Nothing's Shadow: Ethics, Education and the Contemporary Relevance of the Samurai
Theta One
Bushido, I find that I have to disagree with a couple of points below:
"David" <editor...@newdawnmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:qgd40uk81rpkncje9...@4ax.com...
> Article from New Dawn no. 69 (Nov-Dec 2001) posted on
> http://www.newdawnmagazine.com
>
> Nothing's Shadow
> Ethics, Education and the Contemporary Relevance of the Samurai
>
>
> By PETER ALEXANDER
>
> In the West and the Near East the game of Chess is regarded as a war
> game, and its adepts as masters of strategy. In Japan, however, among
> the Samurai, this game was perceived as vulgar, a diversion for
> traders and merchants. The Samurai had a very different idea of
> conflict from that in the West.
>
> Victory in chess is obtained by calculation, by trading off your own
> pieces in exchange for success. Winning is through deception, and
> always taking advantage of the other's mistakes. Megalomaniacal in its
> grasp of conflict, cruel, mechanical, hierarchical, and heartless in
> its application, and deluded in its victory, chess was, for the
> Samurai, hollow and meaningless as a game of strategy. It was a clever
> device, a game without honour.
>
> Honour is an unexamined concept in our contemporary culture, a frozen
> medieval ideal, a moral or social artefact. Nevertheless honour is a
> vital aesthetic with immense relevance to our situation.
>
> Never written down, Bushido, the code of honour in Japan, the
> 'chivalry' of the Samurai, was nonetheless the most important
> consideration in their life. There are very good reasons for this. To
> stop viewing the world as right or wrong and to examine it sincerely
> as honourable or dishonourable is a way to distinguish the world in
> quite a different light.
>
> When a Samurai boy was 5 years, 5 months, and 5 days old, he was given
> his first sword in a sacred ritual, dressed as a warrior, and placed
> on a Go board, just like a Go stone. Go is the true game of warriors
> and philosophers among the Samurai, who didn't make the two arenas
> distinct from each other. It is the beautiful game of territory, where
> the highest excellence was not through wiping the opponent off the
> board, but by the understated beauty of winning by only one stone.
>
> Power emanates from our perception of the true nature of our position
> and possibilities. It is better to know you are a sheep than imagine
> you are a tiger. The Samurai ethic gives us a perspective.
>
> We are placed on the planet just like a Go stone on a board. We are
> all the same.
That would be my first point of contention. It is my experience that, while
ultimately of the same source and capabilities, each of us, at the present
time and point in the game, has different capabilities, talents, and
abilities, and that these can be increased or decreased, depending upon our
own actions.
> We cannot control the game,
This would be my second point of contention. If you agree with that idea,
you are lost at once, and must leave it all to "fate" or "luck". I do not
believe in "luck" per se, but find that each of us makes our own luck by our
own thoughts, intentions, actions, and perseverance. The more I learn, the
more I discover just how much the game is actually controlled by certain
players, while being hidden from the others.
There exists a caste system of players, multiple levels on which they
reside. The lower level players are actually pieces on the board itself,
are moved about by the players above, have no idea they are actually in a
game, and thus conceive of the idea of "fate".
The mid-level players at-least know they are in a game of sorts, and
conceive of players above and below them. But they have no idea of the true
nature of the game in which they are involved. Oftentimes they are deceived
by the upper-level players into believing they are higher in the game than
they really are, and are deceived about the true nature of the game in which
they are a part. This is, I find, entirely too common.
The high-level players know full-well that this is a game of skill involving
intelligence, deception, strategy and planning. The "winning" of the game
is regarded as the purpose of life, and this is pursued with great
dilligence, ususually to the detriment of all players below, who are
considered "opponents" to be ultimately eliminated. These players are
actually used by the master game-players, the makers of games who, while
maintaining an exterior viewpoint, exist on the highest level.
I find that there are actually multiple games being played-out here. There
are old games and there are new games. The old game was one of conquest, of
control and subjugation, of capture and enslavement of all other players.
This game has been going on an awful long time, and in order to play this
game, one must maintain the idea that all other players are "opponents" to
be fought and destroyed. This is a game with very few, if any, winners, and
vast, uncountable numbers of loosers who end-up being "destroyed" as the
game progresses. In a game like this, who really wins? Even the high-level
players, towards the end of the game, will ultimately be "eliminated", the
progression could not be otherwise.
However, there is also a fairly new game which differs greatly from the old
game, and is based-upon a radical concept - it is a game in which everyone
wins. The idea of "opponents" is replaced by "teammates" and all work
together instead of opposing and working against each other. It can still
contain just as much excitement, interest, intrigue and surprises as the old
game, but it is done so on a knowing basis. In-fact, as the lower-level
players are raised-up, the game actually becomes exponentially more
challenging than before. For a true game-player, this is a real challenge.
> and we cannot change our
> location. We may be placed in a pivotal time and position, or we may
> not.
This would be my third point of contention. We may change our position and
even role by our own actions in the game. We can chose to be broken pieces,
moved-about on the whim of the players above us, or we can become
self-determined players, operating on our own determinism. We all have a
right to our own self-determinism, and we all have the right to leave a game
and play a new one whenever we want. In-fact, the three basic rights of all
beings would be:
The right to one's own sanity
The right to one's own self-determinism
The right to leave a game and play a new one if one so desires
By knowing and claiming these rights, one may take charge of one's location
and role in the game, or ultimately, change to a new game entirely, if one
so desires.
> We may have a lifetime of peace, or of disturbance. We can be
> wiped off the board at any time. We have no control over the patterns
> of the higher game.
The more I read this philosophy, the more I think it was developed by a
higher-level player for the lower-level players, still playing the old game
of enslavement and entrapment.
> The best we can attain in the great game of life, the Samurai
> considered, is to be a very good stone; to be present, to have
> integrity, and to endure. Then we may serve the higher strategy well.
> This would be revealed in the future peace and prosperity of society.
> To be a good stone is also to rule absolutely over the tiny area
> actually allotted to us, to realise that we are the god of our own
> tiny domain.
>
>
> Full text of the article can be found at
> http://www.newdawnmagazine.com
Best of "luck" to all the players...
Theta One