"Why doesn't everyone train Alive?"
Sections from the upcoming SBG book

Over the last several Years I have made a point in my classes, articles, videos, and seminars around the world, to preach the message of ‘Aliveness’. I made this my primary objective because in the very moment of the understanding of what Aliveness is comes freedom from the ritual, hierarchy, and nonsense that is Martial Arts. When a person actually understands what Aliveness means they are from that point forward immune to ever being deceived again, at least within the realm of Martial Arts. So essentially, Aliveness is the truth that sets Martial Artists free from the lies and deceptions of the ‘classical mess’.

It has been my experience that once a person gains an understanding of Aliveness, the next question is usually, "Why doesn’t everyone do it this way?" "Why do others persist so adamantly in training methods, progressions, and ritual, that serve no purpose, and are simply ‘dead patterns’". "Why do people still feel so attached to dead patterns?" I hope to answer this second question in this article.

Motive

As I see the state of Martial Arts around the world today I see two distinct motivations people have for studying a Martial Art. These motivations are diametrically opposed, and therefore usually incompatible.

The first is IMAGE, the pursuit of an ‘image’ that a person wants to have of themselves. An image in their thoughts of a ‘Martial Arts Master’, or a ‘Kung Fu star’, or a ‘Martial Arts teacher’. The motive from that point forward becomes the actualization of that image. Therefore the ‘PROGRESS’ is ‘MEASURED’ by how well they match that image. And since it’s an image they are pursuing, they require the feedback of others. They require an ‘audience’. Someone to confirm the image.

The second motive is performance. It can be summed up as better fighting skill, better self defense skill, being in better shape, being a better Coach, being happier, etc. But the progress is ‘measured’ not by an audience, or outside oneself, as the image based motive is. But rather it is measured through performance. I am in better shape because I can perform longer, or faster, or stronger then I could before. I am a better fighter because my performance on the mat, in sparring, is better then it was before. I am a better coach because my students perform better on the mat, in sparring, then they did before. No audience is required for such a measurement. If the goal is superior fighting skill, or superior coaching of fighting skill, then only an Alive environment and an opponent is required.

I hope you can clearly see the distinction here. One, image, requires the validation of an audience. And one, performance, requires an internal process of measurement from inside oneself. These are two VERY different things.

Measurement

A key word within the above paragraphs is the word ‘MEASURE’. The word measure actually comes from the Sanskrit word ‘Met`r’, which is also the root from which we derive the words ‘matter’, and ‘meter’. This is a very important point because everything we perceive as ‘objective reality’ is perceived as such through a process of ‘measurement’. If you say you have become smarter, then you are comparing, or ‘measuring’ yourself against something else. . .smarter in comparison to what? If I say I am better, or faster, or stronger, then it is always a form of measurement. As simple as this concept may seem, it’s very important that we understand it, because the very act of measurement itself is how we as human personas define ourselves.

Per-sona

The word persona is also an interesting one. The word comes from the Greek, Per = something, and Sona = sound. So per-sona is something sounds comes from. The word itself was used as a name for the large metallic masks that Greek actors would wear during their plays. The masks where made with a cone shaped mouth, so as the actors spoke their voices would be projected loudly to the audience. When as actor put on, or took off his mask he was said to be taking on or off his ‘Persona’.

Today the word has come to mean the role we act out in public. Or how we present ourselves to others. An easy example of just how important these personas are to our lives can be seen at a dinner party. When the host introduces one guest to another they usually say something like, "Hello Jim, this is Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith is a Lawyer". Or "Sally, this is Linda, Linda is a Doctor". The introduction does two things, it serves as a means to start a conversation, and it also defines our ‘role’, or persona. When someone acts in a way that is outside of that role they are usually branded eccentric. The only people that don’t seem to need the personas to begin a conversation are young children. Young kids are fully capable of walking straight up to someone and saying "Your tall", or "I like your shirt", a defined role is not a requirement for them socially yet.

Duality

This brings us to duality. Duality is the actual thing of which ‘matter’ and ‘measure’ is made up, or defined by. For example, you could never know what bitter was if you had not tasted sweet. The concept of sweet would not only be completely unrecognizable to you, but also totally irrelevant, if you had not tasted, or ‘known’ bitter. You could not know what black was without white. Up without down. Front without back. Near without far. Etc.

What most people miss from this simple principle is the basic fact that both sides within duality are actually one and the same. I usually explain this principle at my seminars by holding up a stick. I explain to the class that I have grown to dislike the bottom of the stick, as such I have decided to get rid of the bottom and only keep the top. So I cut it off here, and point to a spot on the stick. Have I gotten rid of the bottom? Of course not, damn, now the bottom is here! So I cut it again. Dammit, now the bottom is here. And this goes on and on. I could cut that stick to infinity, using the sharpest and finest instruments imaginable, and NEVER separate the bottom from the top of the stick. There is a very simple reason for this. You CANNOT have a top WITHOUT a bottom. The top and bottom of the stick are in reality part of the same OBJECT. This can also be shown with a coin, can you separate the front of a coin from the back? This simple principle is what Krishnamurti called the "illusion of the opposites". Understanding it plays a crucial role in understanding human motivation. Particularly as used within the context of ‘measurement’

Now you may say that simplistic principle stands true for ‘objects’. But what does that have to do with motive. This is the point at which you need to understand that that basic concept, duality, is not only how we define taste, sight, sound, touch, and smell, but also emotions.
For every emotion there is a ‘shadow emotion’. For example fear and aggression. Two men in a foxhole may be asked to charge a machine gun nest. One man runs head on into the machine gun and is considered a hero. The other man hides in the foxhole and is considered a coward. However, the relevant point here is that both men ‘felt’ the EXACT SAME THING. Fear and aggression are two sides of the same ‘thing’. Just as the top of the stick is the same from the bottom. Again, this is the illusion of the opposites. Here is a simple chart to provide a few examples:

Up  - Down
Top  - Bottom
Bitter  - Sweet
Fear   - Aggression
Sad/ Sorrow - Mad/ Anger
Desire  - Obligation
Insecurity - Vanity
Resentment - Guilt
Pressure - Ambition/ Drive
Anxiety - Excitement

Whether or not you, as the observer, see the fear or the aggression, the sadness or the anger, the front or the back, depends entirely on your ‘perspective’. But that doesn’t change the essential truth that both ‘opposites’ are actually the same ‘thing’.

Why we measure using duality

So why do we use measurement through duality as a means of defining things? Because within the confines of objective reality there is no other way!
Take this simple test, try and name anything, define anything, without using duality. For example, if I say that is a tree. It is a tree as opposed to what? I have immediately defined something else as ‘not’ a tree. When I further define that tree as a ‘tall’ tree, or a ‘pretty’ tree, then I further define it against other trees. This is the very process of duality in action. It’s interesting to note that in the book of Genesis the first job God gave to Adam was to ‘name’ things within the garden of Eden.

Why personas seek an ‘Image’?

This brings us full circle back to the beginning of the article. Why do people seek an ‘Image’? I think I answer that question in one very simple sentence that I would like you to remember.

"PEOPLE are ATTRACTED to THINGS that CONFIRM and IMAGE they WANT to have of THEMSELVES."

My favorite example regarding this basic phenomena is Playboy magazine. Looking back on the first playboys published we can see them filled with beautiful women that would by ‘todays’ standards probably be called "heavy". Modern day Playboys are also filled with beautiful women, but they are also much thinner women. My question is, what happened to men within the last few decades that caused them to find thinner women to be ‘more’ attractive? Did a genetic change occur? Has the brain of men born in the sixties and seventies changed from the brain of man born earlier? OR, could it be that what men are actually attracted to is not so much the women herself, but the "IMAGE" they would have within society when ‘seen’ with such a women? I think the answer is quite obvious.

This is why you see the sixty five year old man, with the nineteen year old girl, driving a sports car. That man needs an audience. If he were alone, the whole image would be blown. He needs the confirmation of others. He is trying to CONFIRM and IMAGE he DESIRES to have of HIMSELF.

This brings us back to the image motivated Martial Artist. The image motivated Martial Artist will always require certificates, uniforms, lineage, ritual, hierarchy, titles, and most importantly, an AUDIENCE that is willing to play along with the image. All of this is required because an image motivated Martial Artist needs validation from outside himself, just as the 65 year old man dating the 19 year old girl needs validation outside himself. Both require an audience.

Contrast that against the performance motivated Martial Artist. He requires neither titles, terminology, hierarchy, ritual, uniforms, or anything that’s purpose is to display to another. He doesn’t require that because he doesn’t require validation from anyone outside himself. This is a very different motive. After all, what is the purpose of a certificate if it is not to ‘show’ to ‘another’?

Paradigm Shift

Along comes a paradigm shift. We all have them. Someone, or something comes along that is obviously superior, or more accurate then what you where doing, or using before. What is interesting here is the reactions people have.

If a performance motivated person hears what we have to say, they can agree, or disagree, and it's done. For example, if I looked at Lennox Lewis and said, "Lennox, I think your stand up 'structure' is wrong. You need a wing chun base for more 'power'". Do you think he would care? He would chuckle, and that’s that. If I am sitting in the car with Rickson Gracie, and I say, "Rickson I think your Jiu-Jitsu could use some work". Do you think he would get angry? Of course not, he doesn’t need my validation, he knows what he can and cannot do. He would have no anger because he has NO fear or sadness about his abilities. Remember fear and aggression are actually two sides of the SAME thing.

Tell an Image based Martial Artist, and they get an instant reaction of anger and irritation. That's because THEY already KNOW what we are saying is TRUE. They are just worried there 'audience' will find out, and well, that will f#ck up the 'image' thing!

When you really see that, then you will understand that people who insist on clinging to something they already know is 'dead' and value-less in terms of 'performance', do so out of fear of losing an image.

So why do people cling to dead patterns? Because they need them to confirm an IMAGE they want to have of themselves!

Shallow measurements

Some forms of measurement of the ‘self’ are obviously more shallow to others, even to a casual observer. A few examples might be someone who defines him or herself in terms of race, "I am white". Or wealth, "I make this much per Year". I once new a man who made a point of telling people how much his shoes cost. The shoes happen to be quite ugly, however they where also very expensive. He made a point of verbalizing the very expensive part because he was defining himself by those ‘things’. If you define yourself based on possessions, wealth, or perceived social status even the casual observer will call you ‘materialistic’. What is important to realize however, is just how shallow that particular persona’s sense of self must be in order to define himself based upon something as hollow and meaningless as material possessions. You can only feel compassion for such a person, as they truly are the weakest types society has to offer.

Another obvious form of measurement of the self is religion. I AM Christian, I AM Muslim, I AM an Orthodox Jew, etc. The fruits of such definitions can be clearly seen in the wars and turmoil around the world. That definition is usually not enough, so it further divides, WHY? to further define the SELF. So it is not just, I AM Christian; it is I AM Protestant, I AM Catholic. Look at Northern Ireland to see where that leads. You can only laugh when you see a fundamentalist anything argue with a fundamentalist anything else, because if you simply switch the names around you realize they both believe essentially the exact same thing! They cannot bring themselves to ever realize this though because in that very moment of realization would come a loss of self, of ‘ego’. Why? Because that is how they DEFINE, MEASURE, the SELF. So the ATTACHMENT to the definition becomes incredibly INTENSE. Something to kill or die for.

There are other forms of measurement of the self that are just as hollow, but harder to see. A good example of this would be someone who defines themselves through their hardships and pain. Have you ever met the person, whom upon first introduction begins complaining about their body, health, family, job, weather, the morning they had, the rude grocery store clerk, and anything else that is unhappy? It’s obvious they are filled with misery, what is not so obvious is why? The reason is that they define themselves through that misery. In that way they have formed an INTENSE and lasting ATTACHMENT to that misery. By defining themselves through misery or pain, the misery and pain BECOMES them. So when you try and attempt to take away, or mitigate that misery or pain, they feel you are actually taking away them, who they ARE! As such, they can not let it go. Look around, you will see these people everywhere.

Other personas define themselves through direct measurement against another persona. These people are seen outwardly as "judgmental". They waste no time in telling one person the faults of another. But in that very moment of telling a third party the faults of another persona they betray themselves and their motive. Because the very act of telling is the act of DEFINING, or attempting to define, themselves as something ‘better’. If they ceased the telling, the gossip, they would cease the defining, and as such they would not know WHO they where. They are usually filled with resentment, which viewed from another side is guilt. Again, the illusion of the opposites. This person’s sense of self is just as shallow and weak as the person who defines themselves in terms of wealth, race, or breeding, but it’s less obvious.

Now the above related forms of measurement of the self may be blatantly shallow. But nothing within this universe is as sneaky, as slippery, as insidious, as the human beings ability to find ways of defining a persona. So we must be aware of the less obvious ways.

A slippery slope

Understanding what motivates YOU is the important issue. The first thing you must do is avoid the temptation to use this information as a way to judge others. To the degree that you say "that guy is all image based" to another persona, is the degree to which you need that persona to view you as something better. So it truly is information that should be used to evaluate only yourself. In that sense the moment you judge another, and share that judgment with someone else, is the very same moment you have betrayed yourself and have fallen into the same trap.

Once you shed the false motive of image you are only left with performance. Then you must evaluate your form of measurement. What I mean by that is that you cannot possibly evaluate performance if what you are doing is not Alive. If we are talking about a fighter, or Martial Artist, then we must understand that Aliveness is to the fighter what a wave is to a surfer, a mountain to a snow boarder, a body of water to a swimmer. So you MUST be training in a ‘sport like’ way. That’s why we prefer the term Combat Athletics to the term Martial Arts, or worse yet, streetfighting.
So if you say, "I am a streetfighter", then again you have trapped yourself. How will you define that? Will you beat up drunks in a bar? Can you see that the self which says "I don’t train for sport, I train for the street", is the same self that is fearful of measurement through performance. So you have taken yourself out of the loop, and therefore have fallen back into the image trap.

What’s left?

Finally, all that’s left is a sports like environment, and performance. At this point it’s time for the ego’s last step. The realization that measurement itself is futility.

Although what you are now left doing is a million times more ‘real’ than anything an image based Martial Artist will ever engage in; it still must not serve as a measurement of who YOU are.

Why? For one it’s always relative so you must evaluate yourself ONLY based on YOUR own increases in performance. And although that requires another person, or opponent, that does not mean you are measuring yourself against that person. You only measure your progress based on your previous skill level, not their previous skill level. There will ALWAYS be someone better, stronger, faster, or smarter on any given day. There will also ALWAYS be people you will better then, on any given day. Therefore that form of measurement is meaningless at best. All that matters is that you grow in comparison to where you where before, NOT in comparison to who you could or could not beat before.

The second reason why measurement is futility is because WHO you actually ARE exists completely outside duality, and therefore outside the process of measurement.

But that’s another article.

-Matt Thornton

Copyright © SBGi. All rights reserved.