Martial Arts

[double_edge]

This is just a general question, but im particularly interested to hear from the Brothers that practice Shasstar Vidya.

First and foremost im going to say that i dont practice Shasstar Vidya myself, so i'd be grateful to anyone who could help me out with some info.

I checked out the link provided by one of yourselves to Nihung Niddar Singhs site about Shasstar Vidya. I found it to be a very interesting read and the videos were really good to watch. One thing that struck me about it in particular is the fact that they seem to take great exception to the idea of incorporating any other style into what they practice.

Now im a massive Bruce Lee fan, and having read some of his books i'd say he was instrumental in bringing martial arts out of the dark ages and into reality.. (Before anyone gets offended im NOT saying Shasstar Vidya is in the dark ages, everything i saw on those videos looked solid and practical). But why is it such an issue? Why is the concept that Bruce Lee made famous by saying "Absorb what is useful" something that shouldnt be applied?

In a time where everyone was arguing about why their style was superior, old Uncle Bruce went round picking up all the info he could and focused on taking what worked from all those styles and fusing it into something nobody else from that time could touch, and today countless styles aspire to the same goal. He revolutionised the world of martial arts by studying new sports technology, figuring out what worked and why, and discarding that which was no longer of use. His whole philosophy was that you shouldnt become stagnant. I have heard Gurmukhs say the same thing about their Spirituality and what Sikhi means to them.. to always learn, always develop, and never become stagnant.

Guru Govind Singh Ji also said, when asked what they thought of new weapons, that they saluted ALL weaponary (my interpretation of this is that they were saying that we should embrace new technology). So why does this not apply to martial arts as well?

I know that there are traditions we should uphold and that Shasstar Vidya is a gift to be cherished, but is there really no space for further developement or adapting to the difference in the way people fight? I mean, surely no one system can encompass everything for all time without ever having to adapt?

Once again, this is not a challenge, its a genuine question from someone who is interested to learn.

As a side issue, will we ever see Shasstar Vidya in the UFC? that would really be something.. i know i'd have my front row ticket!!!

[Guest]

from wa i no shastar vidiya is a battle field art, i dnt tink it supposed to be used like a sport, like tai boxing n other stuff

[double_edge]

I wouldnt really describe the UFC as a sport.. i'd say its probably the most realistic (Legal) way for martial artists from around the world to meet and test themselves against worthy opponents.

Although i do take your point. But what about the idea of adapting/absorbing from other sources? anybody have any views on that?

[Guest]

well ufc cnt be too realistic, like no head shots while the person down. no messing with joints n so forth n so on

[double_edge]

Like i said, its the most realistic legal way of going about it. admittedly it has become watered down. In the first UFC's the only rules were no eye gouging, no biting and no fish hooking. They didnt even have weight divisions. now they've introduced all this other stuff. That being said, there are a whole load of free fighting circuits out there now, a great many of which stick to the old UFC system which was basically anything goes.

They havent banned jointlocks as well have they?? i must admit i havent seen the most recent ones.

But again, we're becoming side tracked. The thing im really interested to know is why its wrong to absorb influences from any other sources.