A theological perspective on finding ‘the way’
In response to
‘The Right Amount of Violence’
By Dave Lowry 2003
Having read the article written by Dave Lowry which was published in Black Belt Magazine 2003, I understand that his main points for concern were that of the correlation between the adjuncts of violence and realism associated with martial training and the philosophical self realisation and discovery of a broader intellectual knowledge and perhaps even if I may, a sense of transcendence.
In paragraphs one and two, Lowry explicates budo characteristics through his reflections of an Aikido demonstration that he saw which gave rise to a philosophical quandary. The dilemma in which I refer is that of Lowry’s explanation of what he referred to as ‘nangyo’. In summary the notion of nangyo, as stated by Lowry, is supposed to refer to the process of learning and the steps taken along the way of this self discovery accompanied with the expectation of necessary violence of realism that evokes a path to a higher journey.
In paragraph four Lowry makes reference to understanding tariki and jiriki being the ways in which the faithful can attain salvation. Lowry should have at this point interpreted what he understands salvation to be and who the faithful are and what are they saved from. Instead Lowry quite crudely roughs over a basic Shinto/Buddhist interpretation of attaining enlightenment according to ‘the way’ through hard work. Lowry then gives an example of budoka who have believed to have achieved this notion of a higher path. It is clear that he uses the accounts and testimonies of Ittosai Kagehisa and Morihei Uyeshiba as examples of having attained a path to a higher journey through years of hard work. This may be true however; this is not what Lowry states from what is extracted in those accounts. In each account it is clear that both Kagehisa and Uyeshiba had some type of divine encounter which they attribute to their success. Lowry tries to down play the tones of something transcendent to practical hard work and years of honed training in the following paragraph. If Lowry is trying to make this point then he should have more carefully chosen his words to describe the attributes of greatness in these two events.
Paragraph eight is the greatest paradox of Lowry’s argument because he again down plays philosophical pondering over and against the strength of having practical physical training. If this were the case and Lowry truly believed this then the paradox becomes evident when you read paragraph three which Lowry states, “To understand why some violence is necessary in the budo, it helps to know a couple of terms that come from Buddhism.”1 We know of course he is referring to tariki which means other power and jiriki which means self power. These philosophies are however more commonly associated to Shintoism and are interpreted as meaning to affect rebirth and a state of enlightenment and eventual liberation.2 The liberation or salvation which is being spoken of within Shintoism is loosely defining salvation to a mass of people or nation rather than a personal salvation.
Lowry boldly states, “Your spirit is solidified by the threat of danger, the possibility of injury or death, and knowing that you may inflict that fate on another person. While difficult and sometimes painful and frightening, no amount of philosophical pondering can take the place of these confrontations if you are ever to grasp the meaning of the budo.”3 Lowry argues that the spirit is coagulated through experiences of actuality, possibility and realisation which take a path to a higher stage and that within the journey there lays the understanding of where violence to a degree is necessary and needed. Now if Kagehisa and Uyeshiba lay claim to divine intervention and what transpired was resultant of that intervention then do they lack the true meaning of budo according to Lowry. Would it not be correct to say that their experiences were transcendent of experiential realisation? After all the Kagehisa account states that he sought diving intervention in order that he learn the essence of the sword, giving us the impression that the experience of his training no matter what he did was not delivering to him the true essence of what he thought he needed.
_____________________________________
Wouldn’t this be an example of Kagehisa trying to gain the meaning of budo through philosophical pondering or having a so called spiritual experience?
In paragraph seven Lowry acknowledges that Kagehisa and Uyeshiba both had experiences of some nature but moderates the significance of the accounts due to years of hard work and training as if the experience was almost irrelevant in context. It stands to reason that if in fact one masters the principles of budo through the path or way of hardship, then Uyeshiba and Kagehisa were very lost and confused especially if they already had years of solid hard training. Enduring hardship is about character and should not be measured by varying degrees of physical prowess, or by ones bias. Many people who don’t practice the arts endure ‘hard times’ and learn of hardship.
There seems to be a very confusing doctrine according to teaching ‘the way’. Lowry who himself studied Shintoism believes in the principles and theology of Shintoism and tries to express this through the praxis of budo existentialism. For example there is much talk about ‘the way’, the way to what? Is Lowry guiding one to Shintoism, budo or both? If we grasp the combined philosophy of tariki and jiriki and we are faithful, what are we saved from exactly? What are we faithful to, budo and its practice or Shintoism or Buddhism? Am I able to perfect myself, and what methods or for that fact standards by which I am to obtain this state are evident to me? How do training attacks and defences actually refine the synergy of my body and my soul and make for me any true spiritual essence of my being? The biggest questions I have for Mr Lowry are; even if I ascribed to his philosophical teachings what is the overall purpose to attaining these attributes if in actuality they are attainable, and when I reach the end of my life, what have I gained? Is it all about me, or if it’s not all about me then what is the purpose of attaining enlightenment or synergy with the universe or be in relationship with others for the sake of those alone? Or could this all be one big deceptive lie with confusing rhetoric trying to hinder me from true everlasting life with the one almighty God, creator of heaven and earth? Mr Lowry there is more evidence needed to spiritually guide us then mere statements over quandaries. Equally one must consider the statement and decide its validity based on evidentiary reproduction to give rise to the argument in the first place. Other than that one seems to be making blind statements without fact or bona fide truth. Lowry’s argument is based largely on opinion without evidence and therefore lacks academic vigour.
I would like to challenge Mr Lowry’s deeper philosophical position with regard to understanding any valid truth about our spirit being and its connection with our physical body and our created world.
The bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1) This is important to grasp in many ways. The essence of creation is just that; God created and brought life into existence as God is a created being. God is the creator of all things natural, tangible and spiritual. This is important considering scientific breakthroughs with regard to intelligent design theory which circuitously supports the theology and doctrine of creation rather than things coming into being by chance.4 This doctrine establishes the beginning of all truth which we know and understand.
Now with regard to our spirit and the existence of our life there is a great spiritual connection through God the creator and designer of life in that we were specifically created for purpose, relationship and for the glory of God. The bible says, ‘Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”5 (Genesis 1:26) In Gen 2:7 it says, ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’6 This is a wonderful truth that we as created relational beings should realise. That our life was God breathed and more importantly created in the likeness and image of God. Our true spiritual being is to be in relationship with our creator which is evidence from whence we came. In the opening verse of chapter one we see such statements as ‘let Us’, and ‘In Our image’.
______________________________________
4. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
5. Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 1
6. Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 1
This denotes the Trinitarianism nature and existence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Like God, who in being and nature is a relational entity, we too having been created in the image and likeness of God are also relational.
When we read chapter three of Genesis we learn of the temptation and fall of Man. God strictly forbids the eating of fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in chapter two and Satan the adversary and in the form of a serpent directly challenges the authority and truth claims of God to the woman stating, ‘You will not surely die.’7 This is where all absolute truth was originally challenged by Satan. The mere fact that he puts doubt into mind of the woman and man is a deliberate obstruction of created truth. This has filtered down through the generations to what we know and understand to be ‘lies’. Truth is the nature of God and all else contrary to His nature and teaching is lies.
We know that man takes of the fruit and learns of his own mortality as a consequence. From that point sin entered as a barrier between man and God because sin as a lie is contrary to the nature and existence of God and God being absolute truth in nature cannot associate or embrace the nature of lies. The bible says, ‘....Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.’8 This is why man cannot in nature possess what is needed to reconcile himself to God, because the nature of mankind in sin is contrary to the nature of God. What is needed is for God to reconcile His creation by His means only which was achieved through a transformational substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. We understand this notion through Jesus’ statement to Thomas ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’9
The essence of all life is in the incarnation and work of Jesus Christ. The question that each one us must ask is, what is truth? We know what is true through Christ and scripture and we know that life itself absolutely exists within Christ. All matter of truth gives rise to our moral and ethical reasoning.
______________________________________
7. Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 2
8. Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. John chapter 14:6
9. Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Romans 3:4
Modern philosophical thought would rather defy this truth by failing to acknowledge the existence of Christ as absolute truth. There is, ‘no other way’, the bible says. We just need to grasp that truth claim. Trying to gain purpose and reasoning without Christ is an obscure misconception derived from the original obstructer and adversary – Satan.
Without Christ what does it matter to know budo? Many martial artists ascribe to a devout lifestyle of learning ‘the way’, but what way are you following and define for yourself what ‘the way’ really is. Christ as truth is absolute and does not change according to cultural trends and influences. Many people would consider that truth is simply doing the right thing or being good. Let me tell you; if you consider yourself good it would only be according to sociological standards by which you base your understanding of good. In other cultures around the world there are many differing views of ‘goodness’ or what is considered right. For example, there are those cultures where women must cover themselves and not engage men publically. What about women who cannot be free to choose for themselves. Let’s consider female circumcision or what about killing the infidel because of some religious prejudice. In some cultures these things are not forbidden and considered a right way of living. Some suggest that adhering to these laws is for the common good. In our country this is considered to be a degradation of human rights and inequality which is totally against personal liberties and that of the true liberating work of Christ.
If we look no further than our social and political environment we have but one standard to measure our understanding of right and wrong, which is by the law of the land. If God’s law through Christ is not administered or adhered to then what is right for you won’t necessarily correspond with someone else. This creates confusion which will lead to disorder and chaos. If we look outside of the bible for life’s answers and do away with biblical absolutes we face a world that can only measure laws of right and wrong against pre-determined case law. If this sets precedence we are in big trouble because law is administered against community cultural standards. And these standards seem to be always shifting.
When you consider following a path and trying to discover ‘the way’ look to Christ for everlasting life and truth!
RD Eadie
Bibliography
Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 1
Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 1
Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Genesis chapter 2
Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. John chapter 14:6
Life Application Study Bible; New King James Version, 1993. Romans 3:4
http://www.amaa.org.au/amaa/inspiringstories.htm
http://www.dlshq.org/religions/shintoism.htm