Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 9: Oh Do Kwan

We continue our journey through the schools of early Taekwondo, and we now arrive at what many people refer to as “the original Taekwondo”: Oh Do Kwan.

This label does not mean that Oh Do Kwan was the oldest Kwan as several schools predate it. Nor does it mean that it was the largest. Instead, Oh Do Kwan occupies a unique position in Taekwondo history for a different reason: it was the first Kwan to formally adopt the name Taekwondo, and among the first to deliberately move away from simply preserving what its founders had learned toward shaping something consciously new and Korean. In the early years, these changes were subtle. The first major push to not have been technical, but linguistic. Choi Hong Hi gradually began developing his own terminology and, most importantly, replaced the names Tang Su Do and Kong Su Do with Taekwondo. While the individual characters were Sino-Korean, their combination and the identity they represented was something distinctly new.

The first major physical step toward a uniquely Korean identity came later, with the development of Chang Hon Ryu, a series of forms created specifically for Taekwondo rather than inherited from Japanese Karate. This marked a clear departure from the shared Kwan curriculum of the 1950s.

Choi Hong Hi also played a foundational role in Taekwondo’s documentation and international spread. He published the first public Korean-language textbook to use the name Taekwondo in 1959 (not the first Korean martial arts manual, but the first publicly published book under this name), followed by the first English-language Taekwondo book in 1965. His Oh Do Kwan lineage was also among the first to be taught outside of Korea, whether in Vietnam or Malaysia depending on the source, with the difference in timing being minimal.

In later years, Choi increasingly presented himself as “the Founder of Taekwondo” or “the Father of Taekwondo.” This narrative was strongly promoted by his students and by the organization; the International Taekwon-Do Federation (established in 1966). Understandably, this has been controversial to some people.

In 1965 most of the Kwan adopted the Taekwondo name, after heavy lobbying by Choi himself, and these schools possessed their own legitimate histories, instructors, and lineages. As a result, many practitioners outside the ITF tradition have reacted negatively to claims of a single founder or to the idea that one branch alone represents “original” Taekwondo.

Having no political ties to either side, and holding direct lineage connections to both Ji Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan, I understand where both perspectives come from. I do not believe Choi Hong Hi should be dismissed or reduced, his influence on Taekwondo in Korea during the 1950s and 1960s was enormous and undeniable. At the same time, I do not agree with the view that there is only one legitimate Taekwondo, or that it exists solely within Choi’s Taekwon-Do.

I am, unapologetically, a Taekwondo nerd. I recognize all of Taekwondo, and I believe we can learn something valuable from every branch, every Kwan, and every interpretation that grew from this shared root. 

(This is one part in a loooooong blog series. Please remember I am not a professional translator, nor am I fluent in Korean. I do know some Korean however). 

I hope you forgive the long introduction but seeing as how Choi Hong Hi seems to be such a hot topic in many taekwondo circles I thought it would be best to make my stance clear from the get go. Now we can not really have an Oh Do Kwan Creed blogpost without going through some of the history of both Choi and Oh Do Kwan. Usually I quote my first book; "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo" (available here ;-) ), but the truth is that for this post quoting the whole section on Oh Do Kwan and Choi would be overkill. So beneath you will get the relevant highlights, and if you want more detail it is very likely in my book (as long as it was between 1918 and 1973). 

Choi Hong Hi and Oh Do Kwan History:

Choi Hong Hi was born in 1918 in what is now North Korea. His father owned a brewery business and so he had the financial strength to pay a man named Han Il Dong to teach Choi the Chinese Classics, calligraphy and according to some sources; Taekkyon. 

He moved to Japan to further his education in 1938 and sought out martial arts instruction, which he found in Shotokan Karate, with many sources citing Kim Hyun Soo as a possible connection. 

Later on upon returning to Korea in 1942 he was forced into the Japanese army in 1943. He was reluctant to serve in the Japanese army, and tried to make a run for it in 1944 resulting in him being put in jail and to face a severe penalty. According to Alex Gillis Taekwondo The Art of Killing; he thought he was scheduled for a death sentence. Luckily for us and him, the Japanese lost world war 2 before the sentence was carried out. Making his way to Seoul he would become one of the first Koreans to join the newly established Korean Military Academy which was founded on American initiative. 

In 1950 the Korean war broke out and Choi rose quickly through the ranks, eventually becoming a 2 star general by 1954. Although the war officially never ended, an armistice was signed in 1953 and a long lasting cease fire was established. This cease-fire has held up until the time of writing (2026, and hopefully we will not see more war). That same year Choi was given command of the newly established 29th regiment on Jeju island and he started teaching what he had been taught to his soldiers. To assist him in teaching martial arts he recruited Nam Tae Hi, a decorated war hero and a student from Chung Do Kwan under Lee Won Kuk. The following year after the president saw a display of soldiers demonstrating martial arts skills, Choi was order to spread martial arts training to more soldiers and the Oh Do Kwan (My Way School) was formally established. During this time work intensified in making the martial art into something truly Korean, slowly and gradually introducing new Chang Hon Ryu forms. (By 1959 5 forms had been developed and were being taught along Karate forms in the curriculum.)

Choi Hong Hi also became honorary Kwanjang (headmaster) in the Chung Do Kwan in 1954, while the 2nd Kwanjang Son Duk Sung saw to the day to day operations and training. 

Choi would also spearhead the organization that would become the KTA (Korean Taekwondo Association) in 1959, using his rank and military government contacts to secure government support for the organization. He served as the organizations first president, and after a rather brief hiatus when he served as an ambassador in Malaysia he returned, became the president of the KTA once more in 1965 and managed to get all the Kwan to adopt the name Taekwondo. 

During the late 60s he gradually lost political power within Taekwondo, and he became an outspoken critic of the military dictator who ruled Korea at the time. This columnated in him taking his family, Nam Tae Hi, several students and the ITF organization (which originally was the international organization of operations for the KTA) with him as he relocated to Canada, Nam Tae Hi eventually relocating to Chicago that same year. 

Being a Taekwondo Nerd who loves history shortening things down to the bare essentials like this almost physically hurts :-P There is a lot more to it than this, but to understand a little of what might have shaped the Kwan Heon I think this is a good overview.  

Was Oh Do Kwan simply a Chung Do Kwan Annex-Kwan ?

I will not use much time on this, but because there is a continued effort in downplaying Choi and his school I would like to address this claim. Short answer: Oh Do Kwan was the direct result of the President ordering one of his generals (Choi) to establish a school of martial arts for military personnel. Choi had no ties to Chung Do Kwan at that time, nor had he any training under Lee Won Kuk. 

The fact that Choi recruited Nam Tae Hi to serve as a head instructor does not mean that Oh Do Kwan was simply an annex-kwan. If you know your history Choi choosing Nam makes all the sense in the world. They were both already in the military, and both had similar martial arts background (ties back to Shotokan Karate). The fact that Nam came already trained in the martial arts was much of the point of recruiting him in the first place. 

Oh Do Kwan was founded independently under orders in the military. Because of the shared roots (Shotokan) and to expedite training they adopted the Chung Do Kwan Creed, they trained many Chung Do Kwan-like forms too but that was because of shared roots and instructors coming from Chung Do Kwan. Having researched the 1959 Textbook and compared the forms to Son Duk Sung´s 1968 book I can confirm that the forms are very similar, but there are some subtle differences. Things that are unique to Son Duk Sung´s documented forms which I believe to be a good representation of Chung Do Kwan, and things that are unique to Oh Do Kwan based on Choi´s 1959 and 1965 textbooks. And that is discounting the fact that the Oh Do Kwan in time introduced new forms unique to the Oh Do Kwan (Hwarang, Chung Mu, Ul Ji and others).

That being said there were close ties between them, namely all first generation instructors in the Oh Do Kwan came from Chung Do Kwan, Choi was an honorary Kwanjang as previously stated, and when martial artists came from other schools into the military all of them had to retest to have their dan grades recognized, the sole exception was Chung Do Kwan members. Recently digging into the Military Academy (where military cadets were studying to become officers) I discovered that early on there was a very pronounced Chung Do Kwan rather than an Oh Do Kwan presence there. In 1962 the name they used at that academy had specifically a "Chung Do" moniker according to the research of Seok Min Hak who used the academys own records as a source for this claim.

There is also a quote attributed to Choi which is highly relevant here: 

최홍희는 “오도관의 ‘형제관’이라고 할 수 있는 청도관과의 잦은 교류로 기본동작과 형의 수련 체계가 같았으나 지도관, 창무관 등 민간도장의 수련체계와는 달라 군에 맞는 별도의 심사가 필요했다”고 말함. Or in English: 

Choi Hong Hi stated:

“Due to frequent exchanges with Chung Do Kwan, which could be called Oh Do Kwan's ‘brother Kwan,’ the training systems for fundamental movements and hyeong were the same. However, these differed from the training systems of civilian dojang such as Ji Do Kwan and Chang Mu Kwan, so a separate examination system suited to the military was necessary.” Source: Kukkiwon 9 Kwan history 2015, page 116. 

The book does not give an exact source of origin of this quote, but it is consistent with the fact that Chung Do Kwan members did not have to retest when they joined the military, while all the other Kwan did. If this is a genuine quote by Choi (and there is no reason to believe this was made up by the Kukkiwon), it does show that these two Kwan were very close.  

The first Kwan Heon of Oh Do Kwan

As stated above the first creed was borrowed from Chung Do Kwan, likely through Nam Tae Hi who would have been intimately familiar with it due to his background. The main reason for this borrowing of Chung Do Kwan Creed might simply be a question of time and where to put the focus. Oh Do Kwan was a military school, they needed training right now. Focus would naturally be on developing the physical training first, and therefore not using vital time and energy into inventing the wheel anew as they say, they used the Chung Do Kwan Creed. Already by 1959 did Choi start introducing his own Kwan Heon beginning with the Tenets of Taekwondo. For reference the Chung Do Kwan Creed can be seen below (translated by me):

"1: We, the members of the Kwan, discipline our mind and body, based on the martial spirit." (or mudo-spirit).

"2: We, the members of the Kwan, trust and care for one another and firmly strengthen our unity.”

“3: We, the members of the Kwan, strictly observe the Kwan’s rules and obey the orders of the instructor.”

Many sources, even Korean language sources presents the Chung Do Kwan Creed as the Oh Do Kwan Creed. One article I remember reading presented the Creed simply as "The original Oh Do Kwan Creed". Without context (that it originated in Chung Do Kwan and predates the Oh Do Kwan) it is easy to see how this might make people think that the Creed was an Oh Do Kwan invention, but I do hope that both the Chung Do Kwan post part 1.2 (click here if you have not read it) and this post puts it all into proper context. 

Oh Do Kwan Heon; Coming into its own

In 1959 Choi Hong Hi published his first book on Taekwondo, the very first public book using the name Taekwondo for the martial art. There were several earlier Korean Martial Arts manuals already published but they used different names for the martial art (Choi Seok Nam's 1955 book used predominantly Kwonbeop, Hwang Kee's 1958 book used Tangsudo for two examples of this). 

There is no real mention of the book being an Oh Do Kwan texbook but the material covered in it does follow the standards, terminology and forms being taught under Choi's leadership and was published to make a reference work for those teaching and studying the art. In the foreword he thanks both Oh Do Kwan and Chung Do Kwan members for their help in getting the book published. So this is quite possibly as close to an Oh Do Kwan Textbook from this era we will get. 

There does not seem to be elaborations in them, but people might be pleasantly surprised to learn that what we call the "Tenets of Taekwondo" does make an appearance here in a Hanja calligraphy at the beginning of the book. This positively shows us that the tenets were conceived at least by 1959, and while they continued using the Chung Do Kwan Creed, the tenets is what sets Oh Do Kwan apart. 

Earlier in my studies I had completely overlooked this, because while I have learned a lot these last two years looking at Hanja, I personally am not on any level to read them in their stylized calligraphy forms. It took one sentence in an otherwise unrelated Korean article to make me double check this and then send the page to two other scholars (Dan Bernardo and Jon Lennart) who both confirmed that yes, the "modern tenets" were indeed included in the 1959 book. So if you have read earlier articles by me saying otherwise let me assure you, they are there :-) This is why it is fun to keep studying and not stagnating. 

The 5 Tenets of Taekwon-Do

- courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀)
- integrity (yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥)

- perseverance (innae, 인내, 忍耐)
- self-control (geukgi, 극기, 克己)

- Indomitable spirit (baekjeol bulgul, 백절불굴, 百折不屈)

Courtesy

Let us start with "Courtesy". As with a number of previous instances in this series, courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀) consists of two Hanja as well; 禮 (ye) and 儀 (ui). If we take a closer look at ye (禮), we find that it is sometimes referred to as ‘ritual’ in books on Confucianism. In fact, most regard ye as one of the core Confucian virtues. So what does this have to do with courtesy? Bear with me, we will get there.

Ye is, according to Confucius, the external expression and regulation of moral virtue. By this I mean that moral judgment is internal; one must decide how to act according to the situation, taking into account social context such as relationships, obligations, and place within hierarchy. Depending on the situation, there are correct, role-appropriate ways to behave and operate. This correct formal behavior within a given context is considered ye.

My original teacher once tried explaining it to me simply as ‘the correct way of doing something.’ These expressions can range from the act of bowing to your superior (hierarchical ritual), opening the door for someone (social courtesy), or reciting a dojang creed before and after training (institutional ritual).

Ui (儀, 의) can be read as: appearance, form, demeanor, ceremony, proper bearing, prescribed manner. While Ye (禮) is closely associated with the Confucian understanding of ritual propriety and the social and moral order, Ui (儀) places emphasis on the outward expression of proper conduct, including the forms, ceremonies and behavior through which such propriety is expressed.

So what happens when you put Ye and Ui together to form a complete term? I hope people reading this will understand that "courtesy" is a useful shorthand in English, but a lot of nuance can be lost. Ye (禮) establishes the moral and social principles of proper conduct, while Ui (儀) concerns the appropriate outward expression of that conduct. At least, this is how I would interpret the relationship between the two within a Confucian philosophical framework. 

If I were not constrained by a shorthand translation (as we are when listing the Tenets), I could try to express the deeper philosophical meaning of Ye-Ui as: "The disciplined alignment of conduct, form, and demeanor with moral and social order." While this take on a definition/ translation of Ye-Ui tries to maintain the nuance of the original language, "Courtesy", perhaps a little shallow in meaning compared to the original language is a useful shorthand. Where I find it a little lacking is the inherent moral within the original term. 

A traditional Taekwondo bow can be done with a sincere internal intention of showing proper respect and honor to the recipient, but it can also be done in a sarcastic, shallow or even passive-aggressive way. The outward form could be mimicked enough that it would be considered an act of courtesy in English, but it would fail the deeper ethical ideal of Ye-Ui, as I understand it, by a mile. 

Like my original teacher would have said; the intention to express ye-ui  must come from your heart.

Integrity 

Now that we have looked at courtesy, let us take look at integrity"(yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥). It consists of two Hanja characters which means that we need to look at 廉 and 恥 separately and together if we are going to treat this as serious as this blog series warrants. 

廉 (염 yeom) Core meanings: clean, honest, incorrubtible, free from excess or corruption

恥 (치 chi) Core meanings: shame, sense of shame, moral embarrassment, awareness of disgrace.

I need to add that this is not shame as in "guilt" in a Christian sense, but that it is relational and social instead. It can be internal, but it is not only internal. Remember that Confucianism places a great deal on the individual existing through the relations and bonds with others. This 恥 (치 chi) presupposes a moral order and one´s place within it. To feel shame is evidence of moral awareness, not moral failure in Confucian thought. When combined, the two characters form a single ethical concept, not just “廉 + 恥”. It is difficult to capture this in English, so I do believe that "integrity" is a good translation that covers a lot, but if I were to try to put it into words, not being restricted to shorthand I would go with something along the lines of: 

Yeomchi (염치, 廉恥): A cultivated sense of moral restraint grounded in shame-awareness and incorruptibility. 

But like I said, Integrity works much better as a single tenet :-)

Perseverance 

This tenet again consists of two Hanja characters read as "In" and "Nae", where the first character "In" 인 (忍) can be read as: "To endure emotional pain", to restrain oneself under pressure" or perhaps "to bear suffering without losing moral control". In classical usage 忍 implies something like "enduring something difficult while consciously restraining impulse, anger, fear or despair".  

The second character 내 (耐) "Nae" can be read as: "to withstand", "to bear physically", or perhaps "to tolerate something over time". 

So pairing these two together you could say that the first one is talking about the "inner" part of you, while the second one is more outward (inner and outer, emotional endurance and physical endurance). Perseverance is a perfectly reasonable and acepted translation, but it kinda looses a little nuance from the original concept of In-Nae. Perhaps "Enduring self-restraint" or something like that would capture the nuance better, but "Perserverance" is short and to the point and as I have said both accepted and reasonable translation. 

Self Control

We once again see 2 Hanja characters, this time 克 and 己. The English translation "Self-control" is very appropriate and has almost no loss of nuance when compared to the original language. 

In isolation we see 克 (geuk) which can be read as: "to overcome", "conquer", and 己 (gi) which refers to the self, ego, and/ or desires. Together they can literally be read as "To conquer oneself" or as the original translation says; "Self-control". 

Of all the tenets, this is the translation that I think holds up the best when compared to the original lanugage. If I am going deep on the nuance between the original language as I understand it and the English translation we could say that while Self-control holds up really well , “Self-control” in English often sounds like moment-to-moment impulse control (don’t get angry, don’t lash out) while the original language also carries the sense of self-overcoming as a moral project, closer to self-discipline/self-mastery than merely “control.” An overlap with the 修身 (sushin) virtue of Confucianism. 

Indomitable Spirit

Here we see that we are not dealing with a simple term or virtue (which usually comes up as 1-2 Hanja characters) but a whole phrase. The translation provided "Indomitable Spirit" retains the general meaning, and is a great translation for a short "tenet-list", but the original language is more descriptive than that. 百折不屈 literally translated in isolation means 

• 百: a hundred (often short hand for "many" times so not to be taken literally as 100 in an idiom)

• 折: to bend, break, be folded

• 不: not

• 屈: to yield, submit

So perhaps the most literal translation of the term into English might be: "Bent a hundred times, yet never submitting". Indomitable Spirit captures and transmit a lot of the meaning of the original phrase, both in terms of inner strength as well as a refusal to give up. Where it falls a little short is the imagery inherent in the original phrase of repeated breaking, and it might just be me, but I sense an almost moral, tragic heroism embedded within the original phrase that does not come to light in the English translation. The reason I sense that is the imagery of being bent or broken many many times, yet refusing to give up. To take a quick detour to Germanic myths and stories of old, the hero often knows he is doomed but he goes forth with resolve to face his fate regardless, not giving up. Still, Indomitable Spirit is a valid and good translation, and for a short-list of tenets it is an especially good one. The only problem I can think of with the English translation is that some people might interpret it as an expression of "macho toughness" or use the tenet to justify a confrontation seeking behavior, especially if viewing the tenet in isolation. 

The point of the tenets?

So now that we have looked at all the tenets, broken them down, and then put them back together again, what is the point of them?

Personally, the way I was taught to think about the tenets is that they are not meant to be slogans, nor something to be mechanically recited during training. Rather, they are meant to be gradually internalized through Taekwondo practice and carried into daily life.

The real strength of the tenets, taken as a collective set of values and virtues, is that they remain relevant far beyond the dojang. Want to become better at self-defence? Observing the tenets will at least make it less likely that you end up drawn into unnecessary, consensual, or semi-consensual violence. Bad things do happen to good people, but if you regularly find yourself in bar fights, odds are that at some level one or more of the tenets were not being properly observed.

Want better relationships? Observe the tenets. Want to be a better leader? Observe the tenets. Want to be a better student, colleague, or human being? The answer does not really change. This, to me, is where the tenets stop being words on a page and start functioning as a lived ethical framework.

First English Book 1965

In Choi Hong Hi´s 1965 "Tae kwon do The Art of Self Defense". Under the heading "Moral Culture" on page 18 Choi Hong Hi writes: 

"The moral culture of this art of Taekwon-Do does not merely aim at promoting the power and technique but also at preventing from misuse of them when he is an expert as well as a student."

Here he also introduces the "Tenets of Taekwon-Do" on the very first page right after the table of contents. And here is one place where someone reading the accompanying Hanja calligraphy, and someone reading the English Tenets will get two different sets. The book was meant for people overseas, people who did not speak Korean, so for a vast majority of people what they read in English is what they get.

 In English the tenets are presented as follows:

- Modesty

- Perseverance 

-Self-control

-Indomitable Spirit. 

So here we have four tenets in English, only three of which correspond to those in the familiar five-tenet list. However, the accompanying Hanja calligraphy contains all five. What initially appears to be evidence of the tenets evolving over time is actually a discrepancy between the English text and the original calligraphy.. So the English here is plainly a faulty translation. This again has led to loads of people, very much including me, going on wild tangents on how the tenets developed over time, starting with these 4, then evolving into the modern 5. As we just saw however the 5 tenets just like we have them today were already present in the 1959 book, and looking strictly at the Hanja calligraphy for those good enough to read them, they are here in the 1965 book as well. 

I have noticed that there are numerous instances where there are mistakes in the 65 book that are either corrected in the Korean language book from 1966 which also covers a lot of the same ground as this book. This however might be one of the more grave mistakes, seeing as the tenets are such an integral part of the philosophy it is important that we get the correct ones. 

So if you have read any article or post by me or others saying that the 1965 book has different tenets than the modern ones, get someone who understands and reads Hanja fluently to look not at the English, but at the calligraphy only and ask them what it says.  

Military Taekwondo in wartime (1966, Vietnam war)

In 1966 Choi Hong Hi published a Korean language manual that shares substantial content with the English 1965 textbook, but the 1966 version was aimed primarily for the military. 

"The purpose of this manual is to systematize and unify Taekwondo education within the Army. Based on an analysis and examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the various schools (Ryupa), this manual has been adopted as a unified guideline for Army Taekwondo education, encompassing overall technical development, including command methods for various movements. As such, it is to be used as a guideline for unit-level training." - Choi 1966 page 1

Some changes were made between the two, but while the English 1965 version retained several Karate-derived forms (with Japanese pronounciation of their names no less) the 1966 version uses the Chang Hon Ryu forms exclusively. 

"This manual details the important techniques of Taekwondo, conditioning and equipment, basic training, forms, sparring, and self-defense. Before using this manual, the reader must discard entirely all elements belonging to Chinese and Japanese traditions (ryu) that had previously been transmitted in an unsystematic manner.. This manual is based on a newly developed doctrine of pure Korean lineage (Korea-ryu), in which our national spirit is deeply rooted. Furthermore, as Korea’s indigenous martial art, Taekwondo is presented here according to a doctrine consistent with what has been introduced overseas, grounded in national consciousness." - Choi 1966 page 1 (emphasis by me)

There is no short tenet list in the book that I could find but later on page 1 Choi does introduce the virtues and spirit of Taekwondo (there is no use of a hyphen in the Korean word Taekwondo). I have chosen to translate the whole paragraph below so that you see everything in context, we can draw from the paragraph to summarize a 1966 tenet list afterward, just know that it does not appear as a list originally. 

"“The spirit of Taekwondo is cultivated by accumulating virtues such as courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀), integrity/shame (yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥), modesty (gyeom-yang, 겸양, 謙讓), perseverance (innae, 인내, 忍耐), self-control (geukgi, 극기, 克己), and courage (yonggi, 용기, 勇氣). In times of emergency, this cultivates the resolute fighting spirit of ‘no retreat when facing battle’ (imjeon mutoe, 임전무퇴, 臨戰無退) and ‘indomitable perseverance’ (baekjeol bulgul, 백절불굴, 百折不屈), thereby strengthening the combat power of the military. Furthermore, grounding spiritual cultivation in the Five Precepts of the Hwarang (Hwarangdo O-gye, 화랑도 오계, 五戒), and refining both mind and body through the Three Virtues of wisdom (ji, 지, 智), benevolence (in, 인, 仁), and courage (yong, 용, 勇), this spirit is directly aligned with the spirit of the soldier. Therefore, herein lies the purpose and significance of soldiers training Taekwondo as an essential martial skill (pilsu musul, 필수무술, 必須武術).” - Choi Hong Hi, 1966, p. 1

There is a lot to unpack here and I will not do the same kind of deep dive on each one here seeing as several have been translated and treated before. This is a blog so simply ask me to write a follow up post if you are interested ;-) The following is a list of the virtues he lists which I will simply call "The 1966 Tenets"

Virtues and Ethical Principles Mentioned in the 1966 Army Manual:

- courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀)
- integrity (yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥)
- modesty (gyeom-yang, 겸양, 謙讓)
- perseverance (innae, 인내, 忍耐)
- self-control (geukgi, 극기, 克己)
- courage (yonggi, 용기, 勇氣)
- Resolute fighting spirit of ‘no retreat when facing battle’ (imjeon mutoe, 임전무퇴, 臨戰無退)
- Indomitable spirit (baekjeol bulgul, 백절불굴, 百折不屈) 

- Five Precepts of the Hwarang (check the Mu Duk Kwan post click here)

- wisdom (ji, 지, 智)

- benevolence (in, 인, 仁) ´

The army manual of 1966 is a book I will have to dive deeper in as it has proven to be an interesting book in its own right despite the apparent overlap between it and the 65 textbook. Here we see all the tenets presented in the 1959 and (at least in calligraphy version) 1965 book, but it is interesting seeing at how broad this list is. We have seen just about all of them appearing earlier in the series, so it does look like this is an attempt to, if not including all or most of the Kwan in a philosophical sense, at least drawing from the contemporary cultural climate that also gave rise to the other Kwan creeds. 

The Student Oath (Also called the 5 laws of Taekwon-Do)

I grew up with the tenets and the Student Oath as the "Dojang Heon" in the Taekwondo I was taught. One note of trivia though is that originally we were taught a slightly changed Student Oath. The first sentence or "law" was (translated from Norwegian): "I shall follow the laws of Taekwondo". In the original we are saying: "I shall observe the tenets of Taekwondo". So in my Dojang while the tenets were taught and talked about, the Oath had in reality "only" 4 "Laws", in that the first one told us to follow the "Law of Taekwondo". When I became a black belt I checked the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do as I wanted to read Choi Hong Hi´s own words about this and found that we had had it slightly bad translated into Norwegian. I was allowed to make sure it was changed to better reflect the original with the blessing of the main instructor at the time. This is not unique to my dojang, but it illustrates how small translation choices can subtly change emphasis over time. Just to be clear this was a translation from English to Norwegian, not some obscure Korean source :-)

The oath itself as written in the Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia (I have yet to find a credible Korean source so I will treat the English as the primary source)

I shall observe the Tenets of Taekwon-Do.
I shall respect the instructor and seniors.
I shall never misuse Taekwon-Do.
I shall be a champion of freedom and justice.
I shall build a more peaceful world.

The Student Oath is like the tenets something that should be reflected upon, discussed and internalized. I have used it in my own life as a yard-stick when it comes to decision making when I am in doubt in the moral or ethical outcome of my decisions. Sometimes it helps by asking yourself the questions: 

"Is this aligned with the tenets?" 

"Does this promote Freedom and Justice?"

"Will this contribute to build a more peaceful world?"

I no longer consciously do this (at least it has been some time), but I hope that measn I internalized it. The reason I said you can not discuss the Tenets of Taekwondo without talking about the Student Oath is that they are intertwined and overlap. The first part of the Student Oath links the two together as one. 

One other difference between the Dojang I grew up in and the official ITF Student Oath is the order of the sentences. In the version I learned the order is a little different. It originally did not mention the tenets, but this was later changed. The second sentence in my old Dojang was: "I shall never misuse Taekwondo." The third was then the #2 sentence in the normal ITF order, and the two last ones were identically placed. I do not know it there ever was a reason why Choi arrived at the order he ended up documenting in his Encyclopedia, but if you briefly entertain me on this, the way I was taught is very consistent with Confucian philosphy and ethics and closely aligns with the order of appearance of virtues seen in other Kwan. Our (and the normal ITF) sentence 1 maps out the internal values, the inner cultivation. The second one (never misuse) then clarifies a moral boundary that is not to be crossed, a moral restraint. This is then followed by social conduct and outcomes (respect, justice, peace). 

I am not saying the teaching order is better or worse, and I am very biased because the #1, #3, #2, #4, #5 order was the one I literally grew up with, but the one I grew up with is the one order I prefer.

The variations between the Dojang Heon I was taught, and what it says in the Encyclopedia also brings home the points I made in the Ji Do Kwan post about lineages being alive and evolving. Some changes are natural changes over time as things are transmitted. When my teachers teacher (or his teacher) was taught the tenets and oath he did so in a foreign language with very little written resources available, and the books and written material in Norwegian at the time was non-existent. The fact that I as a student several Dojang-generations later could go online, look at the Encyclopedia and find largely the same years later is actually remarkable. My teachers teachers teacher on my Oh Do Kwan learned this, translated as best he could to Norwegian and then let the information pass from instructor to student to the present day without access to the directly written sources of Choi Hong Hi.

Conclusion

This post marks the last installment of the Kwan Heon series. I might expand it into a few more parts looking at the Kukkiwon philosophy as expressed in their writings, or at the KTA rules of conduct, which define a lot of behavioral expectations on everything from answering the phone and introducing people to getting in and out of a car, seating arrangements, etc. But with this post we have done what I originally set out to do: look in-depth at each and every one of the nine major Kwan and their philosophy as expressed in their creeds. As far as I know, a collective in-depth examination of all nine has not been done in English before.

The reason I saved Oh Do Kwan for last in this series is that quite often we read online discussions and social media comments claiming that only the ITF and Oh Do Kwan had any real deep philosophy in their martial art, while the rest of the Kwan were only concerned with sports. Saving Oh Do Kwan for the last post has hopefully shown that each and every Kwan had its own substantial and meaningful creed, every bit as worthy of study as those associated with Oh Do Kwan and the ITF. Once we look at them collectively, we can recognize many of these philosophical ideas in modern Kukkiwon Taekwondo as well. And as we saw in Choi Hong Hi's 1966 book, he was well aware of the broader martial culture and its ethical traditions. This may help us understand the philosophical environment in which the Tenets were formulated and the Student Oath later took shape.

I hope you have enjoyed this series, and I do apologize for some of the posts being extremely lengthy and dense. Long-form writing (and reading) seems to have become something of a lost art these days. And I know I have written this over and over again, but I am not a professional translator, nor am I fluent in Korean. So any mistakes in this series are my own fault :-)