Re: Article: On the Interdependent Nature of Tactics and Strategies by "The Grindstone"
Great reply. I have to say that I think you are right on the money with a lot of what you said - I think sociologically you got it nailed. But still, what you said may explain why it may not happen or may not happen all that often - it doesn't really deal with the position of why "can't" we. I think I can read into what you are saying and get a sense that you would agree that it is possible to make a fighting art a Budo - just that not many folks do it (for one reason or another). However, perhaps you know that there are some folks out there that like to draw a very sharp distinction between the two - and personally that has never made sense to me (especially if we cannot answer the question of "why can't a fighting art be a budo?").
This may be important - at least in my own mind - because I think once you try and make a fighting art a Budo you are going to look into two very important things: 1. you are going to look into things like the stuff being covered in the article (e.g. the interrelatedness of tactics and strategies); and 2. you are going to wonder if a Budo that is not a fighting art can ever really cultivate us beyond the more superficial levels of human virtue (i.e. be a good/moral modern citizen). Personally, I'm fine saying that fighting is not my main purpose in training - that fighting skill is an incidental of Budo. However, I am totally against anything that understands the former position as a reason for why we don't require our Budo to be up to par as a fighting art. For me, when our Budo is not a fighting art - there too much room for habitual attachments to remain, too much room for ego and delusion to settle in and remain in place unreconciled.
thanks again Keith for the post - I really enjoyed it.