Master

Webster:

a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices
an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill

Although I have been thinking about it a lot lately in the fact that it is used too often and yet not understood that it can be place on a lot of people. You can master anything. Yet many people don't respect those who are masters of things other than what they personally do. Anyone who has truly attained master level is highly skilled and should be regarded highly in our minds, for with so much dedication to one thing they surely have a lot to teach us.

Frequently I am reminded of the story of the Ronin and the Tea Master. For those who have mastered something I would consider it much the mindset. The tea master goes into a mindset when performing a task he has performed so many times before. He reaches "empty mind" and yet still does his task to a high proficiency. There are many people highly skilled in this world who do not do their task to high standards only just enough to do them, because they have done them so often. Yet I feel a master while they know the task has been completed a thousand or more times, still take the time to do it correctly and efficiently. While they may have found ways to shave off time here and there, they do not do it by cutting corners only by a heightened awareness of what needs to be done.

Another thought that frequents me in my deliberation on the subject is that masters should be those with nothing to prove, but willing to teach those who are willing to learn. Many people I see fight for many things, and frequently I am asked to engage in many things of a like nature, however, most of those I know who have been in martial arts as long as I have or longer know that ego is the enemy. If you are fighting in most situations it is for ego, either proving to yourself or to someone else. If you are not learning or teaching; I don't mean "I'm going to teach him a lesson", then their is no real point.

Masters are those who continue to improve themselves, and know that while someone may confer upon them titles, a title is nothing. I once read someone taking great offense to the phrase Grand Master, because how can you be higher than a master they pondered. When in reality those calling themselves that should if all went properly only be those who have attained a higher mastery of what they do, and that the organization that bestows the title upon them has come up with those rules. It was a very American written section too, but it did get me thinking about it, and I know one or two people that are supposed masters, but have not the mindset others should find appropriate with the conference of the title.

There are many sayings along the lines of:
The more you know; the less you know.
The more you know; the more there is to learn.
and so on, but it makes the point clear that the more learned you are at one thing, the more you should realize that you know so very little. Bruce Lee said when he first started a punch was just a punch, then he learned so much about a punch angle, hand positions, different punches, rotation, body movement, and then eventually he realized that a punch was just a punch. This I feel speaks to mastery. In the beginning you know nothing so it's all the same, then as you move through you learn so much and your mind is expanded, but as you approach mastery you realize all those things are still contained in that one item, and eventually you use them all and have no need to think about it, because it has become second nature.

There was a saying in Tae Kwon Do:
A beginning student will block an attack.
An advanced student will counterattack after blocking.
A sabonim does not need to block.

Sabonim meaning Master, which is attained at 4th degree black belt. This saying is showing that mastery of the art also is mastery of observation of others. At the slightest hint of movement a sabonim can read what the other is going to do and therefore will not need to block. However, it is at this stage on my thoughts that the laws come in to hand, because you have to allow the attack to happen before initiating counter measures, but really that just means allowing others to see the aggressor act, not meaning to block the attack, but rather allow it.

With the acceptance of once stringent Asian cultures of teaching non Asians, we have unfortunately opened up their ranks to the egotistical facets of American culture. So much as a real estate agent has a fancy car to show they are good at their job, many feel a good instructor should have his/her walls lined with pictures, or trophies to show proof of their worth, but I say this is unfortunate, and that the best instructors are those who have never had the need to compete for such petty things as trophies. In this country one cannot just be they must show. This I feel is the greatest misfortune and largest hurdle to being in this country, and its moving forward toward a better future.

As such being in this country has made me never want a title. I try to shun them as much as possible. For others perceive things much differently and do not understand many things as they should be. Thus either they take it that you are worthless without a title, or that you are not as good as someone with another title, or that you are a braggart for having a title. This is an overly complex idea brought on by individualism and consumerism and capitalism. None of it is necessary or meaningful. As my instructor used to say and as all true masters know:

Once you believe you have mastered a form *or anything for that matter* you have only proven that you have not.

While I believe that master are highly proficient at that which they teach and may know all the "technicalities" they know as life changes so do they and therefore everything they do changes as well. Which means you may have achieved mastery today, but what about tomorrow, or ten minutes from now, will it still be the same? Basically, yes, but exactly, no.