Is Sumoudou - Bushidou real?

[ShiroiKuma]

---

Edited March 26, 2006 by ShiroiKuma

[Shomishuu]

To what extent is Sumoudou real?

Do you think it's come about later as a sense of justification to the ongoing sport?

Was it present all along from the beginning?

Does it matter? Does it invalidify the idea if it was invented ex-post and not as the primary motivator for the activity?

I'd be really interested in what you have to say on this...  :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My short answer is that I don't know. I know I don't recall it being mentioned in any of the books on sumo that I've read. Right now I'm too busy to do in-depth research but will keep an eye out as I continue on my normal course. My sense is that with the passing of time, it is easier to make legend of things that no one can bear witness to anymore. Many cultures/religions etc. have been formed because of this. Anyone can devise a 'way of life' within themself that works for them -- most people in fact do. On the other hand, once a legend/religion or whatever is formed and has developed a following, who's to say it is not real? For me the question would not be whether it was present all along, but whether is has a substantial following. If only a small number identify with it and publicly proclaim and practice it, it doesn't much matter what they have to say about it because they are largely ignored. So...as stated I will keep an eye out for it as time permits. Perhaps the buzz has been there around me all the time as I've blithely sailed along -- my mind is always open to change....

[Iwagakki]

This is perhaps one of the loftiest, (and best) questions I have run across in my sumo adventures.

In my limited perspective, I think this:

Japan is a mixture of many ingredients. As much as some people make suggestions otherwise, I have always had the feeling that Japan itself is an assimilation machine. (In a good way, not the evil "Borg" slur that I have also heard a person or two fling about in my travels.) Back to the story...Japanese history is chock full of things that were adopted, adapted, and made "Japanese." Sumo is one of those things.

The Japanese, at least by the contemporary definition of the name, did not invent hand to hand combat. Modern sumo must certainly have its deepest roots in other Asian models of hand to hand combat/sport. SSirum, and bayrildax (?) come to mind. China also has some evidence of a sumo-like sport dating back to before the earliest appearance of sumo in Japan.

The anthropological view of Japan suggests that Japan is the result of a series of waves of colonization and conglomeration from all parts of Asia, particularly Mongolia, China, Russia and Korea.

I would say maybe that Sumo is not necessarily a Japanese creation. Perhaps it came in a later wave of migration.

Previous to the "samurai" era, Japan was really just a collection of territories, and was relatively un-sophisticated in its wars. Border disputes over specific tribal territories, mainly. I doubt the ideas of sumo-do entered into the minds of people at that point.

Later on though in the times of the "Warring States" a spectacularly refined military machine started to develop. After a near miss by a predecessor, Tokugawa Ieyasu unified Japan and established the Shogunate system. That is what eventually set the stage for the descendancy of sumo as we know it.

As I read it, once the country was unified, there was less reason to go to war. But there was not necessarily less need to defend the peace. So there was still a need for a military, and still a need to keep them well trained. Training in Hand to hand combat was certainly still necessary.

Well over the generations, the memory of actual war faded, and the samurai became, uhhh, complacent.

Hand to hand combat skills became less useful, less lethal, and less necessary to everyday survival. Perhaps Jiu-Jutsu is the closest we have to the previously necessary survival skills after 400 years of dulling. Jiu-jutsu distilled into Judo, and Judo distilled into an Olympic sport for points. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Sumo is a different thing. I wonder if there must be some kind of ritual "game" related to Judo that Sumo is founded in. I think Sumo is incredibly similar to a practice routine called Randori that we do in Judo. (No locks, not chokes, no strikes, just throws) Only much more intensely and heavily contested. I wonder if somewhere back in time, randori is a branch of specialization that eventually developed into sumo. Or perhaps, as I referred to earlier, Sumo is an import that was melded into a randori-type need and was specialized from there.

Either way, Sumo evolved as something completely different. It did evolve from something resembling that point though, I am sure. Sumo was not a thing that would be useful in the company of the hardest, most lethal warriors in history. But several generations removed from that, and the ritual of sumo would be an evolved and refined connection to that time. So after the need to kill, but during the time to maintain the appearance of readiness, sumo could take root.

I think that once it started to develop as a sporting contest, the rituals started to pile on. It is natural that way. I think there was a code of conduct among honorable warriors. Perhaps not as poetic as "The Art of War" would have us understand. But there was certainly a code of Samurai justice, so to speak. That code too, evolved after the unification, along side sumo. It began to serve a different purpose than battlefield control, just as sumo was also. It is natural that these two things would evolve together, intertwined. With less to do with sharpening the ability to kill in battle, and control the troops, and more to do with maintaining the ability to kill, and control the troops. Finally less to do with even that, and more to do with preserving the spirit of maintaining the ability...

That's what sumo is in my opinion.

But. That doesn't mean anything. What actually means something is that the spirit of the ability is still alive, and is harnessed for good. Does that make sense? I think sumo is to each man, what it needs to be. That is the real spirit of the warrior then isn't it? For Shiroikuma, I think that Sumo is all to do with the lofty questions about himself, his honor, his courage, his perseverance and his willingness to reach deep down, and examine his own heart. For Takanohana, the same.

For some people, Sumo appears to be an entertainment, they like to watch powerful humans battle spectacularly. For some, it is a path to fame and fortune. It is a comfortable existence in some ways, to a man who works for it. For some it is a spiritual re-enactment of titans battling for light and dark, and it reminds them to take note of that struggle within themselves.

For some people it is a meditation. It is a meditation on the past, on the present, and the future. Or maybe it is a meditation on the nature of our souls. Or maybe it is a meditation on the notions that struggle, loss and triumph are all within the man. That's basically what I think it is....

Not everyone agrees on what it all means. That is the true beauty of distilling something to it's purest form, from it's deepest roots. It is a room of requirement. It is what you need it to be.

[Iwagakki]

gee, that was longer than I expected. sorry

[sumofan]

Hi, please look inline for replies.

In my thoughts Sumoudou is the only real existing Bushidou, real in the sense that like other Bushidou forms it has a core teaching about overcoming yourself, always fighting fair, never cheating, however it is not only a theory, but it has a platform for testing this, which is the competitive side, which is brutal - very hard, tough, the Rikishi's livelihood and every life aspect depends on this, and therefore it's the hardest choice not to Henka if it's your last win on the line...

In this context you are right that henka does not make true sumo, however, sumo has not one fixed definition. rather, it is defined by the interpretation of everybody who participates.

Basically, I think it's the only art of War, which is real, not only theoretical, like other forms lacking the tough competitive test of reality.

Here is disagree strongly, because the only imperative of a war is to win. not 'to overcome yourself but still die bravely on the tip of your opponents sword'

I have read Sun Tsu. the reason that people still quote him today could be considered proof that he got it right.

there can be honor in battle, but the main thing is to win.

To which Sasanishiki responded basically, that the whole idea of Bushidou and noble Samurai always fighting fairly was a secondary concept developed later by idealists. The real Samurai were warriors, fighting for their lives not for some ideal, and their was no place for ideals on the battle field, the only thing was to survive.

That is indeed what i read somewhere, but i don't know if it is true. however, it fits with human nature.

This is a widespread critique of Bushidou, many things confirm this. The two texts which are often seen as influential on the subject confirm this in a sense: Hagakure was written not by a Samurai, but by a servant to the warlord, who was an idealist writer. The Book of Five Rings was written by Miyamoto himself, who exposes many Bushidou ideas, however he himself was quite a controversial figure. Certainly the little what is known about him doesn't suggest that he was a fair and square warrior, rather a win-at-all-costs one, killing a man with an oar as he was descending his vessel and so...

i have only read 'musashi' by yoshikawa, and seen a documentary on tv. it is thought that he did engage in 'fair' battle with sasaki kodjiro. it was not unheard of to fight with wooden swords instead of real ones. they can be every bit as lethal.

but apart from that, his goal was to win, not to die honorably.

So how is it with Sumoudou?

Many aspects of the history of Sumou certainly suggest that the ideals were developed later along the way. For instance Sumou historically resembled more of a circus, with the Rikishi basically being many times Samurai who've fell in society, they had to find a way to earn their bread, so they joined a touring Sumou troupe and did exhibitions of fighting...

that's what occurrs a lot in history. reality comes first, and then later it is cloaked in legends.

Most Rikishi don't do Sumou as Sumoudou, but as a sport. The one notable exception being Futabayama, and after him Takanohana, when he was active as a Rikishi.

But for others the ideals of Sumoudou are usually an underlying folklore, but not more.

I'm interested what everyone here thinks about this?

To what extent is Sumoudou real? And Bushidou to that extent?

Do you think it's come about later as a sense of justification to the ongoing

sport?

Was it present all along from the beginning?

Does it matter? Does it invalidify the idea if it was invented ex-post and not as the primary motivator for the activity?

I'd be really interested in what you have to say on this...  (Nodding yes...)

i think it doesn't matter. what really matters is what you find in it yourself.

for example i am a programmer. i specialize in low level stuff. drivers, systems architecture, ...

to me, my job is to pursue perfection in design and implementation, with a full understanding of what is going on, from the first to the last bit in my program.

i spend a lot of my own free time learning new things, reading books, doing research, and improving myself (just as you would do in martial arts) because i believe that that is my purpose.

I really believe in striving for perfection an self improvement.

to other people, the same job means doing a 9 to 5 job, trying to get software to work according to specification and then forgetting about it.

same job, 2 different interpretations, one not necesarrily more valid than the other.

the only thing that is important is: what is it to me?

this fits perfectly with your interpretation of Sumo. you try to fight according to your interpretation of sumoudou, even if your opponent doesn't.

[Sasanishiki]

So, by that reasoning:

The chikarakurabe that is focussed on "testing strength" is really about mental strength, not physical strength.

If it was about physical strength the measure of the stronger would be who remained standing and not the one who is defeated. I see that it would bring this back to the sporting concept of sumo: win at all costs. This is practiced by most rikishi without regard to sumodou.

Sumodou is really about mental power. Blasting through the brick wall in front of you, regardless of the size of it.

[Sasanishiki]

On another point raised in the discussion so far:

I wonder how members see this connection of judo and sumo. The above commentary on the evolution of the two sports fits in line with what I've read in passing. However, I see the two are now as almost the opposites of each other.

If good sumo is about charging forward and not doing henka or pulling, judo is about absorbing the attack of the opponent and using their power to your advantage, ie. the "way of gentleness".

[Mark Buckton]

Shiroikuma - what role does skill play in sumo? Is everything power? Must all victory be achieved by force? If so - bushido is in no way shape or form related to sumo as you think.

In particular I mean when a smaller, lighter rikishi - amateur or pro - beats another by turning the bigger person's strength against him using throw - a leg trip or similar such tactics? Not henka - not jumping, runnng or pulling.

[Mark Buckton]

Actually - on the concept of Bushido - one of the underlying principles in the 'way' is that it extends beyond death having been achieved through the kind of life necessary to be seen as living that 'way' when alive.

In addition, a disgrace (unbushido like act to use a blunt term) at any point in the life of such a 'warrior' negates all of the effort that has gone before. A cowardly death - the person was always a coward. Bushido does not compromise.

Back to square one without collecting the 200$$. To that end, the Takanohana and Futabayama idols you mentioned above are hardly men of spirit considering their venturing off the 'path' and into the woods post intai.

Bushido cannot be turned on and off or applied at will - it is constant.

The two former yokozuna - as brilliant as they were on the dohyo cannot therefore, ever, be regarded as the pefect examples of sumoudou (if bushido is the founding father of such) as you believe - or, to look at it from another angle - if they do represent true sumoudou - bushido is in no way connected to sumoudou.

You can't have it both ways.

[Mark Buckton]

In particular I mean when a smaller, lighter rikishi - amateur or pro - beats another by turning the bigger person's strength against him using

[Sasanishiki]

Back to square one without collecting the 200$$. To that end, the Takanohana and Futabayama idols you mentioned above are hardly men of spirit considering their venturing off the 'path' and into the woods post intai.

Bushido cannot be turned on and off or applied at will - it is constant.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it how almost fanatical followers of Sumoudou turned into almost lunatic fanatics after the end of their careers...

Why is this?

I tend to think that basically, if you subscribe to the ideals of Sumoudou as a philosophy, as a way of life, and try your hardest to live it, you become one in a million, very lonely...

Most people don't really relate to your efforts in this way, or think you're a looney, and so I think these two champions for instance gradually found themselves in a sort of a void - intellectually.

I think about Sumoudou ideas daily, constantly, trying to find out how they relate to life.

But you have usually most nobody to talk to about this, to set you straight, to point you in the right direction. In a sense you're trying to find the way, that hasn't been tread out for you in advance and you have only yourself to correct yourself.

So I think it's easy to go astray.

Especially when the active career ends, you don't have the brutal reality check that competitive Sumou is, where pain forces you to reflect on the value of what you're doing.

This I think is a very real problem...

ShiroiKuma and I had a chat about this a while back. My take on this idea is that these men were very focussed and single-minded in their approach to sumo, and in striving for perfect sumo and to follow sumodou. However, as SK says, you end up being isolated. In this state then you follow those who appear to be helping you to achieve that pinnacle that you strive for (not just yokozuna, but the ultimate sumo). You become so blinded by that goal that you lose touch with reality, or at least the reality you had before.

I think this can be seen with Taka and that quack he used to consult. He saw the quack as being able to aid him to be more complete with his sumo (in what way, I'm not sure, but anyway...). As such, he started to listen less and less to others that he felt were holding him back (or whom the quack convinced him were holding him back). A similar thing occurs, perhaps, with the whole funeral debacle with his brother Masaru. Taka thinks heis doing the right thing but is so immersed in his own world (that of sumo [his sumo], rather than just being wrapped up in himself) that he has no sense that what the two of them are doing is actually causing a real problem, both to the family and the sumo world.

So, the pursuit of sumodou needs to be tempered with a connection to reality. If this does not happen then perhaps the pursuit of sumodou can cause introspection or the inability to relate to others.

[Petr]

Shiroikuma, please be careful not to end up like the two brothers.

[Sasanishiki]

That's where competition and the trips to Japan probably come into it. I know that you have some reservations about competition, but they provide an opportunity for you to match yourself against other athletes, different sizes and different techniques, so as to hone your sumo skills and demonstrate "jibun no sumou" (your own sumo).