47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jose Garcia
Jose Garcia's picture

That's exactly the other side of what I was trying to say. yes

Jose Garcia
Jose Garcia's picture

I think Iain Abernethy is right claiming that zen has no exclusive ownership on many concepts (we could say there are "million ways to zen"), and there is no need for mysticism in karate. But I still think zen is a great way for that insight, as elaborate as karate can be as a self defense system, so I don't think it's wrong if zen practices (such as simple Mokuso) are related to karate.

The suppossed official link between history of karate and buddhism is BS, but the use of zen in karate is not. Zen is very useful. I would add that zen is not really mystical so it's not like some pseudoscientific or too ancient obsolete philosophy. And in XXI century we can be able to understand zen just the way it is without feeling ashamed of being middle-age-like.

Also there is western zen too since years ago when zen monks came to Europe and EEUU to teach it. Current european zen masters in general are a good place to go for knowledge about it and they dont think everything like XIII century's japanesse. Budhism has changed with western influence. (Nothing strange because is not the first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism - mahayana is perhaps, a mix of western ancient philosophy and buddhism, the same way as Zen is a mix of ancient Chan and Taoism). And it's the same if karate is being influenced by western thinking and not only stuck in Japanesse views.

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

Seems I have come rather late to the debate but what I think is important here is being aware of the difference between "being created and designed as a buddhist practice" and "growing and developing in a culture influenced by buddhism". 

If we are to look very specifically at the case of karate then it is clear that the buddhist monk origin theory is not supported for reasons mentioned above. It is not even supported for some of the "ancestor arts" from which karate evolved. More importantly, the vast majority of karate practitioners, both modern and older, have never practiced the art as a part of buddhist practice. This means that by simple numbers the tradition is largely a non-buddhist (and non religious) one, regardless of any origins it may have had as such. 

However, many of the men who practiced and contributed to the art's history were "practicing" buddhists of one denomination or another or exposed to buddhist ideas in their everyday intellectual life (as pretty much everyone in south east Asia is to a greater or lesser degree). It is thus understandable that many of these individuals would want to find a place for their martial practice in their worldview or look for parralells with some of their other ascetic training practices in it. By the same token, much of the body of philosophy that has agglomerated around the physical practice to become the tradition of karate came out of a buddhist influenced intellectual millieu (although it is vital to remember that pure buddhist philosophy was nowhere near as influential on the cultures of China, Japan and Okinawa as it is in places like Thailand and in no way analogous to the influences of say christian thought in Europe or islamic thought in the Middle East.). Again, this in no way means that karate is a buddhist tradition but saying it grew up "completely divorced from buddhist influence" is also technically false as well. Of course the same can be said for any tradition coming from that very wide geographical region and you then have to question how much that influence actually shaped it's fundamentals. 

Now if the scope of the question is broadened to martial arts in general then it becomes clear that there are traditions and lineages that are more closely associated with buddhism (and other religions) than others. Shorinji Kempo was founded by the priest Nakamura Michiomi (a.k.a. So Do Shin) and deliberately contains a core religious element in it's practice and teachings (to what extent modern practitioners engage in and adhere to this is a different matter). As an interesting comparison however, the classical Fusen Ryu was also founded by a priest (Takeda Motsugai, a.k.a. Fusen) but contains no obvious religious or spiritual element. Ultimately it is down to various individuals who create their own traditions mixing religion and martial practice but that does not de-facto mean that the two are the same or even always complimentary. Of course the Shaolin temple is an example of one such group that became wildly famous and thus exacerbated the image of the two going together in a vastly unrepresentative way. Clever cultural legitiimization techniques and marketing did the rest.

Finally, there seems to be a lack of distinction between the zen/chan schools and buddhism in general here. As a faith or philosophical school (for it is both or either to different adherents) buddhism is far from one monolithic system. Certianly in the Japanese context the influence of zen on the martial arts and the samurai class that developed most of them was not even all that great. Other schools of buddhism such as  tantric buddhism (mikkyo) were more influential and the native shamanistic practices of shinto were arguably even more so. Zen is somewhat unique and iconoclastic even among all the different sects and it is also worth noting that the Chinese and the Japanese ointerpretations of the same core ideas are also somewhat different.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Jose Garcia wrote:
I think Iain Abernethy is right claiming that zen has no exclusive ownership on many concepts (we could say there are "million ways to zen"), and there is no need for mysticism in karate. But I still think zen is a great way for that insight, as elaborate as karate can be as a self defense system, so I don't think it's wrong if zen practices (such as simple Mokuso) are related to karate.

Gavin J Poffley wrote:
Seems I have come rather late to the debate but what I think is important here is being aware of the difference between "being created and designed as a buddhist practice" and "growing and developing in a culture influenced by buddhism".

Gavin J Poffley wrote:
If we are to look very specifically at the case of karate then it is clear that the buddhist monk origin theory is not supported for reasons mentioned above. It is not even supported for some of the "ancestor arts" from which karate evolved. More importantly, the vast majority of karate practitioners, both modern and older, have never practiced the art as a part of buddhist practice. This means that by simple numbers the tradition is largely a non-buddhist (and non-religious) one

I think the above are important and good points. The culture in which an art evolves will influence the way in which it is viewed and practised. However, culture is not just the prevailing religious view and will also be influenced by things like political structure, class system, economic systems, past and recent events, etc. Religion is just one factor of many, and I think we can be clear that karate was never linked with any religious worldview in any significant way.

Karate is not inextricably linked to eastern religion simply because it originated in an area where eastern religion dominates. If we were to say otherwise, we would also have to say the Soccer is a Christian activity because it originated in an area where Christianity is the dominant religion. And that Greco-Roman wrestling was fundamentally pagan, and so on.

The above examples are obviously absurd, and I’d suggest we would also see the karate / Buddhism “link” to be equally absurd were it not for the Bodhidharma myth.  

The Bodhidharma myth is told to suggest an inseparable link that has existed for around 1500 years. The reality is Zen and the martial arts have only been “linked” (by some) for a very short time i.e. within living memory.

Zen in the Art of Archery was written in 1948. Funakoshi makes reference to the “empty” of “empty-hand” having “Zen connotations” in “Karate-Do: My Way of Life” in 1956. So we are not talking about and inseparable and fundamental link; as the common belief – largely stemming from the Bodhidharma myth – would infer.

It’s also worth remembering that Itosu emphasised the lack of any link with religion in the very first line of his ten precepts decades earlier (1908).

Karate had arrived in secular France by 1955, so we are not talking about a long tradition of linking martial arts and eastern religion before karate made its way to the west. It’s a relatively isolated “blip” of a decade or so based on a false myth. A very long way from what is often directly stated or indirectly inferred.

Buddhists practising karate does not make karate Buddhist (a point we all seem to agree on). The “historical links” to Bodhidharma / Shaolin and the idea of “Samurai Zen” have been discredited. It’s a false history based on modern revisionism. And to me, that’s a good thing that should be clearly communicated. It keeps things simple, devoid of unnecessary religious / philosophical terminology and keeps karate open to people of all religions and none.

I’d also say that Jose’s point is valid and I can see why practitioners of Zen may want to emphasise the parallels between their art and religion.

I do accept that individuals will wish to integrate their religion in to all areas of their life; including their martial arts. However, when that has been done, I think it’s a step too far to plant their religious flag and claim ownership of the art.

I do know of people who would like to train in martial arts but who have declined to do so because they believe it is incompatible with their religion. i.e. “I’m a Christian and I’d not feel comfortable engaging with Buddhist practises”. I understand that, but the tragedy is that the link they think exists – and that some say does exist – is known to be false.

All the best,

Iain

PS Loving this thread! :-)

Jose Garcia
Jose Garcia's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I do know of people who would like to train in martial arts but who have declined to do so because they believe it is incompatible with their religion. i.e. “I’m a Christian and I’d not feel comfortable engaging with Buddhist practises”. I understand that, but the tragedy is that the link they think exists – and that some say does exist – is known to be false. 
Gavin J Poffley wrote:
Finally, there seems to be a lack of distinction between the zen/chan schools and buddhism in general here. (...) Zen is somewhat unique and iconoclastic even among all the different sects and it is also worth noting that the Chinese and the Japanese ointerpretations of the same core ideas are also somewhat different.

This two points are interesting too. In Spain, I have never heard on anyone refusing martial arts because of it, both christian and atheists. I believe in Spain we don't generally link karate to buddhist beliefs, thought is true the myth of boddhidarma and cultural stereotypes of Japanesse being all zen buddhist have been around. But, apart from Mokuso, very few dojos here mix any zen component or buddha image to their practice, while it's true there are some around. Perhaps in other countries like France or Uk, where Buddhism entered before and in a stronger way in the middle of XX century (remember in that time Spain was under dictatorship and even rock and roll only entered in a slighter way than in the rest of Europe), perhaps in Uk, France, etc, the link between zen and martial arts have been stressed. That's why I feel less worried about engaging zen concepts in karate practice here, because I think it's been a long way before that made a non-religious practice in Spain. Even there are many dojos or clubs that don't make Mokuso

I do have seen latterly that "fear of being non christian if practising karate" on internet in some South American forum. I America in general, both north and south, christian fanatism and misconception have more social acceptance than in Europe, and absurd stereotypes like "being an atheist makes you a bad sad person" still prevail for many. Atheism has higher natural acceptance in Europe.

It also has something to do with what Gavin says, but in a separate way, about people not knowing what zen really is and the differences between the diverse schools of buddhism. Zen can be the less mystical form of buddhism, not even recognizing the matter of reincarnation many times. People don't even know the general idea of concepts like "karma" is not in all the diferrent buddhism sects what people uses to say (reward/punishment and so). But this is not the question here, to talk about buddhism and so. But somehow is another proof that we are discovering and uncovering many asumptions about karate and related culture that were wrong for so long until just now.

That's why internet and sites like this are great.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Jose Garcia wrote:
This two points are interesting too. In Spain, I have never heard on anyone refusing martial arts because of it, both christian and atheists. I believe in Spain we don't generally link karate to buddhist beliefs …

It’s the same here. It’s certainly not a widespread perception nor is “religious clashes” a widespread issue. Martial arts are practised by people of all religions and none. Which is how it should be and why I feel the “zen link” found in numerous texts should be rejected as a known myth which has no historical support.

If people wish to engage in zen practises and philosophy, then they obviously can, but I would suggest that martial arts training is not the right vehicle by which to “evangelise” that worldview. Especially when known falsehoods are spread in order to facilitate it. There is no established history or inherent “zen nature” to martial arts.

I’ve had a couple of people express religious concerns about karate to me in person, and a few more via email (to whom the debunking of the myths on which their concerns were based came as a relief). So it’s not a big issue, but still an issue that needs addressed I feel. Those who have been around for a while may remember an article in Fighting Arts International on this topic too i.e. religious concerns about Karate’s supposed link with practises incompatible with certain religious views. That was twenty or so years ago, but I recall it sparking a bit of discussion in the following issues letter’s pages.

Away from what is relatively a minor issue effecting only very small numbers, I think there is the bigger issue at play here. Do we want to practise an art polluted by myth and falsehood? Or would we prefer an honest history and confirmed context? To me, I want the latter. That’s why I feel it is important to debunk ALL myths so we can do what we do in an authentic and down-to-earth way.

Leaping side kicks were never used to knock warriors of horseback. Karate was not developed by the oppressed Okinawans to repeal their samurai overlords. And karate does not have any religious elements or long established religious tradition.

When we get rid of these myths, I think karate is stronger, more appealing and more honest as a result.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Yet more busting of the Zen & Karate link from the Journal of Contemporary Anthropology:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/interesting-essay-japanization-karate#comment-8903

Again, we see modern revisionism at play as opposed to any genuine long-established practise. I would suggest that just as a bunkai based approach is more traditional than modern “3k karate” (kihon, kata and kumite; and never the three shall meet) because it has been around far longer, the dropping of the “Zen link” would also result in a karate that was more authentic. Such karate is based on a long established practise as opposed to a modern veneer draped over karate is some quarters to make it fit with the prevailing martial fashions of pre-WW2 Japan.

To each his own of course, but whatever way people chose to go, we should avoid revisionism and false history masquerading as tradition.

All the best,

Iain

Perhaps no one else at this time understood the importance of the connection between the uniform, group identity and physical exertion better than Yabu Kentsu:

“A former officer in the Japanese army, Yabu [Kentsu] introduced many procedures still practiced in karate schools worldwide... These innovations included... bowing upon entering the training hall, lining up students in order of rank, seated meditation (a Buddhist practice), sequenced training, answering the instructor with loud acknowledgment, closing class with formalities similar to opening class. Most of these procedures already had been implemented in judo and kendo training and reflect a blending of European militarism and physical culture with Japanese neo-Confucianism, militarism and physical culture. However, these procedures did not exist in China, or in Okinawan karate before Yabu” ( Madis 2003: 189).

Donohue points to “the ritual of the bow and the recitation of dojo kun (the precepts of the dojo normally recited at the end of a training session)” (1993: 113) as key markers of a ritualized behavior that serves to create a privileged space in the dojo. These practices also signal a distinct shift from the karate practiced on Okinawa as described earlier (Friman 1996, Krug 2001, Mottern 2001) and mark the beginning of what is thought of as 'karate' today. Through the adoption of the sport and militaristic elements, as well as the spiritual philosophies of Japanese martial culture, karate was able to find a place in the culture of mainland Japan.

Often supported by and disseminated through the government, these adaptations of the practice found their way back to Okinawa and were largely embraced both by masters and students. To this day, in Okinawa as well as Japan, students wear the gi and colored belts, line up in order of rank and drill in precise lines.

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

( Madis 2003: 189).

Could you please give more details on the book? I wasn't able to find anything on just name an year, unfortunately.

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi Marc,

if you take a look at the above mentioned article you'll find the bibliography at the end.

Madis, Eric - 2003 The Evolution of Taekwondo From Japanese Karate. In Martial Arts in the Modern World. Thomas Green & Joseph Svinth, eds. Pp. 185 - 208. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers

Regards Holger

Marc
Marc's picture

ky0han wrote:

if you take a look at the above mentioned article you'll find the bibliography at the end.

Madis, Eric - 2003 The Evolution of Taekwondo From Japanese Karate. In Martial Arts in the Modern World. Thomas Green & Joseph Svinth, eds. Pp. 185 - 208. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers

Much appreciated, thanks.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

A very entertaining and interesting discussion.

I personally do not think that religion and martial arts are connected in the sense that one must be a believer of a particular religion in order to be a practitioner of a particular martial art.  The "other way round" I could see ... where the practice of a martial art could be a requirement of a religion, which may or may not be an accurate description of the religion practiced today by the Shaolin Monks.  (A fundamental concept of Christianity is that one should "love one's neighbour" ... that does not make a non-Christian who "loves his neighbour" into a Christian, it just makes him a good person.)

I'm not aware of a specific "religious practice" requirement in karate, neither generally nor in any particular style.  There is, however, a definite "moral aspect" to karate ... a sort of "thou shalt never use thy skills for evil" imperative ... that one doesn't see in other areas of endeavour.  There is a courtesy/reigisaho aspect as well, which westerners often find confusing, pointless, or worse.  One can seek various explanations for the origins of these aspects ... Kano's "three levels", Zen, bushido, political and cultural forces at work in Japan in the early 20th century, and so forth ... but my practicing karate ... all aspects of karate ... no more makes me a Zen Buddhist than it makes me a Japanese schoolboy intent on joining the Imperial Army and invading China.  It also doesn't make me a samurai warrior, no matter how good my Halloween costume is.  

Karate is rooted in evolution, development, and many different origins.  Many of the most practiced katas in karate are said to be from foreigners who visited Okinawa, or to have been brought there by Okinawans who travelled abroad.  I doubt many karate-ka would discard Chinto because it is Chinese and "not really pure Okinawan" karate.  But we seem far more willing to discard the "Japanese and not really pure Okinawan" developments in the "-Do" realm.  (I think one of the problems here is the use of the English term "martial art", where we are prone to want to separate the "martial" and the "art", and hope to discard the "art" to just do the "martial" ... I'm not talking about those specifically in this conversation, but merely "in general".  But it's not a "martial art" ... it's a "do" ... a "way".  So karate-do is a "whole package" ... take it or leave it.  That said, one often takes far more of the bits one likes and leaves far more of the bits one doesn't; to a degree, that's fine, but excesses lead to problems.)

If karate has evolved to be a more holistic "do" system than the "jutsu" it was in the past, bringing added benefits, so much the better.  (Side note: I'd love to learn more about whether the "no first attack ... karate begins and ends with courtesy" type of rule was something that began with Funakoshi and his contemporaries, or whether it was something that went back in Okinawan karate for generations or more, perhaps as part of the oral tradition of karate.  Not that the answer one way or the other affects this discussion, I'm just remarking on my curiosity.)

Iain Abernethy wrote:
...

The historical evidence tells us that Zen was not prevalent in the samurai class. The discussion in the podcast which started this thread was clear on this; as were the other sources presented in this thread.

I’d also question the proposed link between “do” and Zen which you are asserting. The “do-philosophy” – perhaps most coherently and completely explained by its leading proponent; Jigoro Kano (founder of Judo) – has no inherent Zen link. Indeed, the core inspiration comes from the way sport was approached to build character in the English education system. Nothing to do with Buddhism.

Creidiki wrote:
Is there Buddhist influence in Karate? There sure is.

Only if one puts it there and buys into some of the mythic backstories asserted by those who want it there. There is no intrinsic link that can be seen via any verifiable source that I’m aware of. Karate has no Buddhist origins, no tradition of Buddhism, and has no greater a link to Buddhism than any other religion. It also important to note that the Zen link with martial arts generally has been historically discredited and shown to be later day revisionism. There is no doubt that this revisionism had an impact on karate, but that’s very different from saying that the revisionism itself has any legitimacy.

All the best,

Iain

Strange Indian mystics lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of self defence.  Personal safety derives from biomechanical efficiencies, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.  You can't expect to wield supreme martial power just because Bodhidharma threw a sword at you.

[Mental note: there is still violence inherent in our system.]

I like the analogy of the man with the hammer who sees everything as a nail.  The application here?  The Buddhist and Buddhist-inspired karate-ka practicing and developing their karate in a society where Buddhism was a common element, would tend to solve problems and evolve their karate in ways that looked Buddhist.  Not that they were turning karate into a religious practice ... they weren't ... but "Buddhist-like" aspects no doubt would creep in.  (Let's say "you" as a non-Christian live on a street where all your neighbours are Christian, and they practice what they preach in terms of "love thy neighbour".  They strike you as a pleasant and honourable bunch, with a great attitude towards neighbourliness ... and so you decide to adopt a similar approach to dealing with your neighbours.  You like the colourful lights on their houses each December, so decide "what the heck, I'll do that too."  No, you are no closer to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, of course, but you have been "influenced" by Christianity.)

Interestingly, to me at least, there is a karate dojo in the Philippines, and on their website they give this as their "core statement" about karate:

This is KARATE... We use our hands for protection and nothing more.  We learn fighting skills not to show we're tough but as our defense to escape the untimely death.  We train to be great fighters but not to prove we're the best.  But to show the essence of DISCIPLINE, PEACE and HARMONY to all mankind.  So that we'll be worthy in the eyes of men and above all in the eyes of God. 

Now, I've never trained with them.  I know nothing about them apart from what I've said already.   But to me, their core statement seems to be "bang on" in terms of what karate is all about ... except that I don't think you need to strive to be worthy in the eyes of God to be a good karate-ka.  It just so happens that they live in a very Catholic country, where that sort of message is common, and is easy to understand.  That is a message which will resonate with their local students and would-be students, and parents wondering about sending their kids there.  Would it resonate equally as well elsewhere?  Of course not.  But it creeps in, in a country where that sentiment is common.

 

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

nielmag wrote:

so I have a question since this thread has completely shatterred my childhood images of "Gong Fu"(in poorly dubbed english over original Chinese audio) movies being practiced in shaolin temples, etc.  what is the connection between budhist monks, and kung fu?  Even today, kung fu is practiced in chinese temples?  even if bodhidharma didnt influence chinese martial arts, how do we explain the monks being so proficient in the chinese arts?  I understand they may have hired bodyguards, etc, but the monks themselves know the arts?  help me Obi-Wan Sifu, youre my only help.  (Next thing you guys will tell me is that The Force isnt real... )  

As I understand it, the shaolin monastary was a place of sanctuary.  Many chinese people went there to avoid prosecution.  So, you had soldiers/bandits etc. that had martial training going there and continuing to practice their arts and sharing them.  So, while they lived in the temple many of them may or may not have been "monks" as we think of them now.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I think part of the problem with this topic is that SOME instructors in Japan taught Buddhist concepts with their karate to westerners and incorporated it into the training.  They didn't know any better and thought it was part of karate.  For example, Mas Oyama had students sit in zazen and meditate in class and at special trainings and even conducted his winter training at a temple.  Another example is that Morhei Ueshiba mixed his aikijutsu training with religious concepts and blended the two and taught his new art of aikido with that religious aspect to it.

We have the same thing here in the US.  Some istructors add their Christianity to their karate training and teachings.  If they were to go to another country that had no exposure to karate and taught it with their own Christian values, those people might wrongly assume that it was a part of karate as well.

So, I think it is safe to say that originally Okinawan karate did NOT have it's roots in Buddhism, But, it was added by many Japanese instructors to their new art.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Oddly, shortly after I read this thread and posted in it, I happened to pick up my copy of Funakoshi's "Karate-do My Way of Life" (newly purchased and I've never read it before) and flipped it open to a random page.  I happened upon page 29, to find this:

"Unrecorded History

"Inasmuch as there is virtually no written material on the early history of karate, we do not know who invented and developed it, nor even, for that matter, where it originated and evolved.  Its earliest history may only be inferred from ancient legends that have been handed down to us by word of mouth, and they, like most legends, tend to be imaginative and probably inaccurate."

That seems apt to our discussion here. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Funakoshi does a similar thing elsewhere in the book were he recounts the Bohidharama myth before adding, “However much of the legend we accept as historical fact …” (quoted below). Later research and scholarship has shown that we should take none of the myth as being historical fact … however, there is no doubt that the myth itself has had an influence on the way karate is perceived and practised in some quarters. The myth is not history, but the myth has influenced history. Hopefully the rejection of this pseudo-history will see karate move forward on a more clear and honest basis:

All the best,

Iain

“In Okinawa in older times there were, as we know, two schools, Nahate and Shurite, and these were thought of as being related to the two schools of Chinese boxing called Wutang and Shorinji Kempo that flourished during the Yuan, Ming and Chin dynasties. The founding of the Wutang School is attributed to a certain Chang Sanfeng, while the founder of the Shorinji School was said to have been Daruma himself (Bohidharama), the founder of Zen Buddhism. Both schools, according to report, were extremely popular, and their adherents gave frequent public demonstrations.

Legend tells us that the Wutang school got its name from the Chinese mountain on which it was said to have first been practiced, while Shorinji is the Japanese pronunciation for the Shaolin Temple in Hunan Province, where Daruma preached the way of the Buddha. According to one version of the story, his followers were physically unequal to the rigors of the training he demanded, and after many had fallen in exhaustion, he ordered them to begin, the very next morning, to train their bodies so that their minds and hearts would grow to accept and follow the way of the Buddha. His method of training was a form of boxing that came to be known as Shorinji Kempo. However much of the legend we accept as historical fact, I think there is little doubt that Chinese boxing did indeed cross the sea to Okinawa, were it merged with an indigenous Okinawan style of fist fighting to form the basis of what we now know as karate.”

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

Jose Garcia wrote:

I mentioned Mokuso meditation in karate dojos. It seems perhaps it was introduced by Shoshin Nagamine (1907-1997) who recognized there was no Zen Buddhism in original Okinawan karate. The article says he introduced zen meditation in Karate in Japan.

I think the site is mistaken. While Nagamine-sensei was heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, he certainly didn't introduce the practice of mokuso to karate. That was pretty well established before he even began teaching. I think we have to credit the cross-pollination with various modern Japanese Budo (particularly kendo) in the Japanese universities with that.

Pages