Application Versus Understanding: Simplicity Versus Intricacy

In endeavors of importance the ways of application and understanding often stand in opposition. 

The way of application favors simplicity, directness, confidence, and efficiency.  For example, if one's application is self defense, one's methods must exemplify these values in the form of a small number of effective, simple techniques that can be learned and executed quickly with complete belief in one's mastery.  Complexity, formality, humility, and excessive contemplation are all disadvantageous in this view of the 'martial arts' where one's success drives one's methods.  Under this view of the 'martial arts' a person might learn only the palm heel strike and aggressiveness to be considered a complete 'martial artist.'

The way of understanding favors comprehensiveness, indirectness, humility, and organic evolution.  For example, a tai chi student might be made to hold a stance for 30 minutes to develop deep sensitivity to balance, a runner might lift kettlebells to develop their endurance, or a wrestler might hold a back bridge to build explosiveness and endurance during mat work.  These individuals might be easily defeated compared to pragmatic specialists in individual contests, at least initially, but will show their true value over longer periods of attrition.  While application allows for the development of fast proficiency, it is a shallow and incomplete approach to the martial way.  Some lessons of conflict require a lifetime of mindful self cultivation to fully appreciate, and the way of understanding nurtures one's growing awareness of place with respect to one's own desires, society, and moral development.  Finally, the protracted war for individual peace must include humility in the face of one's limitations in order to better see one's strengths in specific contexts.  If the way of application is equivalent to drawings in the sand which are quickly washed away, then the way of understanding is equivalent to carvings in stone which persist across generations for all to see.

If one seeks a short, conflicted life, the way of application can be useful.  Soldiers, police, bouncers, and any other profession in which physical conflict is a tool will find this view most appropriate, as only this view can guarantee adequate preparation for the rigors of certain combat.

If one seeks a long, stable life, the way of understanding is superior.  The warrior who has transcended the need for violence sees only human potential and strives to exemplify it more fully in themselves and others.  In this view, a simple palm strike trained 3 times a week will not be sufficient to defeat one's inner war of overcoming the need to see violence done to others.  To those with adequate safety and the ability to recluse from the savages of culture, the way of understanding accords most fully with the way of enlightenment and victory over the inner drive for war.