What Defines a Master?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Feenberg
La Jolla, California
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
How does one determine or define "mastery?" I've studied three martial arts -- Tai Chi, Hsing-I, and now Aikido. T'ai chi is not generally taught as a martial art and seems more to be a health exercise. You definitely create a great deal of clarity about your personal life in that arena. When I took Hsing-I it seemed to be that if the other person was lying on the ground that you were on the right path. Spiritually, if you follow the traditions of the masters you will achieve success. Aikido is a little different depending on the teacher. You can see enormous results in the field of self-development and personal growth and if you choose to pursue its martial aspects, a great deal of power and ability.
Success in Aikido is defined as defeating the self not the opponent. All three seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a "master." That word is thrown around so freely that it seems anyone can use it.
In my own studies it seems like I am taking baby steps towards mastering my own event. I have much more ability, power and freedom than ever before, but it always seems that there is more to "do," a task that seemingly will take as long as I'm around. You won a world championship, a tangible result around which to measure your level. What about the rest of us, when do we get there?
Nick Feenberg


Nick,
Mastery is related to whatever you are trying to master. The three arts you mentioned have many differing goals and ideas about what the art is even within the same art. In these the goal seems to represent the desires of the participants. Therefore, mastery is determined by the purpose for studying an art. If you realize this purpose, if you attain the level of skill or transformation that is sought, then perhaps we can say this is mastery.

There is always a subjective component to the assessment of mastery, yet the title is used in different ways for different endeavors. One can be a master bricklayer and this would suggest a certain level of skill. Or mastery can pretty much be just a title. For example, one can be the "maestro" of an orchestra and, although this is "master," it doesn't suggest a particular level of skill as compared to other maestros, just the attainment of that job or role. On the other hand, if one is a master painter or dancer we expect a level of skill that surpasses most painters and dancers. Here it becomes hard to define when that person achieves mastery, but some consensus is reached that they have created something that not only shows a deeper level of understanding in their art than most, but some ingredient not commonly found even in those who are technically proficient in the art.

One thing we should consider is that mastery does not mean "perfect," nor does it mean that the person is master of everything. It must mean that there is a level of understanding and skill that is uncommon and greater than what is easily attainable, otherwise the word doesn't mean anything. But this shouldn't be confused with the person being perfect at everything, and sometimes people fall into this trap, imagining that a "master" is a perfect person.

Whatever it is that you are trying to master, I think we can confidently say that as a student of some art in the process of investigating what the art is and what mastering it would be, that you are not a master. Such questions need to be resolved, and in such a way that they aren't intellectual conclusions but demonstrable experience.


There is no set answer to the question of mastery. It is whatever you create for yourself. Make it powerful and real and you can attain something powerful and real. And make sure that you have fun on the way!
Good luck,
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How to have Fighting Skill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Klaus Heinrich Peters
Hamburg, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter,
I'm struggling with matters around the basic question "What is a principle." To be more specific, let's start with leading. Isn't leading inherent in any interaction anyway? Every kind of communication involves offering and leading, since I am presenting myself and do something with my offer in some way-- though usually not consciously. So leading seems to be a distinction which can be made in every interaction whatsoever. I cannot not lead, so to speak. Is this one of the aspects of leading being a principle? At least this distinguishes leading from being a trick, which can be done or not. The same seems to be true for following. I always follow something, maybe not appropriately, but it's always there,
as long as there is some kind of interaction. And the same again with the Body-Being. I am aligned with gravity and centered and grounded anyway, there is no way to avoid it as long as gravity works. What I can do about it is only do it better, more effective and consciously. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be true for yielding. Yielding is something which can be simply absent.
So the question is: Has this "being there somehow anyway" something to do with being a principle or not? Is this a good direction to look or a completely wrong track?
Thanks,
Klaus

Klaus,
We need to make a distinction between offering and leading. Offering is simply what you present, it doesn't suggest anything else is done. Leading includes offering and making available, but it also demands action, you need to move in relation to your partner so as to influence their actions. In both cases, you need to be conscious of doing these things otherwise they are not occurring. Without this consciousness they are not occurring! It is a particular kind of relationship which only occurs through conscious interaction. As I said with leading, you must influence their actions, it doesn't matter whether this happens anyway, if you aren't doing it consciously for the purpose of leading you are not leading. It really isn't occurring. You may look back and say such and such happened and it looks like leading, but this you are doing consciously after the fact; at the time no leading took place. If that relationship isn't actively created by you it isn't there, there is no operating principle "just because." Your actions need to be directed by this principle of relationship otherwise it isn't active.
Don't confuse "conscious" with having to "think" about things. You can do things consciously without much thought at all. But that's another story.
Leading is not an objective principle, or a principle of "being," it is a principle of interaction, an operational principle. The same it true of following. But with Body-Being it is not an interactive principle between people, but between you and the environment, or the "objective" principles. You will be in relation with these objective or existing principles no matter what you do, but your Cheng Hsin Body-Being only occurs when you align to certain principles, otherwise there is no CHBB, just what you get by default. Yielding is also an operational principle, in other words, it is determined by how you interact with another.
So, that should answer your question. A principle is what it is. There are different domains and kinds of principles. Hope this helps.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How do I Become REALLY Good?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Higgins
London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
I have a question. How do I become very good? What is the process that you followed? Because it seems to me that there is a difference between the process you followed and the process we may
follow. And because of that, sometimes only the form and not the essence gets transferred. People don't always get the same insight. I guess it is related to confusing personal belief with insight/experience. You have said that a lot, but maybe it needs to be so much more emphasized, because most people do not take it seriously and just believe what you say. Which is OK, as long as we do not then somehow forget that it is just belief.
Take care,
Chris

Chris,
We shouldn't confuse any process that I followed with what you need to do. We are very different people and our goals are different, so your process will be different from mine. That said, however, I think if one wants to become very good he needs to become obsessed, at least for 10 years or so. The reason I say this is because without being obsessed the only thing you have is discipline, and that takes a lot of . . . well, discipline. What I mean by obsessed is being swept away by really wanting to learn, to really want to know and be able to do it, making this the primary goal of life for now, so that it occupies most of your thoughts and actions. You immerse yourself in the study and practice. In this way, you will be naturally disciplined since every chance you get you will be studying, not just in the many hours a day you will put into your practice and contemplation, but also every time you are standing around or walking down the street you will practice some body-being material, or any time you see an opportunity to work on your skills no matter what the forum, you'll use it. When you are just sitting around, say waiting to see the dentists, you will be thinking about how something works, or training a movement in your mind, or contemplating some question. These things will naturally occur. Why? Because you are "obsessed" you really WANT to know, and you are committed to getting it. You need to "use" me a lot, but you can't stop there, it needs to become yours and in your life. I'm just here to help.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Fighting and Relational Skill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Hein
Long Beach, CA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Mr. Ralston,
My name is Chris Hein, I have been a long time admirer of your writing, and think that your approach to the martial arts is in a fresh and more complete manner. I have many friends who have
studied with you and all have many comments about your ability.
My question is about relationship. Can someone's relationship skills in general get so good that they are better than someone else's specific relationship skills? For example: Guy "A" is a magnificent boxer, has good techniques and good relationship skills in the art of boxing. Guy "B" is a great ground grappler with significant ability on the ground. If guy A (the boxer) has made greater leaps in his understanding of relationship as a whole, will he be more than a match for the ground grappler, or will this lack of understanding on ground fighting outweigh his superior relationship ability? This is a strange question I know, but I am really curious as to the limits of superior relationship ability.
Thanks for your time.
Chris Hein


Chris,
In general someone with greater relational skill will win regardless of the art he does. This has all sorts of qualifications to it, however. Being skillful in a certain kind of relationship doesn't always mean the person can transfer his understanding to other relationships. If he is grounded in more "universal" distinctions then he will be able to relate more effectively to unknown methods. If his skill is based on very specific techniques, rules, and methods, however, he will not. For example in the arena of fighting, if he is skilled in such things as force, distance, perception, use of power, percieving the opponent's mind activity, and such, these things will apply regardless of method. This doesn't mean he won't have challenges, but that he should be able to meet them. Having greater relational skill than an opponent often translates to an advantage regardless of inexperience in the opponent's method.

 Shissai quote: When one has mastered a weapon, even a cudgel becomes a sword in his hands.

Roughly, fighting is fighting, the more skilled fighter usually wins. But I make a distinction between fighting and martial arts. Most martial artists aren't very skilled in fighting, primarily because they don't train it. Instead they play games and do exercises related to fighting arts, but frequently they don't learn the relational skills necessary for actual fighting. Boxers, Judoka, Muay Thai, fencers--these people do  fighting arts; but Karate, Aikido, T'ai Chi, various Kung Fus, etc. generally don't practice any real fighting.
In a match, the fighter will always beat the non-fighter. You can't learn fighting without doing it. But don't  get me wrong, I'm not saying one needs to be in street brawls to learn to fight. They simply must enter an art that has real fighting activities taking place. Most Karateka and Kung Fu practictioners would think they have this, but kumite and its Kung Fu equivalents are games of sparring, not matches in fighting. A judoka may be restricted to throws and pins and such, but in a match he really throws (against his partner's will) or pins, he doesn't fake it or pretend he could as in Karate kumite. When a boxer hits or a Muay Thai kicks, they really hit and kick, and so when they dodge they really dodge. Learning relationship in this domain is different than in the "pretend" domain. It is true that in T'ai Chi push hands, for example, one really pushes, and this does develop certain skills, but the arena is so restricted that it can't properly be called fighting. There are too many unnecessary rules and limitations, therefore it should be called a game or exercise.

Someone playing a race car video game will learn to make many visual distinctions regarding racing, and he'll be able to move his virtual car around the track quite effectively, but he will not learn many of the distinctions necessary for being effective in a real race. For instance, he'll be unprepared for the forces that will act upon his body and his car when hitting a turn at great speed. Obviously someone with experience driving an actual race car would beat him hands down.

Certainly many skills are learned in arts that don't work on real fighting (and by real I don't mean one has to be knocked out or some such, but that the play or match is relating to the skill of fighting, not the idea of fighting). Aikidoists do learn to throw, they simply don't learn to fight. Obviously this is a long story-perhaps we could go into it more thoroughly in a workshop. From what I've already said, I think many misunderstandings can occur. So I say again, in general the more truly skillful fighter will win regardless of art or methods employed.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Training the Effortless Push by falling into the hands and into the feet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob van Ham
Nijmegen, Holland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
The directions you gave at the last Holland Camp on "letting go and relaxing the whole body using only the feeling-impulse for movement" are very helpful and helps me improve my moving,
relaxation, balance and whole body feeling. But I am not getting what you mean with "falling into the hands and falling into the feet at the same time." When falling into my feet during a push I try not to move into my hands with a horizontal impulse. While falling into my feet and shifting I try to keep a relaxedalignment from hands to feet. It even feels as if my whole body is falling away (down) from the hands but at the same time keeping a feeling connection and alignment between hands and feet. How does this relate to what you mean with "falling into the hands"?
Rob

Rob,
Sounds like you are doing fine. What you described above seems consistent with the work we did on
"hand up you down" and draining from hands to feet as you do the push. For now, don't try to do "falling into hands" at the same time you work on "falling into feet." These are good practices that teach you something about relaxing and alignment. So if you do them independently, you should learn from each. Then use this information, or the feeling-sense you develop from each, combined and connected in your techniques, and see what happens. I'm sure I can make this even more clear to you at the next Holland Camp.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How do I sense what my oppponent is going to do?/ What do I get from Yielding?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stefan von Leesen,
Hamburg, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Peter!
Another few question are arising out of some training sessions:
1. If we are in a fighting context we seem to be always too late when we only deal with the
movement of our partner, ergo we have to deal with something else. Obviously there are a lot of things happening inside of our partner before he moves -- things like having the intention to move, changes of energy, etc. but the problem seems how to be in contact with these things. Is it a good start to first get more and more in contact with what happens when I move (energy changes, intention, etc.) and after this gets clearer to me, go over trying to detect such things in a partner? Are there more exercises that might help me to get more in contact with these things? Am I overlooking something obvious?
2. In your workshops we spent a lot of time concentrating on yielding practices. Games like
mosquito yielding, pressure-no pressure, etc.. What comes out of this -- seems to be obvious -- we might get better in yielding. If I am in a fighting context one point seems to be able to yield to the pressure of a force. The other possibility is that I bring the pressure directly into my foot and from there compress. Do you think that this happens automatically when I'm yielding? I was wondering because my impression is that these are two different matters. If this is true, why do I have to spent so much time with the yielding games - still not being able to bring the pressure into my foot and compress?
I hope that my English is good enough to explain what I mean. Looking forward to your answer.
Thanks in advance
Stefan von Leesen

Stefan,
About your first question: there are different ways to approach it. Sensing what the other is going to do could start with noticing what subtle adjustments have to happen in his body before his gross movement can occur. As you suggested, become very sensitive to what happens for you before you can do something. Try not moving anything at all, be very still, and then try to do a punch or whatever. Just at the moment when you have to do anything -- shift your weight slightly, have a feeling of intent, tense a muscle, take a step, move your eyes -- STOP. This should begin to show that you always do something subtle before you do something gross. In order not to "telegraph" so much yourself, try reducing those processes (relaxing helps, as does a clear and calm mind, so does shifting your thinking from trying to be "fast" to simply being "immediate"). This should also help you become sensitive to what processes others are going through before they can do their gross movements.
There are other considerations such as potential, intent and whatnot, but I think you have enough to work with already. One more thing, though. You will need to pick up changes of intent throughout the motion, not just before. An example of such sensitivity can be seen in the video when I pull the chair from under Epi as he sits.

The motion to move down is not the intention to sit down. Even though he is looking between his legs and expecting the chair to go, when his brain makes that shift to sit, he will fall if no chair is there. How do we pick up such a subtle shift and in such a small fraction of second? I dont really know, just do (for me it comes as a very subtle feeling of a change in the other person's body-mind).
About your second question: No, yielding and compression aren't the same thing. Yielding is found
inherent in many things, like following, leading, compression, absorbing, joining, sticking, and more. But being compressed by a force into your feet requires a certain alignment so that that happens. Yielding requires no such alignment, just getting out the way. If you are receiving a force, and use intrinsic strength to neutralize the force by having it compress you into your feet, this is called absorption. But I recommendlots more yielding work before worrying about this. Otherwise, you are likely to just tense up.
Good luck,
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How do I train an effortless punch?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pieter Vaartjes
Groningen, Holland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Respected Peter Ralston,
By coincidence I have visited some years ago one of your boxing intensives in the Netherlands. I was amazed and impressed by your performance. I have a ju jitsu background and I have always known that if there is a secret in the (eastern) martial arts it is to be found in relaxation. So for about four years Itry to visit one of your workshops in the Netherlands each year. From the start of this year 2002 I practice every day your push with what you told and what you have written about in your books. And sometimes I get the feeling that I start to learn it a little. Often I hardly feel what I do or it feels awkward and strange. But comparing with my jujitsu history I see that as a sign that I am actually beginning to learn the push (a little). What I really would like to know is how you deliver your punch(es)? How do they work physically? And what kind of exercises do you recommend to me?
Pieter Vaartjes

Pieter,
Simply: stay relaxed, use your whole body and use your whole arm back into the shoulder and chest and spine. Train to move your arms with your hips, don't use the arm muscles themselves. Press down on one foot, usually the front foot, to get your grounding to move your center and hips. Allow the back heel to come off the ground and rotate with the punch, at the very end of the punch let the back foot slide forward a bit.
Mostly, stay relaxed. When you finish training your punching, you should be more relaxed than when you started. And train to use your whole body as one unit. This should give you something to work on.
See you in Holland next year.
Peter Ralston

Interested in a Workshop?
More Info