We continue this series, looking at each Kwan (school) philosophy by zooming in on their creed, known in Korean as "Kwan Heon" where "Heon" can be read as "Creed", but it can also be read as "guiding principles", "law code", "statute", "governing principles". In part(s) 1 (and 1.2) we focused on the Chung Do Kwan, then we visited the Song Mu Kwan in part 2, before moving on to Kang Duk Won in part 3 and then it was only natural to go to the Chang Mu Kwan in part 4.
This time we will go to Hwang Kee´s Mu Duk Kwan and look at their Creed, or perhaps I should say revisit Mu Duk Kwan and their creed. You see, I have written about Taekwondo and Taekwondo-related material a long time now (on this blog in this language since 2011 (gasp!)) which will make this the 15th year of writing :-) Back in the end of 2015 and early 2016 I wrote a few posts on Hwang Kee and his 1958 textbook, and in one post in particular I deed a rather deep dive to the best of my ability on the 10 precepts and important points of physical and mental training (Translation of precepts 2016 post ). I am hopefully better at this now than back then 10 years ago), but I wanted to link back to the original post since there are some great comments on it (from people who are not me) and to show that this kind of work is something I have done for many many years now.
Mu Duk Kwan is in many ways the most well documented or preserved Kwan of all of the original Kwan, perhaps except for the ITF if you look at that as the continuation of Oh Do Kwan (I do not, but the ITF obviously has roots from Oh Do Kwan and the founder of Oh Do Kwan is also the founder of the ITF, but this might actually be a good post all on its own, and this is not a post on ITF or Oh Do Kwan). around the time of the official founding of the Korean Taekwondo Association, Hwang Kee withdrew from the Taekwondo movement, seeing as he got very little influence despite (according to himself) having by far the biggest pool of students and Dojang all over Korea, and together with Yun Kwae Byung he formed his own association; the Su Bahk Do Association in 1960. By doing this he retained his school, his philosophy and the forms he taught. He had also published textbooks on the martial arts in both 1949 (this is perhaps the first Kwan related textbook in existence ) and in 1958 (which is where I will draw this post from).
Today we have 3 Mu Duk Kwan martial arts; Tang Su Do, Su Bahk Do and Taekwondo, and at least the Tang Su Do and Su Bahk Do styles seem very fragmented. Hwang Kee himself used 3 terms; Hwa Su Do (flower hand way), which he later kinda replaced with the more common Tang Su Do (China Hand Way) before adopting the name Su Bahk after finding a reference to that art in the Muyedobotongji. All three names are mentioned and explained in the 1958 textbook. If you come across any Tang Su Do in the world, odds are they are a Mu Duk Kwan Tang Su Do, but not all Tang Su Do that exists or has existed is Mu Duk Kwan just so that is said.
The following is a quote from my book "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1; Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong" (Available on Amazon) page 21-22:
"Hwang Kee and the Mu Duk Kwan
Hwang Kee was born in 1914 in Korea. According to his own accounts, he encountered a Taekkyon master during his youth. Although the master refused to teach him due to his age, Hwang claimed to have studied the man’s movements in secret and imitated them diligently.
In 1936, while working for the Ministry of Transportation constructing a railroad in Manchuria, China, Hwang met Yang Kuk Jin, from whom he learned Yang-style Tai Chi and a form of training called Ddam Ttui.
Following Korea’s liberation in 1945, Hwang opened his martial arts school, naming it Mu Duk Kwan (무덕관, 武德館) - “School of Martial Virtue.” Initially, he taught a system heavily influenced by Chinese martial arts, which he called Hwa Su Do (화수도, 花手道) or “Flower Hand Way.” However, this name confused many Koreans, who were more familiar with established martial arts terms like Tang Su Do, Kong Su Do, and Kwon Bup. Some sources say that Lee Won Kuk, founder of Chung Do Kwan, advised Hwang to adopt a more familiar name. Whether true or not, Hwang soon changed the name of his art to Tang Su Do (당수도, 唐手道), meaning “China Hand Way.”
There are also unverified accounts that Hwang briefly trained at Chung Do Kwan, though this remains unclear. What is certain is that after adopting the Tang Su Do label, he began teaching a curriculum incorporating several Karate Hyeong (Kata). Hwang claimed to have learned these forms from books, likely those authored by Gichin Funakoshi — which helped formalize his instructional system.
Mu Duk Kwan’s rapid growth in the postwar years was due in part to the incorporation of these Karate forms, but also to Hwang's strategic use of his railway connections to secure inexpensive training spaces across the country.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, Hwang worked closely with Yun Kwae Byung, and together they formed the Su Bahk Do Association, which became a powerful rival to the Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA). However, around 1966, a large contingent of Ji Do Kwan and Mu Duk Kwan students merged into the KTA, shifting the balance of influence.
Eventually, Hwang Kee emigrated to the United States, where he continued to promote and teach his martial art until his death in 2002." End quote
The primary sources for this post are Hwang Kee’s 1958 textbook (pp. 24–25) and the 2015 Kukkiwon “9 Kwans” historical compilation (p. 47), which lists Mu Duk Kwan’s 관훈 in Hangul as 무실 성의 정의.
That said, Hangul alone does not preserve the original Sino-Korean characters, and relying on Hangul syllables without Hanja can lead to serious interpretive errors. In fact, an earlier reading of 무실 as “martial truth” (武實) is demonstrably incorrect once Hanja-bearing sources are consulted; the correct reading is 務實, meaning devotion to what is real and practical.
For this reason, while I preserve the Hangul wording found in the 2015 compilation, I rely on Hanja-bearing Korean sources to clarify the intended meanings behind these terms. In doing so, I note discrepancies explicitly rather than asserting certainty where the sources diverge.
In the case of the middle term, the 2015 compilation prints 성의 in Hangul, while the Hanja-bearing sources I could locate consistently render this element as 신성 (信誠). Because Hangul alone does not allow the underlying characters to be determined with certainty, and because my earlier experience with 무실 demonstrates the risk of misassignment, I follow the Hanja-attested reading 信誠 here, while explicitly noting the discrepancy with the 2015 Hangul-only form.
무실 신성 정의 (MuSil SinSeong JeongEui)
務實 信誠 正義
Which is very difficult to translate, but I will break it down a little and then come up with something that fits both the wording and the “creed-form” shortness.
First we have 무실 (務實). Here, 무 (務) does not mean “martial”, it means something closer to “to devote oneself to,” “to pursue,” or “to make it one’s duty.” The second character 실 (實) means “real,” “genuine,” “actual,” or “substantive.” We see this 실 in words like 실전 (實戰) when people talk about “real combat.” Put together, 무실 (務實) is less “true martial,” and more like “devotion to what is real and practical,” or in plain terms: substance over empty form.
The second pairing is 신성 (信誠). The first character 신 (信) is “trust,” “faith,” or “credibility.” The second character 성 (誠) is “sincerity,” “genuineness,” or “truthfulness.” Together 신성 (信誠) is something like “trustworthy sincerity,” or “faithfulness and sincerity.” It’s the idea that your intent and your character should be reliable, something people can actually trust, not just words.
Thirdly we have 정의 (正義). Here 정 (正) carries the sense of “upright,” “correct,” or “proper,” and 의 (義) is “righteousness,” “justice,” or “moral duty.” Put together, 정의 (正義) is the moral term “justice/ righteousness,” in the sense of acting according to what is right.
When we put all of this together and want a short translation that fits the compact “creed-form,” we get something along the lines of:
“Practical substance, trustworthy sincerity, and righteousness.”
Or, if we want it to read a little smoother in English while keeping the same meaning:
“Substance over form, sincerity you can trust, and justice.”
And if you want to read it through a more classical moral lens, you can even see an implied progression: a commitment to what is real and practical (MuSil 務實), grounded in sincere trustworthiness (SinSeong 信誠), directed toward moral right and justice (JeongEui 正義). I would not claim that is the only way to read it, but it is a might be a way to understand why these three were chosen as a set.
The Ten Core Precepts of Mu Duk Kwan (From page 24, Hwang Kee 1958)
Note: I will try to preserve the text as is in the 1958 book, and so I will number all of them as "1" because that is how it is done in the book, and it is intentionally done that way. The 1958 text gives us the precept followed by "..........." followed by a short explanation from Hwang Kee himself. I am not a fluent Korean speaker, and I am not a professional translator, so any mistake here is mine and mine alone. I have provided the original pages in photo, and I have provided a transcribed text here as well so anyone can freely check my work (and I do encourage you to do so).
1: 나라에 충성...............................화랑정신에 입각하여 국가와 민족의 대의(大義)에 순(殉)함.
1: Sincere loyalty to one´s country......................Based on the spirit of the Hwarang, one is willing to sacrifice oneself for the great righteous cause of the nation and the people.
1: (1958) 부모지간 효정(孝情)....................자(子)는 부모에 효(孝)하고, 부모는 자에 자(慈)함.
(- (2015) 부자 간 효자 = “The proper fulfillment of filial duty between father and son.” This is the only difference between the 2015 list and 1958 list so I have provided it here. It has the same overall theme, but the 2015 one is more specific specific, while the 1958 one, which I prefer, is more general. 2015 explicitly says father and son, 1958 says child and parents. There is no elaboration in the 2015 text)
1: Filial affection between parents and children............................... Children practice filial piety toward their parents, and parents, in turn, practice benevolent care toward their children.
1: 부부간 애정(愛情) ........................... 이성간(異性間), 정(貞)과 애(愛)로서 화합하여, 인류행복 발전의 모체(母體)가 됨.
1: Marital affection ....................... When husband and wife unite in fidelity and love, their harmony becomes the foundation of human happiness and progress.
1: 형제지간 상협(相協)..............................형제간 상오(相互) 협조 화목(協調和睦)하여 단결함.
1: Mutual cooperation among siblings..................by working together reciprocally and maintaining harmony, they achieve unity.
1: 노소지간 경보(敬保)...................................... 예의 겸양(禮儀謙讓)하며 정당한 약자(弱者)를 보조(保助)함.
1: Upholding respect and protection between old and young ....................... Upholding propriety and humility while protecting and assisting the justly vulnerable.
1: 사제(師弟)간 의리(義理) ................... 의정(義情)으로 진리(眞理)를 배움.
1: Righteous duty between teacher and student....................By means of righteous moral sentiment, one learns true principle.
1: 붕우간 유신(有信) ..............................친우(親友)는 물론, 전 인류는 상호 신임 화합(信任和合)하여 평화 행복함.
1: Trustworthiness between friends.........................When mutual trust and harmony extend beyond friends to all humanity, peace and happiness result.
1: 살생분별(殺生分別)...................선악(善惡)을 공평 정당(公平正當)하게 구별함.
1: Just discernment in matters of life and death.................distinguishing good and evil fairly and justly.
1: 임전무퇴(臨戰無退).....................실력 용기(實力勇氣)를 구비 매진(具備邁進)하여 정의(正義)를 위하여 희생.
1: No retreat when facing battle.........................Possessing true ability and courage, press forward and be willing to sacrifice for justice.
1: 실천필부(實踐必附)...................희망을 품고 반드시 실행(實行)함.
1: What is practiced must be enacted...................With hope (positive expectation/) held in the heart, it must be put into action.
Commentary/ Conclusion 10 Precepts:
It is 2026 so I am not sure if you have read this far, if you have I salute you. There is an awful lot to unpack here in the 10 point creed, but I want to point out a few things. In 2016 when I did the translation I translated pretty literally and simplified, not truly understanding the concepts within the creed, and to top it all off I only looked at the precepts, not the comments by Hwang Kee.
Translation challenges:
For example I translated precept 10 (the last one) as "Be a man of action". I see what I tried to do with that translation and if you look at this translation "What is practiced must be enacted", you can see that I was struggling and trying to convey the sentiment of the precept by using an English idiom; "Man of action". The original text does not say anything about a man, but it does imply that something needs to happen, because knowledge, belief or intent without action is incomplete. It is a very classical expression used in older philosophy and not unique to Hwang Kee, or martial arts philosophy in general. But giving the expression a clear cut English translation is highly difficult. If you are checking my work armed solely with google translate or a dictionary you will find that translating word for word is haaaaaaaard, and you will likely sometimes get different words than what I ended up using.
I am not going to go into each and every precept to illustrate this, but we can look at the last precept because in hangul it is pretty short, containing only 4 syllables. First we have "실" which we have seen before meaning something real, authentic, concrete, genuine, actual substance etc. Then we have 천 which can mean to practice, carry out, to put into action. Thirdly we have 필 which here can be read as must, inevitably, or certainly. Last but not least we have 부 which can mean: to attach, to accompany, to follow closely, to be inseparable from. Putting this together literally you get something like: "Real practice must attach". Now I am not a native English speaker, but if anyone were to say this to me as a normal sentence I would suspect he was either drunk, or that he did not know any English and were throwing out random words, hence my 2016: "Be a man of action", and now that I have studied more and learned more "What is practiced must be enacted".
Confucian influence?:
I might do a follow up post in the future unpacking each and every creed for their meaning, but I will not do so here, I am letting the creed and Hwang Kee´s own comment do the heavy lifting. I will however like to point out that the 10 precepts closely follow classic Confucian thinking when it comes to relationships or bonds. In Confucian thinking we are not solely individuals, we are who we are in relation to a larger whole. It is you relationships with others and your actions who truly define you. This concept makes for a hierarchal thinking that is supposed to foster peace and harmony. A boss is higher in the hierarchy than a subordinate, so in Korea a subordinate would bow first and deeper to their boss, who would bow back second and not so low. Yet when the boss goes home he or she is someones daughter or son, having to show proper filial piety toward his or her parents etc. The hierarchal relationships are not in Confucian thinking that a boss is served by the the subordinate as a slave for a king. The relationship goes both ways, the boss has to behave (with true and moral intent) as a good leader taking care of those under him or her, and only then the subordinate will do their part in return and vice versa. Parent and child is another good example, the parents nurture and protect their children who in return respect their parents. When the parents gets old the children takes care of and protects their parents. Neither does it because it is expected, but because they want to.
I hope I am not loosing you, dear reader, I am simply trying to make the point that in Confucian thinking relationships matters. And looking at the 10 precepts we see how Hwang Kee maps out the different kinds of relationships in a way that closely follows classical Confucian thinking. Sometimes he goes slightly off script; the 2015 version that differs from Hwang Kee´s original one is arguably closer to classical Confucian scriptures than the 1958 version (2015 names Father and Son, 1958 mentions Parents and Children). A total unpacking of the 10 precepts that among other things compare Hwang against more classical writings might be interesting.
The relationships covered in the 10 precepts are (following Hwang Kee):
- Nation and Citizen
- Parents and Children
- Husband and Wife
- Brother and Sister (Siblings)
- Older and Younger
- Teacher and Student*
- Friend to Friend
The classical Confucian philosophy is said to be structured around the 5 relationships:
- Ruler and Subject
- Father and Son
- Husband and Wife
- Elder to Younger
- Friend to Friend
No comments:
Post a Comment