(by Miyamoto MUSASHI)

Many have read or heard the famous principle - "True courage is to do what is right". But how can we distinguish between two eminently subjective notions - right and wrong?

Ambiguity or duality?

If we refer to reference works dealing with words and their opposites, we can see that "just" is mainly opposed to "false", but also to "unjust". Now, since "false" is opposed to "true", we can see that the notion of Justice would logically be rather close to that of Truth.

Unfortunately, here again, the subjectivity of the term is total. It is above all linked to the context of reference to which we submit ourselves, from a cultural, social, legal or even religious angle. What may seem "right" to one may, on the contrary, seem excessive, even abusive, to another.

The martial reference

If we look back to earlier eras, in particular the feudal era in Japan, the notion of courage is much more subtle, as the notion of life and death took on an entirely relative meaning. If, today, the growing atmosphere of insecurity threatens our property and our persons, the real fear of the feudal warriors of the 15th or 16th centuries was to lose their power, their privileges, their dignity, their honor.

Single combat between samuras was an apotheosis in which, without mutual hatred or materialized conflict, the death of one of the combatants was the only possible outcome: win or die. To die - more so as not to survive a defeat in dishonor, which was far worse than death, which, in fact represented a culmination for the warrior's "martial" soul.

Without fear or reproach

This was the name given to the knight Bayard, whom all our schoolchildren know from their very first classes. But can we speak of courage when we know nothing of fear? Isn't true courage best demonstrated by overcoming fear to do what's right?

The absence of fear can be due to a variety of reasons, each as pathological and far removed from courage as the next. First of all, we have the inconsciousness, which completely obscures the notion of danger and makes us go straight ahead with a tragic absence of elementary lucidity, without even imagining that we might be incurring any risk.

Secondly, all forms of psychic pathologies, such as schizophrenia, mythomania and others, make a potential aggressor formidable, because, as one of my Seniors pointed out, a madman knows no inhibitions and fears nothing, not even death. An alcoholic or drug addict in a state of withdrawal can pose an extreme threat, no longer obeying any rational or even emotional logic.

Last but not least, because it is the most despicable attitude, is the inordinate ego and orgueil of the person who confidently believes he is the strongest, and therefore thinks he can dictate his law without incurring any danger. This is precisely the antithesis of courage, for one of two things is true: either you're unconscious or suicidal, or you're "sure of yourself and your move", and you fall into precisely the opposite - complete cowardice, in the certainty you have of a favorable and painless outcome to a confrontation.

The Ultimate Truth

It's important to understand that no "conventional" confrontation, whatever it may be, will be able to demonstrate anything unless one is placed in an extreme situation of self-defense for one's own survival. We can admit that there are altercations "in the heat of the moment" out of anger, jealousy, etc., but it's harder to understand that there can be provocations or imbecilic challenges that prove nothing other than the intellectual immaturity and own sense of insecurity and weakness of their perpetrators.

In the Far East, for example, we used to speak of those internecine wars between Dojos or Schools, in which challenges were mutually thrown down between instructors, with the avowed aim of demonstrating to practitioners the supremacy and effectiveness of their teaching over that of others, and the finality of "recovering" the loser's pupils. This must be seen in the context of the ancestral culture of these countries, descended from the philosophy of the Shoguns and Samuras. Confrontations, though violent and sometimes deadly, took place without hatred or animosity between the protagonists, and even less without concern for material matters. Sometimes, even, the "vanquished" could naturally save his honor without demerit by asking the victor to accept him as a pupil!

Here and now...

Here and now, on the other hand, it would be grotesque and childish to reason in this way. In addition to the social and legal context that governs us, the ethical sense that should prevail will rather push us to ignore any form of provocation, insult or challenge, while being ready to respond without limits to a deliberate aggression should it take place.

Isn't true cowardice to accuse and provoke those whom we know, by their ethics or acquired principles, we have a priori nothing to fear, as they will on the contrary want to the very end to avoid a stupid and futile confrontation for both sides?

A challenge can only obey implicit rules, the tacit limits of confrontation rendering it without any scope or credibility, whereas only self-defense allows a response - in principle legally "proportionate" - but in fact as extreme and total as possible, in the potential uncertainty before the type of aggression.

"If you want peace, prepare for war"...?

For us, this translation of a Latin saying means that the stronger we feel, physically, technically and above all mentally, the better we'll be able to handle a situation of challenge or insecurity. To achieve this, we must give our all in training, with "sincerity and righteousness", as recommended by Master OHSHIMA. All forms of Kumite - Sanbon, Ippon, Jiyu Ippon, and last but not least Ju Kumite, are at our disposal to forge these weapons that will guarantee us peace in all circumstances.

By the way, let's just offer this thought, which is more effective - "Go No Sen" or "Irimi Taï Sabaki"?