Quote:
Demetrio Cereijo wrote:
This differentiation has been interpreted as a dichotomy, bujutsu vs. budo as polar opposites. However, current scholarship shows this interpretation of Draegerīs seminal work is not especially accurate.
I
|
And I would humbly say that may be a function of the interpretation of Draeger's comments, and not necessarily the comments themselves.
I for one always took it to mean that bujutsu was simply a job - much like the skills a soldier learns today. The philosophy and morality training (necessary to survive insanity during wartime and ensure unit cohesion) came from exposure to battlefield horrors, something that was readily available to a samurai that lived in a war-filled period. By contrast, again, per my thoughts alone, budo was something that "evolved" (not saying it's superior, but only that it came later) in a period where there was less war to be had, and therefore less opportunity to absorb "life lessons" - therefore the budo proponents felt the need to provide this ideology along with the technique.
Essentially, when you're job is to provide battlefield training, and then the battlefield disappears, you change your job - much like the samurai did after the Meiji restoration. I agree that much ado has been made about whether a particular art is a "jitsu" or "do" form, and I also think this probably wasn't Draeger's intention when he wrote it. I do however believe that arts can be ascribed "jitsu" (focused on martial effectiveness) or "do" (focused on self-improvement/enlightenment) qualities - and all effective martial arts have some "jitsu" qualities, or else they're not truly "martial."
I agree, and also wouldn't say they're polar opposites, just different ways of looking at a mountain. Jitsu and Do can enhance each other - they don't have to cancel each other out.