Spiritual Principles Applied

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[graham christian]

Hi everyone,
I have now come to terms with the various views on the various aspects of Aikido on this forum and have found when I say certain things like 'Spiritual' then others think they know what I'm saying and yet I find they have no idea of what I'm saying for it is down to that word and me not explaining what I mean by it.

Firstly let me state what I mean by principle: A rule to be adhered to and followed based on a truth.

So when I talk about spiritual principles I am thus saying there are some spiritual rules to be followed.

Now I have taken it as a responsibility over the years to translate spiritual principles into words and concept that can be understood and applied and thus tested.

So let's look at principles for a minute here. Keeping to, following and applying them is DISCIPLINE. The discipline of sticking to these principles instead of reverting to force or fighting is what I call the true martial aspect of Aikido.

So my first principle I give to you is the principle which relates to center in Aikido. In fact if you discipline yourself to apply this principle in life and living and during your Aikido practice then you will experience more and more the truth of center.

This principle is ACCEPTANCE.

When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?

Now when I say center I am talking about what Ki Aikido may call One Point which is situated a bit below the navel, outside the body.

Everything has a center, spin a chair or whatever and you will see it turns around it's center and thus the center is always the calm point around which everything turns.

Energy goes out from center and energy goes in to center and thus we have centrifugal and centripetal force and thus we have tai sabake. Energy also goes around a center no different to one planet or satellite in orbit and thus we have circles in Aikido and they are REAL.

So back to acceptance. If you completely accept the hold on your wrist for example the you will be letting the opponents energy go to your center and meanwhile you will find your own energy or Ki is free to flow through your body, through your wrist and hands and out to the universe. You are still free. If you go against the hold then you are blocking your own flow and not only that you are trapping youself by your own resistance and thus are left with no alternative but to believe in fighting.

Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center.

Enjoy. G.

[guest1234567]

Very nice post, thanks Graham.

[mathewjgano]

Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center.

Enjoy. G.

I really like this. I remember getting into a long discussion with someone once when I said, "one has to accept one's faults." He was incredulous, and we went off into a long debate each of us with our supporting arguments/examples on why this was or wasn't correct. Finally I saw what he was thinking. He translated what I said as, "one must give in to their faults." The "debate" was finally settled when I said, acceptance can also mean something akin to recognition and had to go to the dictionary to prove I had used the word correctly.
To my mind it has always served as a good example for most common disagreements people have. Rather than accept there might be even a kernal of truth or validity and see what that might be, they often resist...and get caught up in the fight rather than actually dealing with the essence of the thing itself, wasting time and energy and who knows what else.

[guest1234567]

I agree with that Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center. and also what Mathew said one has to accept one's faults, it does not mean either agreement nor that one gives in to their faults.
I must accept my faults to reflect about them and if necessary correct them to be a better person. When I went to yoga there was a meditation about to accept everything as it comes, the heat in the sommer, the rain, the wind, the coldness in the winter, enjoy good things... and bad or negative things must also be accepted,perhaps we can change them or just find the positive side.
One must confront sad, bad and negatives things to grow up and to get mature.

[SeiserL]

Well said. Compliments and appreciation.

May I add the idea of congruence?

How can we make spirituality congruent with our psychology and sociology (and every other ology)?

How can we make principles congruent with application?

When we are reminded to "move from our one point", how can we congruently all move in one direction?

[Mary Eastland]

"When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?"
How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it?
Mary

[guest1234567]

"When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?"
How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it?
Mary

It depends on the kind of grab, if it is aggressive don't resist and don't fight just go ahead and try to break his balance.

[graham christian]

Very nice post, thanks Graham.

You're welcome. P.S. Nice photos!

[guest1234567]

You're welcome. P.S. Nice photos!
Thanks, it is most of the days like that,of course not with the Santa hats. Now we are planing a trip to Tenerife, another of the Canary Island when our collegue will open his new dojo.I'll put the photos for sure in my blog, everybody of the dojo like to see himself. Also in Facebook :)

[graham christian]

I really like this. I remember getting into a long discussion with someone once when I said, "one has to accept one's faults." He was incredulous, and we went off into a long debate each of us with our supporting arguments/examples on why this was or wasn't correct. Finally I saw what he was thinking. He translated what I said as, "one must give in to their faults." The "debate" was finally settled when I said, acceptance can also mean something akin to recognition and had to go to the dictionary to prove I had used the word correctly.
To my mind it has always served as a good example for most common disagreements people have. Rather than accept there might be even a kernal of truth or validity and see what that might be, they often resist...and get caught up in the fight rather than actually dealing with the essence of the thing itself, wasting time and energy and who knows what else.

Well said Mathew. I like how you saw it is something akin to recognition for I would say that acceptance along with recognition and perception are all interdependant and together make up that all desired thing--- Understanding. (mental center)

[graham christian]

I agree with that Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center. and also what Mathew said one has to accept one's faults, it does not mean either agreement nor that one gives in to their faults.
I must accept my faults to reflect about them and if necessary correct them to be a better person. When I went to yoga there was a meditation about to accept everything as it comes, the heat in the sommer, the rain, the wind, the coldness in the winter, enjoy good things... and bad or negative things must also be accepted,perhaps we can change them or just find the positive side.
One must confront sad, bad and negatives things to grow up and to get mature.

Hi again Carina. May I validate what you are saying by adding this:
When it comes to true spiritual principles you find that they enhance the good and render the negative powerless. Thus when you truly accept something negative it's power dissipates and the same with a problem. This gives you space and time to comfortably 'see through it' to a better solution.

Cheers. G.

[graham christian]

Well said. Compliments and appreciation.

May I add the idea of congruence?

How can we make spirituality congruent with our psychology and sociology (and every other ology)?

How can we make principles congruent with application?

When we are reminded to "move from our one point", how can we congruently all move in one direction?

Hi Lynn.
Your idea is welcome. To make spirituality congruent with our psychology etc. I would say that first you have to practice a principle and when finding the efficacy of it then to introduce it into our psychology and sociology and promote it.

The root meaning of the word psche always makes me smile for it means spirit and somehow got changed to mean the mind. The best psychologists and counsellors I have ever met were actually down to earth spiritual people.

Now in Aikido making these principles congruent with application once again takes someone firstly being able to translate them in to simple terms and then demonstrating them and getting students then to try their usual methods and then to compare to the method you are now showing. Once again allowing people to test for themselves to see the difference and the result.

When we move from one point and all move congruently in one direction? Do you mean in Aikido application?

Hope I've understood what you mean by congruent. Please let me know. G.

[graham christian]

"When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?"
How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it?
Mary

Hi Mary.
Having given the principle of acceptance as equating with center I like your question, especially as you mention three separate things.
I planned to deal with these in separate posts as parts of other spiritual principles so for now I'll keep to acceptance and center here and just for you I'll quickly differenciate what I mean.

Welcome I have as a principle which translates as Hara in Aikido and results in a pure softness that invites, welcomes and embraces.

Receiving you could say is inherent in both of these and yet I use the principle of 'letting go' as the spiritual action of Koshi or what I would call spiritual Koshi. Following this principle leads to weight underside and a reality of receiving completely.

Thanks for your response. G.

[Janet Rosen]

Good thread.
I have long thought that both on and off the mat acceptance of reality, including the attack, is the healthiest way of being in the moment and not battling reality. In dealing with my chronic pain and counseling clients with chronic pain or other longterm issues I stress accepting it as simply being. Creating a mental construct of it as something large and Other just gives it more power.
Now about "inviting"...I do also use that in training. 13 or 14 yrs ago I watched a woman do the randori portion of her fukushidoin test. She took the "own the mat" idea one step further; in moving towards an attacker her extending hand/arm was so graceful I would not have been surprised to have seen opera length gloves appear on her. I am short, round, older and slower but continue to cultivate that attitude in randori - the gracious hostess welcoming her guests (and ushering them in and showing them the door :-) )

[Mark Gibbons]

Hi everyone,

Now when I say center I am talking about what Ki Aikido may call One Point which is situated a bit below the navel, outside the body.

Everything has a center, spin a chair or whatever and you will see it turns around it's center and thus the center is always the calm point around which everything turns.

Enjoy. G.

Are you sure you mean "outside the body"? When I spin a chair it usually rotates around an axis, not a point. So, do you mean center of mass, the intersection of the rotational axes or something else?

Regards,
Mark

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Hi everyone,
I have now come to terms with the various views on the various aspects of Aikido on this forum and have found when I say certain things like 'Spiritual' then others think they know what I'm saying and yet I find they have no idea of what I'm saying for it is down to that word and me not explaining what I mean by it.

Firstly let me state what I mean by principle: A rule to be adhered to and followed based on a truth.


Firstly, let me ask: how you define "truth"?

Energy also goes around a center no different to one planet or satellite in orbit and thus we have circles in Aikido and they are REAL.
BTW, have you ever heard about 1st Kepler Law.?

[graham christian]

Firstly, let me ask: how you define "truth"?

BTW, have you ever heard about 1st Kepler Law.?

Hi Demetrio,
No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting.
As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law. Thus a truth cannot be physically seen but it can be tested and thus seen to be true. The subject of physics has physical universe laws or principles. Mathematics has it's own principles from which all those fancy calculations can then be made.

In fact I would go as far as to say that whereas mathematics is basically the subject that deals with Quantities and therefore all of it's sub-divisions ie: triganometry, geometry etc. are all still to do with quantities. Physics is also to do obviously with physical things including energy. But there is another area just as real as quantity and that area is Quality. From this I would venture to say that truth comes under quality and thus all quantities follow the laws of qualities.

Anyway, hope that answers your question. G.

[graham christian]

Are you sure you mean "outside the body"? When I spin a chair it usually rotates around an axis, not a point. So, do you mean center of mass, the intersection of the rotational axes or something else?

Regards,
Mark

Hi Marc.
When you spin a chair or whatever you will find it has an axis around which it is turning, in fact I would relate this axis line to center line in Aikido. However, the center of that line is of course one point.
Let's take a ball. If you spin it you will see what you have just described. Now see the ball spinning say vertically or from north to south and you will find the axis is now horizontal. As you change the direction of the spin the axis changes accordingly but there is one point which doesn't change at all and that is where all those axis meet and that is the center point.

So center is the point around which all things turn, from which energy goes out and comes in and turns around as I said earlier.
Throw a pebble in a pond and you will see the effect of this energy motion.

Now in Aikido I purposely get people to create a point outside the body in order to get them to see it is something they have to create, to do, to take responsibility for and not think it is just a physical thing. The body of course has it's own center but you have to put your spiritual center aligned with it and the body is most comfortable when you put it there rather than under your foot or in your pocket.

A foreward ukemi is indeed extending Ki and projecting and turning your body around center is it not? If you put one point inside your body and let energy go to it you will feel one feeling. Now put it just outside the body and let energy go to it and you will not only feel a different feeling but you will feel more enlivened and centered. So yes I do mean outside the body.

Regards.G.

[guest1234567]

Hi again Carina. May I validate what you are saying by adding this:
When it comes to true spiritual principles you find that they enhance the good and render the negative powerless. Thus when you truly accept something negative it's power dissipates and the same with a problem. This gives you space and time to comfortably 'see through it' to a better solution.

Cheers. G.
Thanks Graham it is a good thought, I'll try to remember.

[lbb]

Hi Demetrio,
No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting.
As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law. Thus a truth cannot be physically seen but it can be tested and thus seen to be true. The subject of physics has physical universe laws or principles. Mathematics has it's own principles from which all those fancy calculations can then be made.

Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Hi Demetrio,

No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting.
So the planets move in elliptical orbits or in circular ones? Is 1st Kepler
Law untrue?
As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law.
Then a Truth is a Truth based on a Truth, isn't it?

Anyway, hope that answers your question. G.
In the sense you have provided a definition of "truth" then yes, you have answered my question. Thanks.

Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

You should read the appropiate books.

There are Twelve Spiritual Principles and Laws (http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/twelve_spiritual_principles_and_laws.htm)

[lbb]

Hahaha, "the appropriate books"...hee hee hee, that was great!

"The Dark Forces have experts that know spiritual hermetic laws since they penetrate good mystic and esoteric organizations such as the Masons and Rosicrucians, to study those laws and to make use of this occult science for their selfish purposes —to create “The Matrix”— although they make you believe they are atheist and materialistic in thinking and that all that esoteric “garbage” of the New Agers is but hocus-pocus, but..."

Oh my, that's heady stuff indeed.

[Nicholas Eschenbruch]

Then a Truth is a Truth based on a Truth, isn't it?
(...)
In the sense you have provided a definition of "truth" then yes, you have answered my question. Thanks.

(...)

You should read the appropiate books.


;)
Appropriate book: Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What?
p. 21:
"... we need to take note of a group of words that arise by what Quine calls semantic ascent: truth, facts, reality. Since there is no common way of grouping these words, I call them elevator words, for in philosophical discussion they raise the level of discourse."
He goes on to say that they tend to be circularly defined in reference to one another.... I find that funny, but then... well, end of break, back to work.

[graham christian]

Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

Hi Mary.
The basis of buddhism is indeed meant to be four noble truths so I don't understand what you mean. However, everything you study, every field of study has certain principles which thus lead to the facts, the mechanics, the reality. Those who go away from this, especially in the field of spirit end up all 'mystical' and 'magical' and to me quite lost.
It reminds me of a story of a great mystic who taught how you must do this and do that and pray to this and that and follow certain proceedures. He taught the great mystery that you could never know. Well if that's true then how does he know?
The principle I gave here in this thread is the principle of acceptance. I gave it as a spiritual principle so yes I do think spirituality has principles to be understood.
Regards. G.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

He goes on to say that they tend to be circularly defined in reference to one another.... I find that funny, but then... well, end of break, back to work.

Also,he points (p. 23) these words have undergone substantial mutations of sense and value.

[graham christian]

So the planets move in elliptical orbits or in circular ones? Is 1st Kepler
Law untrue?

Then a Truth is a Truth based on a Truth, isn't it?

In the sense you have provided a definition of "truth" then yes, you have answered my question. Thanks.

You should read the appropiate books.

There are Twelve Spiritual Principles and Laws (http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/twelve_spiritual_principles_and_laws.htm)

Hi Demetrio.
Regarding the Keplar Law and the physical orbit being eliptical my very shallow cursory reading of it says that if the center is zero then it would be circular. Anyway, the analogy I gave of center and orbits was to show this principle in operation in Aikido. Secondly I would say that without any interference or other influences the orbit would be circular and an elipse is a form of circle anyway is it not?

Then we come to energy and it's prefered pathways.
For when someone attacks you they are doing it with energy. So in Aikido I see you can accept that energy to center and you can give it back from center and you can also accept it and lead it. Where can you lead it to is what I see as the more fascinating question?
Following the example of center and orbits then you can see you can lead it to the circle, or eclipse if you prefer, around you. Energy loves circles, it follows straight lines away from center and straight lines towards center, and it also follows spirals. So in doing a good tai-sabake and leading the opponents enegy to the circumferance of your space you are indeed putting them into orbit. This orbit is actually a path of non-resistance or least resistance and so the person enters it going around, feeling good yet not knowing why they can't stop. From a physical point of view you could say the orbit is the 'circular' path of balnce between centrifugal and centripetal force.
Bring them back inside the circle and you are then attracting them to center, let them go and you are sending them out away from center, flying off into space. Of course it takes practice to do this comfortably and takes acceptance and application.
Thanks for the reply.G.

[C. David Henderson]

"In geometry, an ellipse is a plane curve that results from the intersection of a cone by a plane in a way that produces a closed curve. Circles are special cases of ellipses, obtained when the cutting plane is perpendicular to the cone's axis."

Wikipedia, "Ellipse"

"An ellipse is also the locus of all points of the plane whose distances to two fixed points add to the same constant."

Ibid.

That is, it has two “center points.� Manipulating an ellipsoid structure so that you are the sun and not a planet seems a better metaphor for standard aikido technique in some ways, wouldn't you say?

Kepler's First Law means, among other things,

"In all cases of two-body motion, rotation is about the barycenter of the two bodies, with neither one having its center of mass exactly at one focus of an ellipse. However, both orbits are ellipses with one focus at the barycenter. When the ratio of masses is large, the barycenter may be deep within the larger object, close to its center of mass."

Then there's the second law, of course....

[phitruong]

Firstly, let me ask: how you define "truth"?



the truth is...... i have no idea what the true is :)

it's all relative. one man's truth is another man's lie. just accept it! :D

consider the below conversation,

joe: budd, i am testing my new cell phone. i am calling you from the freeway

budd: joe, be careful, there is a report that some crazy nut is driving the wrong direction on the freeway.

joe: one nut? there are lots of them on this road!

[David Board]

It was not, it could not be real.
But in the roaring air he knew that it was, for all who needed to believe, and in a belief so strong that truth was not the same as fact... he knew that for now, and yesterday, and tomorrow, both the thing, and the whole of the thing.-From the Fifth Elephant.

[jonreading]

Hey Graham-

Interesting read, thanks for sharing. Notwithstanding some of the issues with your concepts as they relate to physics (some others have already weighed in on these guys), I'll throw out something which which I am having trouble understanding that Janet touched upon.

I advocate that what we call aiki happens at a point which precedes physical contact at a preemptive timing (sen sen no sen). That is, the interaction of aikido would have already happened at the time of contact. In your post however you imply that aikido happens at the point of contact (a wrist grab) and that acceptance is a principle you should apply then. This is difficult for me since I believe if you have not already connected to your partner's center by the time of contact you are not really doing the aiki part of aikido.

My two cents.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

the truth is...... i have no idea what the true is :)

it's all relative. one man's truth is another man's lie. just accept it! :D


All things are Moleeds (http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_fleischer_insists_all_things_are_moleeds.html)

:D

[lbb]

Hi Mary.
The basis of buddhism is indeed meant to be four noble truths so I don't understand what you mean.

It's true that Buddhism has the four noble truths. At the same time, it can be said that the basis of Buddhism is that nothing is solid and that everything changes, and that when the four noble truths or the noble eightfold path or the three characteristics of human existence or the twenty-seven whatevers turn into dogma and become rules, that's a problem.

"Our mind is always seeking zones of safety. We're in this zone of safety and that's what we consider life, getting it all together, security. Death is losing that…The mind is always seeking zones of safety, and these zones of safety are continually falling apart. Then we scramble to get another zone of safety back together again. We spend all our energy and waste our lives trying to recreate these zones of safety, which are always falling apart. That's the essence of samsara – the cycle of suffering that comes from continuing to seek happiness in the wrong places."

- Pema Chodron, Comfortable with Uncertainty, p. 23

[thisisnotreal]

Mary, Is there an answer to what Pema Chodron says is the right place to look?

[Thomas Campbell]

Is there an answer to what Pema Chodron says is the right place to look?

Shugyo Dojo. ;)

[David Board]

It's true that Buddhism has the four noble truths. At the same time, it can be said that the basis of Buddhism is that nothing is solid and that everything changes, and that when the four noble truths or the noble eightfold path or the three characteristics of human existence or the twenty-seven whatevers turn into dogma and become rules, that's a problem.

"Our mind is always seeking zones of safety. We're in this zone of safety and that's what we consider life, getting it all together, security. Death is losing that…The mind is always seeking zones of safety, and these zones of safety are continually falling apart. Then we scramble to get another zone of safety back together again. We spend all our energy and waste our lives trying to recreate these zones of safety, which are always falling apart. That's the essence of samsara -- the cycle of suffering that comes from continuing to seek happiness in the wrong places."

- Pema Chodron, Comfortable with Uncertainty, p. 23


Ye Ole Finger and the moon.

[lbb]

Mary, Is there an answer to what Pema Chodron says is the right place to look?

As I understand it, just like the book's title says, ultimately it's being comfortable with uncertainty and impermanence -- although the word "comfortable" is a bit of a warning sign too, isn't it? Maybe "being okay with uncertainty and impermanence" is a better way to put it. It's a great book, and if you look for Pema Chodron on Youtube, you'll probably find a lot of stuff that makes you smile and nod and laugh out loud. Highly recommended.

Shugyo Dojo. ;)

Yes! That place where you never really arrive and settle in, but just keep on going. It's a nightmare to some and a paradise on earth to others. :)

[C. David Henderson]

Hi Mary,

I was going to say, "Abide in it," but I think it's the same idea.

Pema Chodran also talks a good deal about Tonglin practice. As I understand it, Tonglin involves deliberately calling up strong, emotionally painful experiences to work with. I have never really done it, as I suspect its something best pursued with someone with specific knowledge.

Regards,

[Thomas Campbell]

Shugyo Dojo.

Yes! That place where you never really arrive and settle in, but just keep on going. It's a nightmare to some and a paradise on earth to others. :)

Bless you, Mary, for you have understood my (lame) humor and improved upon it. :)

[thisisnotreal]

Thought it was clever actually.
But...what I struggle with: Isn't that answer just a distraction from the original question?
iow: seeking to ignore it, .. to suppress the desire to be safe?

[lbb]

Thought it was clever actually.
But...what I struggle with: Isn't that answer just a distraction from the original question?
iow: seeking to ignore it, .. to suppress the desire to be safe?

As I understand it, the answer would be "yes and no". Yes, in the sense that repressing a desire is not the answer, any more than indulging in a desire. So, if you're gritting your teeth and putting up with uncertainty and hating it every second, that's ultimately not a whole lot better than if you give free rein to your control-freak impulses and try to regulate everything in your life and cram everything into little boxes (although it may be easier on the people around you!).

I think the goal is to find a third way, where you're truly okay with the uncertainty. That doesn't mean you're always joyously happy about it; on the other hand, no matter how much you dislike it at first, uncertainty does provide its moments of delight. How you find it, I think, is a combination of confidence that you'll be okay even if you don't have it all lined up and labeled, and (more important) not making a big deal out of things. Not trying to nail down the ultimate truth. Not trying to come up with the formula that explains everything.

Here's another quote I love, from the novel "Grass" by Sheri Tepper. The scene is a hallucination or dream or vision or call it what you will, that the main character has after a head injury, of a conversation she has with the Supreme Being about all the Big Stuff:

"I don't have much confidence," she said. "A lot of what I've been taught isn't making sense."

"That's the nature of teaching. Something happens, and intelligence first apprehends it, then makes up a rule about it, then tries to pass the rule along. Very small beings invariably operate that way. However, by the time the information is passed on, new things are happening that the old rule doesn't fit. Eventually intelligence learns to stop making rules and understand the flow."

"I was told that the eternal verities--"

"Like what?" God laughed. "If there were any, I should know! I have created a universe based on change, and a very small being speaks to me of eternal verities!"

"I didn't mean to offend. It's just, if there are no verities, how do we know what's true?"

"You don't offend. I don't create things that are offensive to me. As for truth, what's true is what's written. Every created thing bears my intention written in it. Rocks. Stars. Very small beings. Everything only runs one way naturally, the way I meant it to. The trouble is that very small beings write books that contradict the rocks, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies." He laughed. The universe trembled. "They invent rules of behavior that even angels can't obey, and they say I thought them up. Pride of authorship." He chuckled. "They say, 'Oh, these words are eternal, so God must have written them.'"

Another very wise book for us very small beings.

[Diana Frese]

Wow

[Diana Frese]

What I meant was great post. Also, great thread, I've sort of
skimmed thru, gotta run but will definitely be back to read...
Thanks everyone