COMPARISON: “karate ni sente nashi.” and "The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself."

First, there are many differing opinions on when a strike meets either of these principles requirements or meaning to a karate-ka. The first tends to speak of not "attacking" first regardless of it being a strike, punch, or kick, etc. The second in its present English inference speaks of a particular, i.e. strike, but may actually mean any physical means of attack. Here is where the rub lies, the differing opinions that come from no one accepted expert source/validation.

Second, we cannot forget that this first principle is open to many interpretations due to the original presentation in Japanese characters which seem to rely on where, who, when, and what kind of preconceived/perceived experiences drive their particular explanations.

Third, and the majority of the remaining comments for this post, is how do we resolve and differentiate between these two principles or beliefs. Do we have to deal with cognitive dissonance and other such questions to come to a consensus between like minds.

I feel that in a real sense that keeping to the morals, beliefs, and meaning of both the individual and the mentor that all of us are correct when it results in a positive and beneficial result. Positive and beneficial as to the individual's needs and goals yet also meets those of the tribe/dojo and society as a whole - how society accepts or rejects such things.

Some of the justifications for this mode of belief are:

1 - Religious in nature, i.e. the commandments.
2 - The kata meaning, i.e. every kata starts with a block ...
3 - The meaning actually does not preclude striking first. The first attack consists of other than physical blows, etc.
4 - The belief once a threat is attacking karate-ka are free to "defend" regardless.
5 - The belief that you wait until the threat becomes physical is foolhardy, etc.
6 - The belief that our understanding of a threats intent governs how we implement the principles here.
7 - The belief that the two are more of a mid/late 1900's move toward cultivation of the mind by living to these precepts.
8 - The belief that these were created when the move to implementation into school systems to govern the watered down mostly physical versions governed.
9 - The belief that instruction of the mostly combative percepts in the dojo needed to be tempered by a moral code thus along with school implementation the more commercialization needed to add in for balance.
10 - The belief that it must be interpreted literally while its intent may have been more personally esoteric in nature.
11 - The belief that it actually means to do no harm to others, i.e "one must not harm others for no good reason."
12 - The belief, "a mental attitude of not being eager or inclined to fight."

On twelve I would quote, "Kobo Kenpo Karate-do Nyumon" chapter 10, "There is a precept “karate ni sente nashi.” Properly understood, this indicates a mental attitude of not being eager or inclined to fight. It is the teaching that just because one has trained in karate does not mean that one can rashly strike or kick others. ... the expression karate ni sente nashi should be properly understood to mean that a person who practices karate must never take a bellicose attitude, looking to cause an incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others. (Mabuni and Nakasone 82-83)"

I personally believe that these two closely allude to this last belief and the quote below it. I have studied the ken-po goku-i as best as I possibly can and have come to the conclusion that it is never a good idea to get physical and that one must temper karate with humility and a belief system that promotes a calm and prudent attitude in all you do - not just regarding karate or any martial system.

To me the ken-po goku-i or law of the fist means that one only strikes, punches, or any other physical act when its need is presented to the victim in a manner leaving no other recourse - you fail to avoid, you let your awareness drop, or you allowed ego/pride to release your monkey brain precluding avoidance, etc. I also feel like the attempts to define the Tao-te-ching that it is something that exists when developed and nurtured by the person and is also not easily communicated but must be something felt at our core.

In conclusion from Okinawan Masters: "1930's era: ... Choki Motobu and Kenwa Mabuni – ... they strongly believed that striking first does not necessarily violate the sente nashi principle. Indeed, both men seem to have felt that a first strike is, under certain conditions, the only reasonable course of action for a karate- ka to take."

"Mabuni was “a staunch advocate of the moral values established to govern the behavior of karate-do practitioners” (McCarthy, “Standing” 34)."

p.s. Tao-te-ching, wonder if the te part can be connected to the hand in some philosophical inference/reference?

Bibliography:
Tankosich, Mark J. "Karate Ni Sente Nashi: What the Masters had to Say. [revised version of a paper that originally appeared in Vol. 27, No. 1 of the Hiroshima University of Economics Journal of Humanities, Social and Natural Sciences.] 2004 pdf format article from Charles Goodin Library Web Site.