quote:

---

hhhm... an interesting discussion you've started here karle, and everyone seems to have taken the subject in a new direction!

Another point is to look at the idea of wanting to "become a master".
Those who seek to "attain mastery" are already viewing it as something which is out there- seperate from them, a state which can be seized only by obtaining something more (more skill, more flexibility, more techniques, more meditation, etc). With this approach we are looking at mastery as a process of accumulation.
It’s a very easy viewpoint to have, yet what is it's value? As a tool to do more of these things it has obvious inspirational value, yet if we have a look at this idea from the perspectives of some of the traditions that underlie ninpo, then we may begin to see an alternative approach.

Taoism, Buddhism and Shugendo view the concept of "a master" to be that of being a complete person- a being who is in tune with themselves in every sense and therefore dispays a sense of mastery in all they do (a buddha in Buddhist doctrine and tatsujin in Taoist theory). With this definition of mastery in mind, these approaches look on the concept of mastery as something which cannot be achieved through accumulation, and indeed frown upon the fixation on accumulation as a path to achievement.

"Becoming" a master is believed to be a flawed concept, and accumulation as an approach is portrayed as the basis for much of human suffering. In Buddhism the "third noble truth" states that we are responsible for our own suffering (dharma)- through the processes of attachment to things and the belief that achieving enough of these things (be they material possessions, states of mind, taijutsu techniques, etc) will lead to satisfaction. As a result we end up always grasping for more, never reaching the satisfaction we seek. This is the basis for the earlier comment that the accumulatory approach may have value as a motivator- but might never lead to the end that is sought.

Instead, these systems propose that we already have the potential to be all that we ever can be- we all already have the mastery we seek, we merely need discover how we are obstructing ourselves, remove those obstructions and that mastery will be revealed.

Thus, perhaps the problem is not what new movements are needed...its what movements need to be cut away to reveal the taijutsu we are capable of. Its not what states of mind must be added...it's what states must be removed to reveal our inherent "mind and eyes of god".
The key, therefore, lies in self-examination, paring away the unnecessary until the “gleaming gem” of the unfeterred (action, mind, taijutsu, spirit…the list goes on) is revealed.

Perhaps, therefore, an alternative approach for one seeking mastery is that of not-seeking. You are already walking the path, you merely need to clear the foliage away to see it! This is an approach of subtraction rather than addition, where satisfaction and mastery are already there, it is merely a case of truly recognising this in everything we do.

The question (of course) comes down to how we define mastery. The person who is accomplished in the non-seeking approach above could be incapable of an enormous repertoire of defined techniques, or lack comprehensive knowledge of which techniques are involved with which systems, yet might always respond appropriately to a situation, giving everything they have in an integrated fashion in each moment.
Which is the real “master”?

For those wondering where all this came from, I think my Queenie alter-ego’s going monastic on me…

---