokyu" meant. I.e., this new idiomatic usage of "kokyu" throws an entirely different light on something that they thought was commonplace and understood (more or less).

So that is the essence of Mike's purpose in this thread. It's not a general discourse or chat about the vagaries of Japanese language. It is an effort to establish in people's minds that jin = kokyu and, again, I have to say that it is not the case. The "idiomatic usage of 'kokyu'" was an English-speaking student's experience in class. The teacher did a technique "without kokyu" (really meaning "without internal organization"), then did the same technique "with kokyu" (really meaning "with internal organization and coordination"). Mike unfortunately interpreted this to mean that kokyu was a "force" that "hit" the uke with much more power. But all the teacher was saying was "Here's what happens when I do the technique without proper internal organization and coordination of mind, body and breathing." The technique was mildly effective. Then he said, "Here's what happens when I do the same technique with coordination of my mind, body and breathing." And the technique was far more effective.

The closest I could agree with Mike's conception would be to say that "If you have kokyu, you can issue jin."

But even that is not really true. Jin is not really the same as anything in Japanese martial arts. Mike's effort here is to make jin = kokyu and it just isn't the same.

Now, look at words like "tao" and "do", which are written with the same kanji yet really mean very different things in Chinese and Japanese.

To Lao Tzu, "tao" means the obscure, the dim and mysterious, the downward path to the ocean, forsaking honor and fame.

To the Japanese, "do" means almost the opposite: a clearly defined way that is made broad and straight. Rather than descending the forsaken gully to the ocean, the follower of "do" climbs the mountain and stands at the summit. He goes higher and becomes a leader of men. Quite the opposite of Lao Tzu's "tao" of obscurity.

Now, I have promoted the idea that all martial arts among human beings are based on the same root principles (Aikido Comes From Toddler Movement, with videos). I maintain that ALL martial arts emerge from the reflexes a toddler demonstrates when he stands upright and walks. Here we find the root of aikido, judo, sumo, jujutsu, kenjutsu, baguazhang, xing yi and taiji quan.

But while the root is the same, these physical skills grow to many variations in mature expression, largely determined by the cultures that arise in very different environments. China is a very different land than Japan, wide and diverse, while Japan is narrow and homogenous. And while the toddler reflexes develop in one way in Japan, they develop quite differently in China, where the types of work, the sports and games and the character of the invaders are all very different.

From my experience of the techniques of high-level practitioners of both Japanese and Chinese martial arts, I must say that the issued power of jin in Chinese martial arts has NO correlate in Japanese arts. The Japanese arts have their own unique kind of issued power, but it is not kokyu, which is NOT an issued power. And jin is not the same as kiai (which, by the way, is NOT the sound or the shout: it is the attitude of the mind, like "fighting spirit".)

(on that line, I once saw Ron Epstein, a kyokushin karate man, stop an entire side of a freeway with pure kiai, without saying a word. Well, there was a tow truck and most of the cars stopped voluntarily, but one guy decided to scoot around on the shoulder. Ron took two steps toward the car and just LOOKED at the driver, and he stopped and waited and did not move again until Ron let him go. So kiai is not a sound and it is not related to pressures in the abdomen generated by a shout: it is the SPIRIT of being willing ready and ABLE to attack and destroy the other party--even if the other party is a CAR.)

I get the feeling that there is a reasonable amount of commentary about Japanese martial arts that uses the same terms but is shifted into meanings other than the original.

Well, it's odd that I still find people discussing what the real meaning of "aiki" is. And this does come largely from Ueshiba OSensei's statement that "aiki is love". But it is far more like the "love" that compels a Marine to blow someone away with a mortar than it is like the "love" that motivates a hippie to blow you a shotgun. It's TOUGH love, especially in the context of budo. Unfortunately, in American aikido cirlces, it has become "tuff" love, expressed by charming smiles and swishing skirts. So, yes, there is a problem of mistranslation, but it is multi-faceted. It comes first from lack of speaking the native language, second from knowing ONLY the martial vocabulary of the language without understanding how the same terms function in family, school, work and other daily interactions, and third, from trying to correlate the vocabulary directly to another realm entirely, such as science: i.e., trying to translate ki as a particular chemical or chemical process in the human body.

But when we try to force misunderstood Japanese terms to equal "approximately understood" Chinese terms, it only compounds the problem.

Having made these general comments, I will now address Mike directly.

In past months when I mentioned my opinion that I thought a lot of "experts", particularly in Aikido, might have somewhat skewed some translations, I was met with some outrage by at least one expert in Japanese life and language.

Well, Mike, that might not have been because the experts doubted that there is tremendous and egregious mistranslation of Japanese terms. It might have been because your examples and your attempt to directly correlate those examples to Chinese concepts were just as mistaken as the mistranslations you criticized.

Look at the "kokyu" example. And the use of "kokyu" as a force/skill is only one piece of a logical web that encompasses "kiai", Misogi-breathing, and a number of other things.

I suggest that you go back and review the e-mail you're refering to. Read it carefully. The English-speaker who wrote it came away with the impression that kokyu is an issued force, but he was mistaken. There is nothing in the bit you posted to support any theory other than the idea that your friend's Japanese language was just too limited to get the right idea.

How viable is this idea that there has been an acceptance of subtle shades of some Japanese terms that have been translated based on slightly wrong assumptions?

It's completely viable. What is not viable is the idea that jin = kokyu or that kokyu is an "issued force."

I applaud your efforts to get to the essence of these things, but I have to say that, while you seem to understand the Chinese arts to a pretty good level, you need much deeper study of Japanese language (on every level) and intensive, long-term instruction in aikido from a real "ROOT" master who was close to OSensei before you should comment on any relation between aikido and Chinese martial arts.

Best wishes to you in everything.

David

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

David, it looks like you had kokyu when you wrote your message and it just didn't issue forth into your typing :lol: -- because I couldn't make head or tail of what your point was. Is there anything practical you can say about kokyu that will add to the discussion: like how people could train it, and how they could tell it was there in themselves and others, and what effect having it would have? Cause this is the stuff that's encoded either purposely or via the culturo-linguistic barrier, and which is making it so hard for Westerners to get a grip on these arts.

[Mark Freeman]

Very good point, see above... Mark has hinted at a related problem: his teacher may know basic level kokyu skills, but it is still a problem for the students to get these skills via their teacher. Until a great number of people get them down pat (at a basic level), the individual explanations are going to be difficult to understand and follow for all but a few people. A core of common understanding has to exist for all the variations on the theme to be seen for what they are.

Gernot,

I am unaware that I hinted at any related problem. My experience is that he has very high level aikido / kokyu skills and has over his lifetime formulated a teaching method that enables students to learn them effectively. My post was about his use of english to teach aikido, not about anything else.

What you write about may be a problem, but not one that I was refering to.

regards,

Mark

[Mark Freeman]

Jumping back to Mark's comment about his teacher doing Aikido for 51 years... I don't know his teacher, so I reserve judgement... but how *long* someone does Aikido or any other art is a useless way to judge what anyone knows. People can do things wrong for a hundred years without any problem... time means little in judging someone's abilities. I judge someone by what I see and feel because that's all I can do... and even then there are limits to my ability to judge, so I could err in my judgement.

I was mentioning the length of time he had practiced as a mildly amusing point that he 'should' have enough understanding of the 'essence' and principles of aikido to be able to teach in english, nothing else.

I agree that 50 years of experience could be 1 year of experience repeated 50 times.

In his case, all that know him will tell you this is not so.

My guess is that your judgment of him would be of no consequence to anyone other than yourself, and as you say, even then you may be wrong. ;)

regards,

Mark

[Upyu]

It's completely viable. What is not viable is the idea that jin = kokyu or that kokyu is an "issued force."


I think its completely viable, having felt top people from both sides of the fence as well. I think you're mixing up the terms a bit.
You can issue Jin, but you don't have to. Peng Jin is basically that. The whole concept is that there is one Jin, but there are differences in how you use it. Some people "issue" it, (fa jing) others choose to use it for control. The JMAs tend to lean towards the "control" side of things. I also think you can "strike" using Jin without issuing it like you said. That doesn't make them completely seperate things.
Jin is still a coordination of mind-body and breath.
Nothing I've felt or seen has made me think otherwise so far, unless you can give specific examples as to how they differ body mechanics wise.
The Chinese simply give more time to the "issuing" side of the body skills than JMAs. That much may be fair to say. The foundation though is still the same.

FWIW

PS, I disagree with the "!ove" thing, though I understand where you 're coming from. I'm more of the opinoin that it has to relate to the concept of "常に自分に戻す","相手を受け入れる". I don't think these concepts are something purely japanese though, you can find them in all high level arts regardless of culture. I'm sure if someone digged deep enough you'd find them in Kalaliprayat or other indian based MAs as well.
One skill, the only difference is in how they chose to apply them.

[Jeffrey A. Fong]

Thank you Alfonso, Gernot and Mark for bringing the discussion back on track. Justin, please, please enough already with the obtuse logical dogma. Your command of debate team theatrics is remarkable, however, as most people here seem to sense, data in the absence of practical knowledge is an empty hand (and I don't mean that in a good way). My two bits.

[Mike Sigman]

He wants to say that the Japanese term "kokyu" and the Chinese term "jin" are basically the same thing. Well, I also mentioned Misogi, Kiai, and other terms.... i.e., the point of the thread is subtle but important differences in meaning from what westerners often take. So you're skewing the thread with a misstatement.

Mike and I have had this discussion before and I have to say again that he is missing the truth when he tries to overlay these two concepts to find the same meaning.
[[snip]]
Having read that e-mail, I said then and repeat here that the e-mail provided no basis for saying that "kokyu" is a "force". Especially, kokyu is NOT an "issued force" like jin. Kokyu is a coordination of mind, body and breath. There are a couple of real problems here, David. First of all, there are a number of Aikido people reading this forum that don't have the faintest problem with equating "kokyu" and "jin".... they've felt them both and get the idea. You're sitting there on your own making an argument that is based purely on your own assertions to a number of people that have felt, experienced, worked with, etc., etc., the functional concept.

The second point is that I've seen your self-centered arguing style that appears to be based on who you are, what you know, etc., and the last I remember paying attention, you were conceding that maybe there was something you didn't know, despite your "years of experience". I see no point to go through that sort of thing again. While talking with several people at the Rocky Mountain Summer Camp, I should them how to duplicate some of the simpler "kokyu" things Ushiro Sensei was doing. Once you see it, it's "of course".... not "oh this is very different".
Now, I have promoted the idea that all martial arts among human beings are based on the same root principles (Aikido Comes From Toddler Movement, with videos). I maintain that ALL martial arts emerge from the reflexes a toddler demonstrates when he stands upright and walks. Here we find the root of aikido, judo, sumo, jujutsu, kenjutsu, baguazhang, xing yi and taiji quan. I suppose that "maintain" and "assert without proof" are close enough to simply nod my head.From my experience of the techniques of high-level practitioners of both Japanese and Chinese martial arts, I must say that the issued power of jin in Chinese martial arts has NO correlate in Japanese arts. The Japanese arts have their own unique kind of issued power, but it is not kokyu, which is NOT an issued power. And jin is not the same as kiai (which, by the way, is NOT the sound or the shout: it is the attitude of the mind, like "fighting spirit".) :rolleyes: I say you don't even know enough about jin to venture into this territory, David. I've seen what you write; your "personal experience" (it should be noted that you claim to teach Aikido) and your assertions without rationale are not enough to get me to engage into a conversation.

If you want to get into a conversations about jin and kokyu, start another thread... this isn't the one. Secondly, explain how the rooted kokyu power is done.... something a lot of people on the forum have seen. Next, tell how the rooted power of "jin" is done and how it's different. I.e., lay out the facts... don't argue by assertion or by your own "credentials" and your voluminous but unsupported anecdotes.

Well, Mike, that might not have been because the experts doubted that there is tremendous and egregious mistranslation of Japanese terms. It might have been because your examples and your attempt to directly correlate those examples to Chinese concepts were just as mistaken as the mistranslations you criticized. Facts? Support?


Mike Sigman

[Mike Sigman]

I agree that 50 years of experience could be 1 year of experience repeated 50 times.

In his case, all that know him will tell you this is not so.

My guess is that your judgment of him would be of no consequence to anyone other than yourself, and as you say, even then you may be wrong. ;) I simply said I reserve judgement, David, since length of time means little... as you acknowledge. I also reserve judgement on "all that know him"... that's another vague credential that you're slipping in. I've seen the "all that know him" assurrance go both ways, too. Depends on how much "all that know him" really know themselves. As I said, I'd have to make my own judgement. My judgement usually involves mental comparisons of what people feel like compared to other experts I have felt and also from my years of experience and discussions with various experts that gives me an overal perspective that I *think* is pretty accurate. But, I could be wrong. Hopefully you understand that "all that know him" is not necessarily definitive as well.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[John Matsushima]

To the Japanese, "do" means almost the opposite: a clearly defined way that is made broad and straight. Rather than descending the forsaken gully to the ocean, the follower of "do" climbs the mountain and stands at the summit. He goes higher and becomes a leader of men. Quite the opposite of Lao Tzu's "tao" of obscurity.


How viable is this idea that there has been an acceptance of subtle shades of some Japanese terms that have been translated based on slightly wrong assumptions? It happens.

I thought this quote is a good example of it. Why is the path to the ocean a forsaken gully? If you knew anything about Japanese culture, you would know that they tend to choose to put themselves below others rather than become a "leader of men". Who is this superman of the Way, anyway? They have a saying that "although the ocean is the lowest, all rivers flow to it."
Why must the follower of the way climb the mountain when the most divine can be found right at his feet? Is there not any mystery to the Japanese Way? Are koans not mysterious to you?

As for your clearly defined Way, could you tell us...where does it start, and where does it end? This Way you speak of, along with its champion, are not Japanese concepts, but rather your own. I can tell by the way you attempt to reach both in your very lengthy and empty post. Stopping cars with a kiai? Give me a brake.

[Mike Sigman]

Stopping cars with a kiai? Give me a brake. I take that as a challenge, John! There can only be one tiger on the mountain! We must have a pun-off to decide who is the winner! :p

Gosh that was a bad pun. Who can beat it?

Mike

[Michael Young]

Gosh that was a bad pun. Who can beat it?

I can...with a stick :crazy:

Mike

[David Orange]

John, your reply was most interesting, so I'm taking a moment to address it. Don't get me wrong: I do not disdain the Japanese, but there are definite differences between their way and the Chinese way. Two of my favorite teachers at the old yoseikan hombu (Tezuka and Washizu) trained side-by-side under Mochizuki Sensei for decades, yet each developed his own, clear expression of Sensei's art. They both got the menkyo kaiden from Mochizuki Sensei, yet their arts are strikingly different. Why would entire cultures such as Japan and China develop exactly the same things at vast remove?

Why is the path to the ocean a forsaken gully?

That's how Lao Tzu describes it. "The greatest good is like water. It flows in places men reject and so is like the tao." His whole theme, like his life, is that the tao is obscure and mysterious. "I alone am dim and weak...I am nourished by the great Mother..like a baby before it has learned to smile."

If you knew anything about Japanese culture, you would know that they tend to choose to put themselves below others rather than become a "leader of men".

Yeah. Tell that to the Chinese. And the Koreans. And the Vietnamese, for that matter. And the Philipines...What was the whole Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, other than an attempt to "lead" all of Asia into "harmony" with each nation in its proper place (China at the bottom/Japan at the top)?

Of course, the Japanese FELT like they were doing only what was good for those people. Mochizuki Sensei was inspired to join that effort when he read an article by an influential German saying that the West must keep the Asian nations at war among themselves lest they unite and overwhelm the west with an economic tsunami. Mochizuki Sensei was deputy governor of three Mongolian provinces for eight years during the war. The Japanese had good intentions, but the conquered peoples felt a bit differently about what they did.

The entire dankai illustrates how the Japanese "do" is opposite the Chinese "tao". You climb to higher ranks in the dankai to stand at the summit. Of course, there is the saying "the higher the dan, the lower one bows," but to bring that head up all you have to do is challenge it a bit.

Well, the Japanese are human, so this is not a put-down of the Japanese. My in-laws are all Japanese, after all, and I spend about half of each day coversing in Japanese. I learned these ideas of do and tao "at the feet" of Minoru Mochizuki, who took a lot of time to explain the Japanese "do" to me. He is the one who said that "do" is education, that it must be made wide and straight and open and clear, like the path to a great temple in Kyoto.

Generally, the Japanese disdain Lao Tzu's attitude of obscurity and disappearing.

Who is this superman of the Way, anyway? They have a saying that "although the ocean is the lowest, all rivers flow to it."

Yet, the sensei sits at the JO seki and the students below him. The dankai is a reflection of the Emperor as God on earth. And each person has his place on the shelf of dolls. Each is also compelled to climb higher on those tiers. The Chinese, on the other hand, never established such a rank system but were judged only on their own skill and the name of their teacher--not a rank.

Why must the follower of the way climb the mountain when the most divine can be found right at his feet?

If it were not so, the dankai would not exist. Or else you would begin at judan and progress to reidan. In the Chinese way, there never was any dan. It was only after I had lived with Mochizuki Sensei for several months that I began to really recognize the difference in the Japanese Way and the "tao" of Lao Tzu.

Is there not any mystery to the Japanese Way? Are koans not mysterious to you?

They were before I lived with Mochizuki Sensei. When I returned to the US, a friend asked me, "Did you get everything you went for?"

I said, "Everything and less."

So if you tell me what that means, you'll know my answer.

As for your clearly defined Way, could you tell us...where does it start, and where does it end? This Way you speak of, along with its champion, are not Japanese concepts, but rather your own.

No, it was explained to me by Minoru Mochizuki, aikido judan, who signed his name with the M of Mochizuki shaped into a beautiful sketch of Fuji-san. He, of course, was a protege of Jigoro Kano, who really created the 10-dan system that now permeates Japanese martial arts. And he was uchi deshi to both Kyuzo Mifune in judo and Morihei Ueshiba in aikido. And I was his uchi deshi. So I hate to disabuse you, but these are not my own ideas.

Stopping cars with a kiai? Give me a brake.

You've never met Ron Epstein, I see. That's a day I will never forget. Ron was a direct student of Mas Oyama and one of the main reasons that Yasuhiku Oyama came to Birmingham in 1973 and has taught here ever since. Ron is a veteran of the Hundred-Man Kumite (fighting one-hunded opponents in a row) and one of the truest exponents of real kiai I've ever met. The other is Paul Couch, also a direct student of Mas Oyama.

I was working for Ron and there was an incident on the freeway. A truck was stuck in the median and we had to get a tow truck to pull it out. The traffic was disinclined to stop, but Ron stepped out into the Southbound lane and STOPPED the traffic with his mere presence. And when one guy decided to get smart and zoom around on the shoulder, Ron took two steps toward him and LOOKED at him as if he were going to punch the car off the road. There was no "shout" but Ron's eyese were pure kiai.

The driver did not move again and Ron stood there alone on the freeway, holding back probably a hundred or more cars with his mere presence. That was pure, silent kiai.

Ron is still teaching Oyama karate at the Levite Jewish Community Center in Birmingham although I think he's about 75 years old at this time. I haven't seen him in years, but I believe he could still step onto a freeway and stop every car.

All this is just to say that the Chinese and Japanese "Ways" are very different and that the martial arts that each evolved are UNIQUE, like the musical instruments each created, the types of dance, the types of wine. Sake is not chardonay, is not shochu, is not beer. And kokyu is not jin.

Best to you.

David

[dps]

That's how Lao Tzu describes it. "The greatest good is like water. It flows in places men reject and so is like the tao." His whole theme, like his life, is that the tao is obscure and mysterious. "I alone am dim and weak...I am nourished by the great Mother..like a baby before it has learned to smile." No. The Tao itself is not obscure and mysterious, only the explanation in words is obscure and mysterious.

[Mike Sigman]

All this is just to say that the Chinese and Japanese "Ways" are very different and that the martial arts that each evolved are UNIQUE, like the musical instruments each created, the types of dance, the types of wine. Sake is not chardonay, is not shochu, is not beer. And kokyu is not jin.I have a couple of comments. First, when people start telling me that so-and-so is able to knock his students back through the air, without touching, using his "ki", I ask them to stop and break it down until we get to the point that it takes x-amount of energy to move M-mass a y-distance through the air. Let's calculate it and then let's figure some way that a human being generated an invisible impulse of that magnitude. Of course the non-sciences people don't get it, but anyone with basic physical-sciences training sees that there is a logic that you simply cannot go around.

Similarly, a casual perusal of the terms and borrowings of martial training, equipment, theory, etc., shows that at best David can make a case of *variations*, not of *uniquely different* martial arts, between China and Japan. Just as the alcoholic beverages he mentions are at best variations of fermented-alcoholic drinks, not something as different as water and whiskey. So let's throw the idea of separate and unique martial arts out.

If you get into the "ki" subsets, you're into a logic sequence, not a series of buzzwords that can be used at whim like the eyes, nose, and ears of "Mr. Potato-Head". This is where I think David has his threshold of simply not understanding what "jin" is.

On the other hand, let me point out something that David either misses or glosses over because he simply doesn't know the subject. My comment, from the beginning, has been that "jin is the essence of kokyu".... not "jin is kokyu" in the pure sense of 1 = 1.
It's simply easier, for discussion purposes, to say that "jin is the essence of kokyu" because I have seen no real benefit in getting into a very complex discussion. And if anyone bothers to look, I've pretty much stated why I think they referred to the force with a "breath" connotation... in the traditional usage, people don't split out the jin and qi (the "kokyu" and "ki") the way I do to make a conversation easier.

Often I say something about jin and "ground-path", but it's also very common for me to append a comment about the "weight" or "gravity" as also being part of the definition of "jin"... in fact, at least once I did a fairly lengthy discussion of why that is.

"Jin" itself is not *just* from the ground... sometimes it is from the weight. But I've said that before, too. In fact, "peng jin" to be clear can be sourced from either the ground, the gravity, OR the stored power of the qi/pressure. But that's a level of discussion that would be well beyond being productive, at present, I think.

But back to "kokyu" and "jin". For all practical purposes, what someone like Ushiro Sensei was teaching at the Rocky Mountain Summer Camp was "jin". When he put his fingers on someone's neck and pushed, he used jin. He called it kokyu. He undoubtedly used breath-training to help train and to pressurize his push with his fingers... but it was "jin" or "kokyu", for all practical purposes as a correct description for what he did.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[statisticool]

Facts? Support?


Since we're talking about jin, qi, etc., there is an interview with you (http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm) where you say


I remember reading a book about Qi when I was about 18-20 and taking Okinawan Karate: the book had several sections about this kind of Qi and that kind of Qi: under the heading of "Martial Arts and Qi" I remember it started off saying that "in the Martial Arts, Qi is best translated as ground strength".


To get a better understanding of jin, qi, etc., we'd like to know what book, specifically, this is.


Justin

[Mike Sigman]

Since we're talking about jin, qi, etc., there is an interview with you (http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm) where you say



To get a better understanding of jin, qi, etc., we'd like to know what book, specifically, this is.So, ummmm, what is the purpose in asking a question related to a comment I made in an interview to Ian Young a decade ago, repeatedly, even after I've responded to it twice. So it's now clear that you didn't mistakenly miss the first answer. This has come down to simple internet stalking. Unless you have a better explanation of your bizarre behavior.

Should we submit a copy of some of your posting behavior the American Statistical Association (or the Washington State society) you list and see if you are indeed the person you claim or if you're some bizarre imposter using the name of a bona fide statistician? I'm beginning to think that you're a fabricated identity and worthy of some follow-up.

Mike Sigman

[statisticool]

So, ummmm, what is the purpose in asking a question related to a comment I made in an interview to Ian Young a decade ago, repeatedly, even after I've responded to it twice. So it's now clear that you didn't mistakenly miss the first answer.


Maybe I missed where you posted the exact name of the book? Could you direct me to where you did? It might help me understand qi and jin better.


Justin

[Mike Sigman]

If anyone has continued thoughts on this thread's topics, perhaps the easiest way to avoid the constant interruptions by "Justin Smith" would be to start a similar thread on AJ and let Stan moderate him out of existence for this bizarre stalking.

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

If anyone has continued thoughts on this thread's topics, perhaps the easiest way to avoid the constant interruptions by "Justin Smith" would be to start a similar thread on AJ and let Stan moderate him out of existence for this bizarre stalking.

Mike Sigman

Mike, I'm wondering who would be moderated out of that?

David

[raul rodrigo]

If anyone has continued thoughts on this thread's topics, perhaps the easiest way to avoid the constant interruptions by "Justin Smith" would be to start a similar thread on AJ and let Stan moderate him out of existence for this bizarre stalking.

Mike Sigman


Lets just ignore him here and keep on going. Why leave AW? Part of the fun is wondering what silliness JS will post in response to a Mike Sigman post.

[statisticool]

If anyone has continued thoughts on this thread's topics, perhaps the easiest way to avoid the constant interruptions by "Justin Smith" would be to start a similar thread on AJ and let Stan moderate him out of existence for this bizarre stalking.


So you can't produce the name of the book? OK. Fine. Just say so.

As far as moderation, my posts are on topic I believe, as we were talking about jin, claimed poor translations in books by "westerners" you are always going on about. You suddenly went off about 'cult', etc., in post 13, after me basically stating that many people disagree with your opinons.

So I'll repeat what I said in post 14

If a person posts and asks questions on a public board, don't be surprised when people answer. That is, if you address me directly, don't play dumb and then claim to be "stalked" when I respond to you.


Justin