The Style of No Style
Prior to his death, Bruce Lee sought to create a martial art of limitless adaptability. He described that art, Jeet Kune Do (Way of the Intercepting Fist), as the “style of no style.” In Lee’s conception, this meant that the practitioner was free of any of the limitations inherent in adhering to a set style. By having no style, one would be free to simply respond appropriately to whatever they encountered. Thus, a martial artist’s style of fighting (such as it is) is determined by their opponent, continuously, within the moment. This is a very Daoist approach in that through “non-doing” (wu wei), one is allowed to adapt to their opponent in a radical sense, because they possess no style or method of their own.
The question I propose for the current discussion is, can Lee’s idea be taken even further? I will argue that, yes, there is a further step beyond what Lee conceived. That step, requires us to move out of Daoist concepts and into the realm of Zen.
One Step Beyond
Zen itself arises from the syncretizing of the Daoist and Buddhist traditions, so it is natural that it would expand upon Daoist concepts. The particular concept I wish to explore is found in the musings of Japanese philosopher Nishida Kitaro. Nishida, while he considered himself a philosopher first and foremost, was strongly influenced by Zen. In turn, his ideas were highly influential upon Zen. It is Nishida’s concept of the “basho of absolute nothing” that I feel offers us an opportunity to go even further than Lee’s concept of the martial artist who practiced the “style of no style”. I should note that Nishida never expressly applied his ideas to the martial arts. Such application is strictly my own.
Let’s dig a little deeper into this idea of the “basho of absolute nothing”. Even though basho is often translated simply as “place”, its full meaning is a bit more complex than the western concept of place. In this sense, it is not a physical location, but more a state of being; more a “how” than a “where”. It is a state in which receiving input and acting are not separate events. Rather, they are aspects of the same event. In Nishida’s train of thought, the “basho of absolute nothing” would be the fundamental state. The state from which events arise free of any influence. However, once arisen, they become conditional as they interact with other events.
The key part of this concept is that receiving and acting are not separate events and arise free of any influence. If one were to accept this idea, it would mean, essentially, that everything is constantly creating everything else. I create the world as I am created by it. And, neither can exist without the other.
How can this be applied to the martial arts and how does it represent a step farther that Lee’s idea of “style of no style”?
The Undifferentiated Commonality and Creation-Becoming
In Lee’s conception, I must start from an undifferentiated state, but then my style of fighting is created, within the moment, as a reaction to my opponent. My position is reactive; thus, the creative flow is one way: my opponent to me. I am the wu wei, the non-doing. My opponent is the doer.
Now, let’s look at applying Nishida’s ideas. Again, I start from an undifferentiated state. Upon the first action of my opponent, the situation between my opponent and myself becomes a conditioned one of seamless mutual creating-becoming. Both my opponent and myself are receiving and adjusting. In a very immediate sense, I am creating my opponent as they create me. The profound implication of this state of constant creation-becoming is that I am never the same martial artist (never the same person for that matter) for more than an instant. Further, I cannot exist without my opponent and the two of us are aspects of a single happening. Of course, this is a microcosm of a wider reality. In essence, each of us creates reality as we are created by it; the ceaseless web of creation-becoming. Ultimately, I am an aspect of reality and cannot be separated from it.
Lee and Nishida’s are similar similar at the beginning. That is that both begin with the concept of an undifferentiated original state. Where they begin to differ, is once some form of event, in this case once an opponent attacks, arises. In Lee’s view, one reacts to their opponent, there is a clear action-reaction dynamic, and one remains separate from their opponent. The fighter becomes his opponent’s non-doing foil.
Applying Nishida’s concept, we also start from an undifferentiated state. Once the action begins, the difference between the two concepts becomes apparent. Rather than the fighter being in a reactive state and separate from their opponent, as in Lee’s conception, by applying Nishida’s ideas, we see that separation break down. No longer separate from the instant of first action, the opponents enter into the state of creation-becoming and are essentially aspects of one entity (happening). That is the fundamental difference between the two ideas – the lack of separation between the self and my opponent.
While Lee did use the term “become one with your opponent” he used it within the context of coexistence, action-reaction, so there was still a clear separation at the fundamental level. Nishida’s concept makes my opponent and me inseparable. We are literally responsible for each other’s existence; there is no opponent because there is no me. Thus, it is only through my will that I control the creation of that aspect of myself that is my opponent and thereby gain victory over my opponent, which is to simultaneously achieve victory over myself.
Conclusion
To summarize: In applying Nishida’s concepts to the martial arts, one must (similar to Lee’s concept) approach the martial arts from an undifferentiated state (basho of absolute nothing). The instant any preconception is let in, one moves to a conditioned state, and can no longer react appropriately to their opponent. Yet, once their opponent takes their initial action, the fighter and their opponent enter a state of creation-becoming that removes any barrier between them. They are aspects of a single happening and neither can exist without the other.
That is a bit much to think about. Perhaps an easier illustration would be the student/teacher relationship. Any teacher worth the title of teacher will readily admit that their students had as much a role in creating them as they did in creating their students. Neither would be what they are without the other. Thus, their existence is not independent. Should they be considered aspects of one happening within the greater reality? Most of us are probably not willing to go that far, but this relationship does help illustrate what I, and I believe Nishida, are trying to get at.
In the end, every action we take is both an act of creation and an act of becoming, whether we are aware of it or not. This is equally true in the limited scope of the martial arts as it is in the whole of reality.
- Warrior to Sage - June 27, 2023
- My Poor Eyesight Made Me A Better Martial Artist - July 20, 2022
- My Creator is My Creation: Beyond the Style of No Style - May 17, 2022
Leave a Reply