Violence and Aikido

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[graham christian]

I see there have been a couple of threads on violence recently so thought I'd give an Aikido perspective on violence in my own 'unique' way. Ha, ha.

People say it depends on what you call violence, it depends on intent, or quote a past saying of someone.

O.K. Well I'll give you a Ki perspective, an energy perspective, a spiritual perspective on the matter for your inspection.

Chaos. Violence contains chaotic Ki, chaotic energy. It is indeed preceded by mal intent or chaotic confused intent.

Now Aikido is meant to be the path of peace. Aikido , as Ueshiba kept pointing out is nothing to do with combat or fighting or enemies or opponents etc.

So what does Aikido do to violence? It dissipates it. Aikido could be from that viewpoint called a martial art that dissipates violence. It doesn't use it, it doesn't deflect it and do clever things with it, (except along the path to learning) it vanquishes it. Without harm and thus returns to peace.

There is no violence in love, none in kindness, none in compassion, none in goodness, none in Ki. In their purity that is.

Thus Aikido is separated from most all other martial arts.

Regards.G.

[Gorgeous George]

Aikido has everything to do with combat; that's why it's a martial art.

Violence doesn't have to be 'preceded' by malintent, or 'chaotic confused intent': it can be a surgical, precise thing - it frequently is, in fact.

[kewms]

I sense a circular definition here. Aikido is non-violent, therefore an act of violence committed by an aikidoka must be either (a) not aikido or (b) not really violent.

But that position, I think, gives aikidoka too much credit, and students of other arts too little. There are plenty of peaceful students of other arts. There are plenty of not-so-peaceful aikidoka.

Aikido is a martial art. Like a sword, it has the ability to do great damage. But like a sword, the violence is in the hand that wields it, not the sword itself.

Katherine

[Kevin Leavitt]

Aikido has everything to do with combat; that's why it's a martial art.

Violence doesn't have to be 'preceded' by malintent, or 'chaotic confused intent': it can be a surgical, precise thing - it frequently is, in fact.

Ditto.

Also what Katherine said as well.

Life is a series of conflicts and paradoxes. There is a duality that exist. In order to have love, or understand the concept of love we must conceive or know of the opposite. Understanding peace is understanding the nature of violence. Aikido and bud can give us a way to understand and reconcile these things without necesaaryily having to have first hand knowledge of these things.

Aikido IMO does not dissipate violence or chaos, it balances it or reconciles it. It is always there and we must constantly be aware of its nature.

[Tim Ruijs]

...I responded to Stefan Stenudd in Pas de Deux for Peace which also fits here I guess

As I always say in class: the sword is not dangerous, the persons who wields it can be...

When you say "do not rock the boat, there is bound to be at least one that wants to know what happens when you do". When you strive for peace, there is also always someone that disagrees with your take on exactly what is 'peace'. Good vs evil, the balance constantly shifts, none will ever prevail.
Someone stated humoursly that when you fight with a gorilla you cannot stop when you get tired, you can only rest when the gorilla gets tired. This one (finding balance) is an angry silverback...
So live in the moment, enjoy the moment...

Aikido is but a tool, the user decides its use....

I am not so sure if Aikido, as is, actually dissipates violence. Again, Aikido is a tool, one can be very very aggressive using Aikido; even be violent. You can literally destroy someone. Now how is that dissipating violence? Aikido is not supposed to be used as such, sure. One can use the tool Aikido to 'counter' violence and change the situation to one in which violence can no longer exist.

[Carsten Möllering]

Using aikido "successfully" does control the movements of a person, breaks the balance, disturbs the structure/organisation of the body, makes him or her go to the ground. ...

Even if nothing is destroyed - which I can't imagine if the person has no typical uke skills - the person experiences being "dominated" by another person. Iisn't this already violence? In my eyes even the smoothest ikkyo omote is only non-violent in a setting where uke agrees being a uke.

So isn't aikido just another form of violence?

[graham christian]

I sense a circular definition here. Aikido is non-violent, therefore an act of violence committed by an aikidoka must be either (a) not aikido or (b) not really violent.

But that position, I think, gives aikidoka too much credit, and students of other arts too little. There are plenty of peaceful students of other arts. There are plenty of not-so-peaceful aikidoka.

Aikido is a martial art. Like a sword, it has the ability to do great damage. But like a sword, the violence is in the hand that wields it, not the sword itself.

Katherine

Yes, I would say an act of violence is not Aikido.

I don't see it has anything really to do with giving credit. It's a totally different art in essence. The purpose is Harmony rather than control, being at one with rather than against etc, etc.

Of course many can and indeed do take what they can from it and use it as a means of combat, defeating the opponent, or any other purpose employed by other martial arts. Thus Aikido gets denigrated in my opinion.

Aikido is like a sword? I would say it is like the healing sword yes and thus needs a person of right mind to wield it properly. So yes, it's the person who needs to change in order to do so. Hence the path of self development rather than self defence. Self defence in Aikido is merely a powerful by product.

Regards.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

i've always wondered about the Healing Sword. What does that concept mean? How does a sword heal?

[graham christian]

Using aikido "successfully" does control the movements of a person, breaks the balance, disturbs the structure/organisation of the body, makes him or her go to the ground. ...

Even if nothing is destroyed - which I can't imagine if the person has no typical uke skills - the person experiences being "dominated" by another person. Iisn't this already violence? In my eyes even the smoothest ikkyo omote is only non-violent in a setting where uke agrees being a uke.

So isn't aikido just another form of violence?

Ultimately no. There is no chaotic Ki or mal intent in good Aikido. So there is no violence. When you pick up a baby and put him down in a cot is your energy violent? Or is it non-violent and filled with the spirit of loving protection?

The only question really is can you do ikkyo or even nikkyo with this non-violence? Have you ever felt it done so? Thus for me I would say have you ever felt Aikido?

A person or uke feeling this Aikido does not feel dominated. When going for a ride on a train do you feel dominated? When treated with love and kindness do you feel dominated?

Violence doesn't exist in the principles given in Aikido so it's a matter of finding out why and learning how.

Or we can not change and then justify why we must have violence in it but then it's not true Aikido anymore. Alas.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Ditto.

Also what Katherine said as well.

Life is a series of conflicts and paradoxes. There is a duality that exist. In order to have love, or understand the concept of love we must conceive or know of the opposite. Understanding peace is understanding the nature of violence. Aikido and bud can give us a way to understand and reconcile these things without necesaaryily having to have first hand knowledge of these things.

Aikido IMO does not dissipate violence or chaos, it balances it or reconciles it. It is always there and we must constantly be aware of its nature.

Life can be a series or paradoxes, especially if you want to understand it, but the paradoxes are to be worked out and realized and then they to you are no longer paradoxes. Such is the way. Thus the paradoxes are not in life but in our own selves.

This we must know the opposite theory is not true. You know love when you feel it. You can experience anything and know it. Then you give it a label. It's absolutely nothing to do with what it's opposite feels like. If you then want to go and experience it's opposite then you are free to do so and then you can know both.

Aikido was borne from one man's enlightenment and thus a new way, a new martial art, a new budo, free of the duelistic usual approach to martial arts. Looks similar, but there again charlie chaplin looked similar to hitler.

Regards.G.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

charlie chaplin looked similar to hitler.
Great movie.

[graham christian]

...I responded to Stefan Stenudd in Pas de Deux for Peace which also fits here I guess

As I always say in class: the sword is not dangerous, the persons who wields it can be...

When you say "do not rock the boat, there is bound to be at least one that wants to know what happens when you do". When you strive for peace, there is also always someone that disagrees with your take on exactly what is 'peace'. Good vs evil, the balance constantly shifts, none will ever prevail.
Someone stated humoursly that when you fight with a gorilla you cannot stop when you get tired, you can only rest when the gorilla gets tired. This one (finding balance) is an angry silverback...
So live in the moment, enjoy the moment...

Aikido is but a tool, the user decides its use....

I am not so sure if Aikido, as is, actually dissipates violence. Again, Aikido is a tool, one can be very very aggressive using Aikido; even be violent. You can literally destroy someone. Now how is that dissipating violence? Aikido is not supposed to be used as such, sure. One can use the tool Aikido to 'counter' violence and change the situation to one in which violence can no longer exist.

Is Aikido a tool? For me it is a way. Those techniques within it may be tools as expressions of the way. The motions of Aikido are not tools but natural pathways. If anything I would rather say I am a tool of Aikido.

You can be aggressive if you like and destroy someone but that's not Aikido. Those who think it is are misguided in my opinion.

Peace rules, it is infinite. How long can you keep angry? How long can a raging fire last? How long can a storm last? They all return to peace, nature always takes over. People like to think war or violence desroys peace. Impossible. Peace is always there and violence has to dissipate after it's brief appearance.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Great movie.

Ha, ha. Sehr gut!

[graham christian]

i've always wondered about the Healing Sword. What does that concept mean? How does a sword heal?

Ever done Ki atsu? It's to do with Ki and what true Ki actually does. I'll show you one day.

But I suppose people thinking it's just a saying could play with it and translate it as an aspirin or something. Ha.ha.

Regards.G.

[Tim Ruijs]

Is Aikido a tool? For me it is a way. Those techniques within it may be tools as expressions of the way. The motions of Aikido are not tools but natural pathways. If anything I would rather say I am a tool of Aikido.

You can be aggressive if you like and destroy someone but that's not Aikido. Those who think it is are misguided in my opinion.

Peace rules, it is infinite. How long can you keep angry? How long can a raging fire last? How long can a storm last? They all return to peace, nature always takes over. People like to think war or violence desroys peace. Impossible. Peace is always there and violence has to dissipate after it's brief appearance.

Regards.G.
If I understand you correctly you say that peace is the normal level that nature resides in and violence etc are the disturbances of the normal mirror like water?

[graham christian]

If I understand you correctly you say that peace is the normal level that nature resides in and violence etc are the disturbances of the normal mirror like water?

Yes. That's right.

G.

[sakumeikan]

Dear All,
Aikido is neither violent or non violent. Depending on the situation one must apply aikido prInciples. Now regarding the sword ,again a sword can remain in its scabbard or be drawn in battle.As an aikidoka I believe that while peaceful resolution is to be sought one must if need be be willing to engage in violent confrontation.Gandhi was an exponent of peaceful means of resistance against perceived oppressors.I do not think his approach would have been too successful against the Third Reich.It needed force of arms to resolve that situation.The philosophy of Aikido is good but in practical terms possibly flawed.Human nature being what it is has etc.We have yet to find solutions to mayor problems.Even if one applies non violent methods eg sanctions against countries ,the usual victims are the plebs.The bigshots still maintain the cushy lifestyle.Cheers, Joe.

[Carsten Möllering]

... chaotic Ki or mal intent in good Aikido. So there is no violence. ...
Maybe it depends on language, but I understand violance as to force or control someone, using authority, power, might, knowledge, aikido waza ... .
Violence just means do make someone do something against his own intention or will or wish. It is not about good or mal intent.

Brutality or bestiality is something different.

When you pick up a baby and put him down in a cot is your energy violent?
To do the same with a six year old child against it's will, is violence.
To make an inmate I work with calm down by bringing him to the ground an fixing him there until he relaxes is violence. But not mal intent.
Loving protection may use violence if needed. (Indeed exactly that is one of the reasons that made me start with aikido.)

The only question really is can you do ikkyo or even nikkyo with this non-violence? Have you ever felt it done so?
I can do ikkyo or even nikyo without using pain. (On good days ...) And maybe you know that the aikido Endo teaches allways tries to use open hands, no gabbing, no muscle power, very gentle and open and "friendly". We are sometimes mocked as to "fondle uke to the ground".
But still this means to bring someone to the ground who wants to stay upright. And to guide someone on a way he doesn't want to go.
When going for a ride on a train do you feel dominated?
I make him ride on the same train I travel with. He doesn't ride on the train, leading to the destination he had in mind.
So this is kind of "kidnapping".

Thus for me I would say have you ever felt Aikido?
Maybe I sometimes felt a way of aikido you seem to describe. But it didn't convince me.

A person or uke feeling this Aikido does not feel dominated. ... When treated with love and kindness do you feel dominated?
It didn't convince me, precisely because I didn't feel "dominated" by tori: I was allways free to do what I wanted to. To fall, to just go away, to punch tori into the face ... I had to be told how to behave as uke.
So I felt dominated not by tori, but by the teacher who told me what to do as uke, how to attack and when to fall. I had to restrain myself instead of being lead by tori. I didn't like that.

I don't think that aikido is different from other budo in this concern: For it is a budo, there is violance included. And on the other hand other budo also have ethics included like aikido has.

... well, I right walked into the trap ... had this discussion over and over ...

[graham christian]

Maybe it depends on language, but I understand violance as to force or control someone, using authority, power, might, knowledge, aikido waza ... .
Violence just means do make someone do something against his own intention or will or wish. It is not about good or mal intent.

Brutality or bestiality is something different.

To do the same with a six year old child against it's will, is violence.
To make an inmate I work with calm down by bringing him to the ground an fixing him there until he relaxes is violence. But not mal intent.
Loving protection may use violence if needed. (Indeed exactly that is one of the reasons that made me start with aikido.)

I can do ikkyo or even nikyo without using pain. (On good days ...) And maybe you know that the aikido Endo teaches allways tries to use open hands, no gabbing, no muscle power, very gentle and open and "friendly". We are sometimes mocked as to "fondle uke to the ground".
But still this means to bring someone to the ground who wants to stay upright. And to guide someone on a way he doesn't want to go.

I make him ride on the same train I travel with. He doesn't ride on the train, leading to the destination he had in mind.
So this is kind of "kidnapping".

Maybe I sometimes felt a way of aikido you seem to describe. But it didn't convince me.

It didn't convince me, precisely because I didn't feel "dominated" by tori: I was allways free to do what I wanted to. To fall, to just go away, to punch tori into the face ... I had to be told how to behave as uke.
So I felt dominated not by tori, but by the teacher who told me what to do as uke, how to attack and when to fall. I had to restrain myself instead of being lead by tori. I didn't like that.

I don't think that aikido is different from other budo in this concern: For it is a budo, there is violance included. And on the other hand other budo also have ethics included like aikido has.

... well, I right walked into the trap ... had this discussion over and over ...

So what is force? It is violence. You may need to force a door open but if you do you are liable to cause some damage. Force by it's own nature is desrtuctive. So you can use it for many things, you can even harness it and direct it it to drive some kind of motor or something but then you come to the question of when is applied effort different to force.

Study takes effort, work is effort, effort is necessary in most all things. But force is different, and thus has an added quality of too much of something unnecessary. That something is violence.

Force violates. Aikido energy joins.

The inmate example you give is not one of you being violent as far as I can see. You see to understand what I am saying you need to understand basic human nature, true nature, not the meaning banded about. That inmate in truth didn't want to be violent and actually wanted someone to stop him being so and thus you acted in accordance with his true nature. He thus returned to a calm state. He could be himself again thanks to you. No damage done to him and your action prevented him doing damage to himself or others. Aikido in action.

Now if you could do the same thing without force, calmly and efficiently yet definitely then that would be pure Aikido. Or as I say Aikido.

All bullies for example underneath, in their hearts want to be stopped. They actually want to be helped. That's why when a person stands up to one they then want to be that persons friend.

Hitler with his armies wanted to dominate and bully etc. In response other countries stood up to him and much force was used and much violence and many lives lost. That situation is something that had been arrived at and ended up as war. Bottom of the scale situation. Many many situations prior to that had been gone through without being handled before it got to that final one.

These can all be looked at as examples of need for violence but it merely shows how ignorant we as human beings are to allow things to get to that point in the first place. We are not wise yet think we are and thus think violence is normal for use.

If on the other hand you studied the ways and means wars have been prevented you would find yourself studying such thins as diplomacy (real, not the usual wheeling and dealing) the art of peacemaking and thus the way of peace. If history books were filled with this history then people would be educated in a much better way of living and war would be seen in it's true colours. Stupidity.

The history of peacemaking far outstrips the history of wars by number and victory. Those who do not see this do not see what Ueshiba was saying either in my opinion. But then again how can many understand such enlightened views when they are not.

Can an unenlightened person understand fully an enlightened one? Thus it is a path and thus the first step is realizing that when such things as non-resistance and no enemies and no competition are spoken of they are real and it is up to us to find out how and why rather than translate it as yeah but it depends.

Regards.G.

[CorkyQ]

I agree with the idea that Aikido is non-violent and that violence can not be true aikido.

Central to Osensei's message is the concept in his quote "Aiki is not a technique to fight or defeat an enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family."

The tendency to use physical aikido principles in furtherance of self-defense is coming from a fear-based place. When we can transcend fear and the limbic system responses that arise from it we are able to connect with our partner (attacker) in a way that supports him while his intention brings him to the ground. This is not throwing, nor is it "winning," it is a process of being compassionately involved in what the attacker is doing physically without interfering with it. It is equally not opposing the will of the attacker, it is the active embodiment of "the loving protection of all things."

In our practice at my dojo, we do not teach from an technique emulation model, so we never know how our partner is going to attack. As ukes we never go along with our partner's "technique" so unless they really harmonize in the truest sense of the word, then what we call an "aiki resolution" (uke coming to rest on the mat or rolling) will not manifest. As ukes, we learn to authentically maintain an attacker's intention to destroy or control nage's center throughout the movement, so any response other than true harmonizing will not result in an aiki resolution.

We have found in this kind of practice that unless we can embody qualities that transcend fear (compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, understanding, etc), we resort to lower brain responses (resistance, locking up, or withdrawal) and aikido is impossible. But when we can embody those qualities and transcend our lower brain responses, it is uke's intention that leads him to the floor rather than nage putting him there.

When we practice like this we allow our uke's to roll, but we also learn at the advanced levels how to stay connected with our partner so that uke's final movement to the mat is soft and he is supported in such a way to eliminate harm to him from contacting the ground. In this way we are assured that our non-aikidoka partners (real life attackers) really receive the benefits of our practice of "loving protection of all things."

So while it is possible to use the movements that make up the physical aspects of aikido in a way that causes injury, pain, or even mild discomfort, it is ultimately a thousand times more effective to use them in a way to support our attacker in the "completion of his mission" as self-defense comes to be more a by-product of the interaction than the primary goal.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Life can be a series or paradoxes, especially if you want to understand it, but the paradoxes are to be worked out and realized and then they to you are no longer paradoxes. Such is the way. Thus the paradoxes are not in life but in our own selves.

This we must know the opposite theory is not true. You know love when you feel it. You can experience anything and know it. Then you give it a label. It's absolutely nothing to do with what it's opposite feels like. If you then want to go and experience it's opposite then you are free to do so and then you can know both.

Aikido was borne from one man's enlightenment and thus a new way, a new martial art, a new budo, free of the duelistic usual approach to martial arts. Looks similar, but there again charlie chaplin looked similar to hitler.

Regards.G.

It was born from his enlightenment. what were the experiences that led to his enlightenment?

The story of Buddha is clear. How did he reach his enlightenment? what was the main force that drove him to head down the path?

How about Jesus? What were the experiences he had that led him to take the actions he took?

I see a common thread among all great persons. Oh...Ghandi too? Mother Teresa?

[Kevin Leavitt]

I don't believe Hitler was a bully that was crying out to have someone stop him.

All good diplomacy has been backed by a strong infrastructure to include military power or the will of the people. You could call this the life giving sword. Walk softly and carry a big stick comes to mind. Name one country that did not use the will of the people to back up diplomacy. India under Ghandi's leadership did so without a strong military, however, it was the will of the people and the ultimate threat that. However you could argue that this technique worked given that there were unique conditions in place polictically with Britain that enabled this to work. It didn't go so well for Tibet and I have heard the Dali Lama relent his position and decision knowing what he knows today about the suffering his people have incurred.

It boils down to the "lesser evil" in all cases unfortunately. So, IMO, it is always about compromise mostly. Again, what worked for India did not work for Tibet based on the differences in the Diplomatic and Political conditions. Idealism is fine, but at what cost?

"The history of peacemaking far outstrips the history of wars by number and victory. Those who do not see this do not see what Ueshiba was saying either in my opinion. But then again how can many understand such enlightened views when they are not. "

Please explain this further and quantify it, because I really do not understand it. I see it the other way around. the Majority of peacemaking situations have followed periods of war and the war certainly influenced and dictated the terms of peace and reconciliation.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Here is a concept to ponder. What if I got a bunch of my friends and we decided to simply walk into your dojo, take it over and refused to leave and cooperate. I decided that I was now in charge and I was going to run things my way or you would have to fight me and all my friends.

Every class we come back and do the same thing to the point that you no longer can train in the ideals and spirit that you embody in Aikido.

What would you do? Turn the other cheek? Stop coming? call the police? what?

What if I don't care to reason with you at all? What if I and my friends simply want to taunt you and bully you every class? do you yield to us and go find another place to train and let us take over the dojo?

What happens if we decide to follow you there and do the same thing? When do you stand your ground? What do you do from an "aikido philosophical/ethical" construct? How do you resolve this?

[genin]

Peace and war both serve in bringing about change. Usually when one fails, the other takes over and gets the required results.

[kewms]

Non-violent political resistance only works if there is an effective appeal to a third party. Compare the situations of the demonstrators at UC Davis vs. those demonstrating against the regime in Syria. At UC Davis, a police officer pepper-sprayed peaceful demonstrators at point blank range, leading to his own suspension from the force and a university-wide review of protest-related policies. In Syria, demonstrators are routinely subjected to beatings and tear gas, not to mention having the secret police kick their doors down in the middle of the night, but the perpetrators have the full support of the regime. A sufficiently well-armed and amoral regime will always be able to suppress dissent.

Katherine

[Ketsan]

i've always wondered about the Healing Sword. What does that concept mean? How does a sword heal?

Just like leeches but more efficient. :D

[akiy]

Hi folks,

Before this thread goes too far into the broader topic of violence/non-violence, please keep the discussion in this thread explicitly pertinent to aikido. If you wish to move to a discussion with a larger scope, please start a new thread in the Open Discussions forum.

Thank you,

-- Jun

[DH]

i've always wondered about the Healing Sword. What does that concept mean? How does a sword heal?
Kevin
The most common description I have read is that of saving life or preserving it. Again though it denotes violence.
Kill one (presumably evil) person to save many.
Draeger assigns it (I believe to Otake Sensei) to "Kill one, to save ten thousand."
Take take the drama and Sam-U-eye stuff out of it and the concept applies to your job or any cop walking the beat.
Hope that helps.

Even the idea of love that was bandied about in many earlier cultures people misunderstand. Ueshiba trained assassins. Many times when those guys talked about love it also entailed discipline, sacrifice, or killing to preserve family, village and clan. Aikido's history and it's birth was not through the type of peace some people in Aikido think it means.

This peacnic stuff was nonsensical to them, to most anyone who lives in the real world and nonsense to many in the art of aikido. It is typically offered by those who live, protected by those who will do violence on their behalf; Police, Judges, and the military, so they can live in a civil society. Mankind will always live under peace through strength. In the very few cases were non-violent protest succeeded, it was because those in power capitulated.
Mercy belongs to the victor. Anyone thinking they can stop real aggression- through aikido waza- without aggression is simply kidding themselves. Instead people "play" together nicely in a dojo with their budo get-ups, with attacks deviod of real agression, with defense that hardly needs to be of any real use.
And Aikido is not alone in that.
Dan

[Gorgeous George]

"The history of peacemaking far outstrips the history of wars by number and victory. Those who do not see this do not see what Ueshiba was saying either in my opinion. But then again how can many understand such enlightened views when they are not. "

Please explain this further and quantify it, because I really do not understand it. I see it the other way around. the Majority of peacemaking situations have followed periods of war and the war certainly influenced and dictated the terms of peace and reconciliation.

Exactly.
I'm also shocked at how he claims that he's enlightened, and so understands what O'sensei said.

[graham christian]

It was born from his enlightenment. what were the experiences that led to his enlightenment?

The story of Buddha is clear. How did he reach his enlightenment? what was the main force that drove him to head down the path?

How about Jesus? What were the experiences he had that led him to take the actions he took?

I see a common thread among all great persons. Oh...Ghandi too? Mother Teresa?

The story of Buddha is clear, he entered various ascetic practices. In my view he thought that Aikido would be a perfect vehicle to practice such spiritual disciplines. Maybe similar to the original shaolin concept, but I don't know that for sure.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

I don't believe Hitler was a bully that was crying out to have someone stop him.

All good diplomacy has been backed by a strong infrastructure to include military power or the will of the people. You could call this the life giving sword. Walk softly and carry a big stick comes to mind. Name one country that did not use the will of the people to back up diplomacy. India under Ghandi's leadership did so without a strong military, however, it was the will of the people and the ultimate threat that. However you could argue that this technique worked given that there were unique conditions in place polictically with Britain that enabled this to work. It didn't go so well for Tibet and I have heard the Dali Lama relent his position and decision knowing what he knows today about the suffering his people have incurred.

It boils down to the "lesser evil" in all cases unfortunately. So, IMO, it is always about compromise mostly. Again, what worked for India did not work for Tibet based on the differences in the Diplomatic and Political conditions. Idealism is fine, but at what cost?

"The history of peacemaking far outstrips the history of wars by number and victory. Those who do not see this do not see what Ueshiba was saying either in my opinion. But then again how can many understand such enlightened views when they are not. "

Please explain this further and quantify it, because I really do not understand it. I see it the other way around. the Majority of peacemaking situations have followed periods of war and the war certainly influenced and dictated the terms of peace and reconciliation.

A fair question. Let's start with Aikido being the path of peace. Therefore it uses principles which do so. Thus applied it changes what could have been a fight, a combat, a war into something else.

Now in life just look around you and relate to your own experiences. The truth is there for you to see. How many minor arguments have you seen or had, how many minor disputes have you seen or had? How many times, if you have children, have you settled differences between them. All minor that without settlement would progress into major. So plenty of bigger troubles have always been nipped in the bud, every time this happens it's a victory for peace and common sense. Those unhandled ones turn into war. Then your left with how to handle chaos. That's the last stop.

The principles in Aikido which include for example compassion have been talked about and demonstrated by all enlightened or even just aware people including all those you mentioned, be they Mother Theresa et al. They went out and demonstrated the power of such. Then alas the majority of people don't get it but boy do they talk about it whilst doing the opposite.

For me Ueshiba left a promise in saying what he said. His promise was that these things actually work if you can get them real enough, it's up to you.

Such is my view, open to debate of course.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Here is a concept to ponder. What if I got a bunch of my friends and we decided to simply walk into your dojo, take it over and refused to leave and cooperate. I decided that I was now in charge and I was going to run things my way or you would have to fight me and all my friends.

Every class we come back and do the same thing to the point that you no longer can train in the ideals and spirit that you embody in Aikido.

What would you do? Turn the other cheek? Stop coming? call the police? what?

What if I don't care to reason with you at all? What if I and my friends simply want to taunt you and bully you every class? do you yield to us and go find another place to train and let us take over the dojo?

What happens if we decide to follow you there and do the same thing? When do you stand your ground? What do you do from an "aikido philosophical/ethical" construct? How do you resolve this?

Ifs and buts, what ifs and yeah buts. Put simply, I would do Aikido. I have faith that Aikido handles violence. Therefore I have faith that a solution is there waiting to be found. Your what ifs above are quite funny. There is no set answer except the one I already gave.

Whichever solution is best. Standing your ground could take many forms for example. It could be teaching you all a lesson, it could be calling the police, it could be leaving and letting you keep taking over like a mischievous zen monk. Who's being led there? I bet a beautiful woman could defeat you and lead you with a smile and a flutter of her eyelids. Gone, mind taken, led.

To see if the priciples I describe can work in extreme situations, (notice I said extreme situations for they are the ones used to try and say they can't) then we would have to look around woildn't we. We would have to look for extreme situations where someone resolved it without force of violence. Have you ever looked for such earnestly? Do such things even make the news? Rarely if ever. Is that because they don't exist?

I'll leave you to ponder this.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Non-violent political resistance only works if there is an effective appeal to a third party. Compare the situations of the demonstrators at UC Davis vs. those demonstrating against the regime in Syria. At UC Davis, a police officer pepper-sprayed peaceful demonstrators at point blank range, leading to his own suspension from the force and a university-wide review of protest-related policies. In Syria, demonstrators are routinely subjected to beatings and tear gas, not to mention having the secret police kick their doors down in the middle of the night, but the perpetrators have the full support of the regime. A sufficiently well-armed and amoral regime will always be able to suppress dissent.

Katherine

True, third parties are usually neede in those extreme situations. But let's return to Aikido and violence.

What principles are those third parties using to do so, to prevent violence. What path are those people treading. It's certainly not the art of war. Yet if successful they save many lives.

P.S. The soviet union to my reckoning was sufficiently well armed. It depends on the scale of uprising I suppose. But once again we are talking extreme situations.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Exactly.
I'm also shocked at how he claims that he's enlightened, and so understands what O'sensei said.

Does he?

[graham christian]

Kevin
The most common description I have read is that of saving life or preserving it. Again though it denotes violence.
Kill one (presumably evil) person to save many.
Draeger assigns it (I believe to Otake Sensei) to "Kill one, to save ten thousand."
Take take the drama and Sam-U-eye stuff out of it and the concept applies to your job or any cop walking the beat.
Hope that helps.

Even the idea of love that was bandied about in many earlier cultures people misunderstand. Ueshiba trained assassins. Many times when those guys talked about love it also entailed discipline, sacrifice, or killing to preserve family, village and clan. Aikido's history and it's birth was not through the type of peace some people in Aikido think it means.

This peacnic stuff was nonsensical to them, to most anyone who lives in the real world and nonsense to many in the art of aikido. It is typically offered by those who live, protected by those who will do violence on their behalf; Police, Judges, and the military, so they can live in a civil society. Mankind will always live under peace through strength. In the very few cases were non-violent protest succeeded, it was because those in power capitulated.
Mercy belongs to the victor. Anyone thinking they can stop real aggression- through aikido waza- without aggression is simply kidding themselves. Instead people "play" together nicely in a dojo with their budo get-ups, with attacks deviod of real agression, with defense that hardly needs to be of any real use.
And Aikido is not alone in that.
Dan

Dan, it's good to see your views and thus how we differ. The healing sword, interesting. Thus you teach me how many see it maybe.

I suggest one could look at the word healing.

Mmm, I do wonder when that was that Ueshiba trained assassins. Is that an exagerration or a play on words for no doubt he did train people to kill before the war and no doubt some of them ended up being kamikaze or soldiers or spies or whatever. He says so himself.

But once again I return to Aikido and violence. How aggression fits in with absolute non-resistance I don't know.

I find it amusing for I see aggression like a subconscious mantra repeating over and over 'aggression is necessary, aggression is necessary.' Whatever you do don't take away my aggression. And then we wonder why violence persists?

That's why I love sports. Little aenas where you can play with aggression. Controlled.

That's why I admire warriors of war. People who have to face extreme violence and in such extreme situations not being living buddhas use courage and selflessness to face the enemy and violence as necessary.

Very admirable. But then we come back to AIKIDO. Ahh. The ultimate challenge. A warrior of peace.

To face and overcome violence without violence. To learn on this path the true enemy of self who wants to keep hold of aggression and violence just in case. To face up to the concept of masakatsu and agatsu. To learn how to not, how to but, or how not to.

Thus I say Aikido is a different martial art. The art of peace

Many martial artists may be just arrogant brutes with skill. Many on the other side of martial arts may be softy softy play around let's feel good people.

The real ones on both sides I admire. Oh, and even the real ones in the middle ha, ha.

Love calms, Ki joins leads and heals, Kindness pierces and is never forgotton, faith moves mountains and goodness is the reason we haven't all destroyed ourselves.

All non violent, all powerful. All infinite.

If everyone truly knew this then watching a fight it would be so obvious as to what was missing in those individuals and yet so obvious as to why they couldn't see it.

But hey, that's my Aikido.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

I agree with the idea that Aikido is non-violent and that violence can not be true aikido.

Central to Osensei's message is the concept in his quote "Aiki is not a technique to fight or defeat an enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family."

The tendency to use physical aikido principles in furtherance of self-defense is coming from a fear-based place. When we can transcend fear and the limbic system responses that arise from it we are able to connect with our partner (attacker) in a way that supports him while his intention brings him to the ground. This is not throwing, nor is it "winning," it is a process of being compassionately involved in what the attacker is doing physically without interfering with it. It is equally not opposing the will of the attacker, it is the active embodiment of "the loving protection of all things."

In our practice at my dojo, we do not teach from an technique emulation model, so we never know how our partner is going to attack. As ukes we never go along with our partner's "technique" so unless they really harmonize in the truest sense of the word, then what we call an "aiki resolution" (uke coming to rest on the mat or rolling) will not manifest. As ukes, we learn to authentically maintain an attacker's intention to destroy or control nage's center throughout the movement, so any response other than true harmonizing will not result in an aiki resolution.

We have found in this kind of practice that unless we can embody qualities that transcend fear (compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, understanding, etc), we resort to lower brain responses (resistance, locking up, or withdrawal) and aikido is impossible. But when we can embody those qualities and transcend our lower brain responses, it is uke's intention that leads him to the floor rather than nage putting him there.

When we practice like this we allow our uke's to roll, but we also learn at the advanced levels how to stay connected with our partner so that uke's final movement to the mat is soft and he is supported in such a way to eliminate harm to him from contacting the ground. In this way we are assured that our non-aikidoka partners (real life attackers) really receive the benefits of our practice of "loving protection of all things."

So while it is possible to use the movements that make up the physical aspects of aikido in a way that causes injury, pain, or even mild discomfort, it is ultimately a thousand times more effective to use them in a way to support our attacker in the "completion of his mission" as self-defense comes to be more a by-product of the interaction than the primary goal.

Hey Corky. Long time no hear. Good to see you popping in. Still keeping the faith I see ha, ha. A nice surprise. I'll be in touch soon.

Regards.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

The story of Buddha is clear, he entered various ascetic practices. In my view he thought that Aikido would be a perfect vehicle to practice such spiritual disciplines. Maybe similar to the original shaolin concept, but I don't know that for sure.

Regards.G.

What led him to seek out those ascetic practices. That is what I was getting at. What was it that his father attempted to shield him from based on the prophecies?

[Kevin Leavitt]

A fair question. Let's start with Aikido being the path of peace. Therefore it uses principles which do so. Thus applied it changes what could have been a fight, a combat, a war into something else.

Now in life just look around you and relate to your own experiences. The truth is there for you to see. How many minor arguments have you seen or had, how many minor disputes have you seen or had? How many times, if you have children, have you settled differences between them. All minor that without settlement would progress into major. So plenty of bigger troubles have always been nipped in the bud, every time this happens it's a victory for peace and common sense. Those unhandled ones turn into war. Then your left with how to handle chaos. That's the last stop.

The principles in Aikido which include for example compassion have been talked about and demonstrated by all enlightened or even just aware people including all those you mentioned, be they Mother Theresa et al. They went out and demonstrated the power of such. Then alas the majority of people don't get it but boy do they talk about it whilst doing the opposite.

For me Ueshiba left a promise in saying what he said. His promise was that these things actually work if you can get them real enough, it's up to you.

Such is my view, open to debate of course.

Regards.G.

I think you are missing my point about the people of greatness. What they all had in common was they faced great suffering. They were in the bowels of great suffering, evil, or darkness and faced it head on. Those conditions led to their greatness.

It was more than an emotional argument between Co workers or siblings, or even a ego driven bar fight. It was long term, deeply rooted suffering that extended beyond the temporary emotion of a particular event.

I believe the original question was is violence necessary or a part of Aikido. I say it is a must to face, and deal with violence at some level in order to give Aikido its purpose or relevancy. We cannot use revisionism and rewrite history and attempt to recolor it into something we desire it to be. When we accept the path of a budoka, we accept the path that directly deals with violence. There are other paths such as becoming a nun for instance that might be better suited for people that do not desire to deal with the path of violence. However all these practices deal with suffering in some way be it violence, poverty, hatred, sickness, old age etc.

[CorkyQ]

Here is a concept to ponder. What if I got a bunch of my friends and we decided to simply walk into your dojo, take it over and refused to leave and cooperate. I decided that I was now in charge and I was going to run things my way or you would have to fight me and all my friends.

Every class we come back and do the same thing to the point that you no longer can train in the ideals and spirit that you embody in Aikido.

What would you do? Turn the other cheek? Stop coming? call the police? what?

What if I don't care to reason with you at all? What if I and my friends simply want to taunt you and bully you every class? do you yield to us and go find another place to train and let us take over the dojo?

What happens if we decide to follow you there and do the same thing? When do you stand your ground? What do you do from an "aikido philosophical/ethical" construct? How do you resolve this?

The problem with any hypothetical is that it never can ever possibly cover the scope of a real situation. The beauty of take musu aiki is that it spontaneously manifests without technique. There is no answer to your question that would not be based in the same conjecture in which it was pose, and is therefore in the realm of "the map" and not "the territory." Also, to answer the question in a way to satisfy the nature of its asking is to come up with a solution in which the bullies lose and the aikidoka win and get to keep practicing.

Deep in the heart of this question is that longing to win, to overcome, to defeat the "invading bullies." Therefore even to engage in such a discussion is to ignore the principle of the founder described in this quote: "If you think that Budo means to have opponents and enemies and to be strong and defeat them, you are mistaken. The true spirit of the martial arts is to be one with the universe and have no enemies. The essence of the martial arts is the spirit of loving protection of all beings in the universe."

An understanding of this needs to be cultivated. It doesn't necessarily appear to be true to the ordinary way of looking at things, which is why there are many fewer aikidoka in the world than practitioners of admittedly destructive martial arts.

There is no way to prove that moral conviction is the most powerful response to injustice, it has to come to be understood. There are no answers to the posed question until they present themselves at the time when the idea to attack arises in the minds of the "dojo bullies." At that time, at the moment the attack rises so does the solution.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Kevin
The most common description I have read is that of saving life or preserving it. Again though it denotes violence.
Kill one (presumably evil) person to save many.
Draeger assigns it (I believe to Otake Sensei) to "Kill one, to save ten thousand."
Take take the drama and Sam-U-eye stuff out of it and the concept applies to your job or any cop walking the beat.
Hope that helps.

Even the idea of love that was bandied about in many earlier cultures people misunderstand. Ueshiba trained assassins. Many times when those guys talked about love it also entailed discipline, sacrifice, or killing to preserve family, village and clan. Aikido's history and it's birth was not through the type of peace some people in Aikido think it means.

This peacnic stuff was nonsensical to them, to most anyone who lives in the real world and nonsense to many in the art of aikido. It is typically offered by those who live, protected by those who will do violence on their behalf; Police, Judges, and the military, so they can live in a civil society. Mankind will always live under peace through strength. In the very few cases were non-violent protest succeeded, it was because those in power capitulated.
Mercy belongs to the victor. Anyone thinking they can stop real aggression- through aikido waza- without aggression is simply kidding themselves. Instead people "play" together nicely in a dojo with their budo get-ups, with attacks deviod of real agression, with defense that hardly needs to be of any real use.
And Aikido is not alone in that.
Dan

Thanks Dan. I knew the answer of course. I was hoping that the person that proposed this concept of the sword of healing would define it for me. I like you, understood the sword of life or the life giving sword to be a wielder that possessed the power, skill, and willingness to use it directly, but used it more skillfully to create space, room, and time in order to allow for more skillfull ways of reconciliation and healing to take place. Of course this comes with a risk. You might actually have to use it on occasion if you are really putting yourself out there.you know...in real situations that are authentic, risky, and real.

Can you cross interpret this to the corporate board room? I suppose you could as it certainly makes for a great allegory. Just like sun tzu was in the 80s. However I don,t think it is a good use of your time to spend hours learning physical techniques and training hard in something like Aikido only so you can understand a metaphor.

Heck with all the books, websites, and YouTube videos that are out there you simply can understand these concepts without having to go into the dojo.

[Kevin Leavitt]

The problem with any hypothetical is that it never can ever possibly cover the scope of a real situation. The beauty of take musu aiki is that it spontaneously manifests without technique. There is no answer to your question that would not be based in the same conjecture in which it was pose, and is therefore in the realm of "the map" and not "the territory." Also, to answer the question in a way to satisfy the nature of its asking is to come up with a solution in which the bullies lose and the aikidoka win and get to keep practicing.

Deep in the heart of this question is that longing to win, to overcome, to defeat the "invading bullies." Therefore even to engage in such a discussion is to ignore the principle of the founder described in this quote: "If you think that Budo means to have opponents and enemies and to be strong and defeat them, you are mistaken. The true spirit of the martial arts is to be one with the universe and have no enemies. The essence of the martial arts is the spirit of loving protection of all beings in the universe."

An understanding of this needs to be cultivated. It doesn't necessarily appear to be true to the ordinary way of looking at things, which is why there are many fewer aikidoka in the world than practitioners of admittedly destructive martial arts.

There is no way to prove that moral conviction is the most powerful response to injustice, it has to come to be understood. There are no answers to the posed question until they present themselves at the time when the idea to attack arises in the minds of the "dojo bullies." At that time, at the moment the attack rises so does the solution.

Thanks for the well thought out answer.

Agreed. At the moment of time, so does the solution.

However, of course I was driving at the hypocracy that is always present and that we all choose to ignore, but shouldn,t. I think we all, or at least most of us have a point when we say ENOUGH!

I find it very hyporactic to say that the AIKI solution is to always reason and show the bulliesanother way...and we will all join hands and walk on the path.

I agree with the philosophy of love for all beings and loving protection. However it doesn't,t come simply because we decide one day to join an Aikido dojo and then say that I follow the path and the profess a degree of evolvement that we mentally can process, yet have not explored to any great depth emotionally, physically, or spiritually. I see this all the time in aikidoka.

No, it require us to face stuff we don,t like, things that we are uncomfortable with, and have our buttons pushed. Pushed to the point that we snap and say enough. So we can recognize the hypocracy in ourselves and learn to deal with it. We must first take care of our own issues before we can take on others.

So i agree. There is no answer to the question thatoffers a good cut and dry solution from a fundamental, black and white aiki-dogmatic process.

However it is our duy to ponder such questions and attempt to answer. Fuuny thing is once you've boxed yourself into that corner of hypocracy saying Aikido is all about resolving situations peacefully, it is hard to come back and answer this question without exposing your own hypocracy, which is why it has only been answered most likely by you. Thanks for the response.

[lbb]

The story of Buddha is clear. How did he reach his enlightenment? what was the main force that drove him to head down the path?

The main force that drove him was a realization of suffering, and the core of his teachings was an understanding of the nature of suffering. "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist tradition may or may not bear any resemblance to whatever Ueshiba called "enlightenment". The term is commonly bandied about in the west and used for different things. I don't think there's necessarily any commonality there.

[Gorgeous George]

Whichever solution is best. Standing your ground could take many forms for example. It could be teaching you all a lesson, it could be calling the police, it could be leaving and letting you keep taking over like a mischievous zen monk. Who's being led there?

Call the police on someone who won't move?
Very 'aiki':

http://rt.com/files/news/peper-spray-brutality-drill-823/university-officer-police-protest.n.jpg

'Letting' someone do exactly what they want is not leading them; you are having no impact on that person, whatsoever.
"Yeah - you're killing all of those Jewish people, Adolf, but I tell you what i'm gonna do: i'm gonna leave and let you keep doing it, like a mischievous zen monk, lol."

[Kevin Leavitt]

The main force that drove him was a realization of suffering, and the core of his teachings was an understanding of the nature of suffering. "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist tradition may or may not bear any resemblance to whatever Ueshiba called "enlightenment". The term is commonly bandied about in the west and used for different things. I don't think there's necessarily any commonality there.

So are you saying that there is a difference between the Buddhist view of enlightenment and Ueshiba?

what are the differences if so?

[graham christian]

I think you are missing my point about the people of greatness. What they all had in common was they faced great suffering. They were in the bowels of great suffering, evil, or darkness and faced it head on. Those conditions led to their greatness.

It was more than an emotional argument between Co workers or siblings, or even a ego driven bar fight. It was long term, deeply rooted suffering that extended beyond the temporary emotion of a particular event.

I believe the original question was is violence necessary or a part of Aikido. I say it is a must to face, and deal with violence at some level in order to give Aikido its purpose or relevancy. We cannot use revisionism and rewrite history and attempt to recolor it into something we desire it to be. When we accept the path of a budoka, we accept the path that directly deals with violence. There are other paths such as becoming a nun for instance that might be better suited for people that do not desire to deal with the path of violence. However all these practices deal with suffering in some way be it violence, poverty, hatred, sickness, old age etc.

I agree it's a must to face violence. That doesn't mean it's a must to use violence. Aikido points to a way of such.

All the people you mention? I don't think so. Yes, they all used their awareness and ability to try to handle and help the suffering which they could see clearly for they were compassionate. But trying to say they came from it, or were in such extreme situations in the first place is simply way off the mark.

Let's take Buddha for example. He came from luxury. To be compassionate has no bearing on where your from or what situations you have to face.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

What led him to seek out those ascetic practices. That is what I was getting at. What was it that his father attempted to shield him from based on the prophecies?

I'd say forget all that nonsense about father and this or that. Use common sense instead. Ask the question what makes anyone search out truth and thus enter ascetic practices and spiritual disciplines. Seeing life don't make sense that's what. Seeing it don't make sense and wondering what it's all about and why they are here.

Different circumstances in life can lead to a person doing this but no one can make them. It's always personal.

Violence is not natural but unfortunately can be considered normal.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Call the police on someone who won't move?
Very 'aiki':

http://rt.com/files/news/peper-spray-brutality-drill-823/university-officer-police-protest.n.jpg

'Letting' someone do exactly what they want is not leading them; you are having no impact on that person, whatsoever.
"Yeah - you're killing all of those Jewish people, Adolf, but I tell you what i'm gonna do: i'm gonna leave and let you keep doing it, like a mischievous zen monk, lol."

Ha, ha. Calling the police would be on those trying to take over not on the person not moving. Duhhh.

Letting someone complete their mission is a principle in Aikido but alas some like you think it means what you see it as and thus lack the reality of what it means. Unfortunate.

Comparing extreme killing situations with leading a group of idiots from one place is not comparable. lol.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Thanks Dan. I knew the answer of course. I was hoping that the person that proposed this concept of the sword of healing would define it for me. I like you, understood the sword of life or the life giving sword to be a wielder that possessed the power, skill, and willingness to use it directly, but used it more skillfully to create space, room, and time in order to allow for more skillfull ways of reconciliation and healing to take place. Of course this comes with a risk. You might actually have to use it on occasion if you are really putting yourself out there.you know...in real situations that are authentic, risky, and real.

Can you cross interpret this to the corporate board room? I suppose you could as it certainly makes for a great allegory. Just like sun tzu was in the 80s. However I don,t think it is a good use of your time to spend hours learning physical techniques and training hard in something like Aikido only so you can understand a metaphor.

Heck with all the books, websites, and YouTube videos that are out there you simply can understand these concepts without having to go into the dojo.

Sounds like a space and time giving sword to me. However, a nice logical, construct. You best stick to that one. It suits your parameters.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

The main force that drove him was a realization of suffering, and the core of his teachings was an understanding of the nature of suffering. "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist tradition may or may not bear any resemblance to whatever Ueshiba called "enlightenment". The term is commonly bandied about in the west and used for different things. I don't think there's necessarily any commonality there.

True, as in the four noble 'truths'. He then went on to give a basic construct, a way, to prevent it. Thus the eightfold path.

Notice there was no violence in his perceived ways of progress. Notice also that historically that particular religion spread across most of Asia and beyond, at least a third of the world of that time by in a slightly different way to many religions. Without violence yet with a great effect which brought people together and things got more civilized.

But alas then along comes human crazyness and greed etc. and gradually the morals once again decline and suffering follows. Same old cycle.

Then the suffereing can only see violence as the answer as usual and we're back to the game of suffering using violence and the 'protectors of them using violence and this leads to more suffering and blame and calls for revenge and......

A spiral, alas one that goes down and yet the purveyors of it are all logical and right. Oh, and of course let's not forget admirers of violence just in case you understand.

Thank God for Aikido and a glimpse that there could be a better way of doing things.

Just like the old man on the train handling the violent drunk whist the Aikidoka who was ready to attack him got off the train realizing he had yet a lot to learn.

Regards.G.

[kewms]

Violence is not natural but unfortunately can be considered normal.

Ever watched a hawk catch a smaller bird? A cat hunting a mouse? More natural than most things humans do, if you ask me.

As for violence in human societies, there's much less of it now than there used to be. But the web provides lots of evidence that "civilization" requires an enforcement mechanism. Without one, it only takes a few people to create chaos.

Katherine

[Gorgeous George]

Ha, ha. Calling the police would be on those trying to take over not on the person not moving. Duhhh.

Letting someone complete their mission is a principle in Aikido but alas some like you think it means what you see it as and thus lack the reality of what it means. Unfortunate.

Comparing extreme killing situations with leading a group of idiots from one place is not comparable. lol.

Regards.G.

Right...because the methods of the police would differ in that situation (nice one with the insulting language, too: it really helps to defuse hostile situations, that - just like aikido!).

Haha. Well, I think you'll find that in aikido, there is no mission - if you already have a mission, then you've failed to do aikido. [/pseudo-enlightened, egotistical voice]

...so you prattle on about the universal applicability of aikido principles to every possible situation...but I can't compare two different situations?
Right...

[Abasan]

Everyone watches a master swordsman wield a blade with awe. There is beauty in his kata...
Why do you open your mouth in wonder? Don't you see death in his every cut?

I think there is a distinction, natural violence and a violent mind. Violence is relative to a persons concept of it. Some believe the cutting up of human beings are an act of violence. Yet we do cut people up with very sharp blades no less... To save him. Are they violent acts? No, they are compassionate but natural acts of violence so to speak. Natural to the instigator whose job is to cut you up to save you. And violent to the patient whose very body seeks to avoid the pain and trauma of being cut up.

A violent mind however is unnatural. A predator doesn not hunt with malevolence but the act of killing is violence. But not unnatural. Violence of the mind is when you seek to destroy not in keeping to your true self or purpose.

Thus the violent mind is what does not come to the aikido equation. Yet if natural violence were to occur, then so be it.

[CorkyQ]

Thanks for the well thought out answer.

Agreed. At the moment of time, so does the solution.

However, of course I was driving at the hypocracy that is always present and that we all choose to ignore, but shouldn,t. I think we all, or at least most of us have a point when we say ENOUGH!

I find it very hyporactic to say that the AIKI solution is to always reason and show the bulliesanother way...and we will all join hands and walk on the path.

I agree with the philosophy of love for all beings and loving protection. However it doesn't,t come simply because we decide one day to join an Aikido dojo and then say that I follow the path and the profess a degree of evolvement that we mentally can process, yet have not explored to any great depth emotionally, physically, or spiritually. I see this all the time in aikidoka.

No, it require us to face stuff we don,t like, things that we are uncomfortable with, and have our buttons pushed. Pushed to the point that we snap and say enough. So we can recognize the hypocracy in ourselves and learn to deal with it. We must first take care of our own issues before we can take on others.

So i agree. There is no answer to the question thatoffers a good cut and dry solution from a fundamental, black and white aiki-dogmatic process.

However it is our duy to ponder such questions and attempt to answer. Fuuny thing is once you've boxed yourself into that corner of hypocracy saying Aikido is all about resolving situations peacefully, it is hard to come back and answer this question without exposing your own hypocracy, which is why it has only been answered most likely by you. Thanks for the response.

You make a good point. It is a crucial moment when we make a choice to abandon non-violence and it is that moment when we allow fear to override an expression of love. It is hypocritical, but it is also just a simple human failure to trust. Sound moral principle is only valuable when it is hardest to embody, but the power in turning the other cheek undeniable. It is the primary tool Gandhi used to shed the oppressive 200 year ruling by Great Britain. Many people profess to adhere to the Golden Rule but with qualifications. For instance, "I will always treat others as I would like to be treated as long as they don't try to hurt me." If the principle is to be abandoned at any point it is the same as not having it at all.

I'm not sure there is a peaceful solution to every problem expressed with physical assault, but I do believe there is a non-violent response. This is why in our dojo we do not use any kind of joint locks or pins. They wouldn't work anyway because we train as ukes to resist those things that would create discomfort or damage. Our only option is to move in such a way that our partner is supported as he completes the action (attack) that will lead himself to the ground. We practice this way because we know that our off-the-mat attackers will have a more reflexive response to the feeling of having pain compliance techniques applied to their weak parts than the kind of ukemi we learned when beginning in a traditional technique emulation training model.

I think you are asking the right questions, because if we really examine ourselves we might find that we cloak the violence we might do as aikidoka in some rationale disassociated from Aikido's highest goals. One will never each the highest peak if he sets his mind on the lower one.

Thanks for the discussion!

[CorkyQ]

Everyone watches a master swordsman wield a blade with awe. There is beauty in his kata...
Why do you open your mouth in wonder? Don't you see death in his every cut?

I think there is a distinction, natural violence and a violent mind. Violence is relative to a persons concept of it. Some believe the cutting up of human beings are an act of violence. Yet we do cut people up with very sharp blades no less... To save him. Are they violent acts? No, they are compassionate but natural acts of violence so to speak. Natural to the instigator whose job is to cut you up to save you. And violent to the patient whose very body seeks to avoid the pain and trauma of being cut up.

A violent mind however is unnatural. A predator doesn not hunt with malevolence but the act of killing is violence. But not unnatural. Violence of the mind is when you seek to destroy not in keeping to your true self or purpose.

Thus the violent mind is what does not come to the aikido equation. Yet if natural violence were to occur, then so be it.

I love what you've written. I think we must be diligent, though, in not using the truth in what you are saying to rationalize harming another person in our pursuit of self-defense. Aikido gives us a tool to respond non-violently to violence, natural or otherwise. But this is a tool that also can be used for violence much the same way a pitch fork could. With (as Mary Heiny says) diligent self-scrutiny we can progress toward a point in time in which the threat of violence produces no fear response because there is no longer any violence in our own hearts.

[graham christian]

Ever watched a hawk catch a smaller bird? A cat hunting a mouse? More natural than most things humans do, if you ask me.

As for violence in human societies, there's much less of it now than there used to be. But the web provides lots of evidence that "civilization" requires an enforcement mechanism. Without one, it only takes a few people to create chaos.

Katherine

Much less violence now? Mmmm. That could be worth checking out. But there again you can't have it both ways.

A few with modern weapons? Much more violence and chaos. But hey, we agree with use of violence don't we.

Regards.G.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Much less violence now? Mmmm. That could be worth checking out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

[graham christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Just watched the first couple of minutes. Looks interesting. I'll get back to it later. Nice one.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Everyone watches a master swordsman wield a blade with awe. There is beauty in his kata...
Why do you open your mouth in wonder? Don't you see death in his every cut?

I think there is a distinction, natural violence and a violent mind. Violence is relative to a persons concept of it. Some believe the cutting up of human beings are an act of violence. Yet we do cut people up with very sharp blades no less... To save him. Are they violent acts? No, they are compassionate but natural acts of violence so to speak. Natural to the instigator whose job is to cut you up to save you. And violent to the patient whose very body seeks to avoid the pain and trauma of being cut up.

A violent mind however is unnatural. A predator doesn not hunt with malevolence but the act of killing is violence. But not unnatural. Violence of the mind is when you seek to destroy not in keeping to your true self or purpose.

Thus the violent mind is what does not come to the aikido equation. Yet if natural violence were to occur, then so be it.

Nicely put. Not that I agree though.

I agree we must make distinctions and I also agree the violent mind has no place in Aikido and is un-natural.

When it comes to the Master wielding a sword I admire the skill as with admiring the skill of a master plasterer or whoever. I feel sorry for those who see it as death cuts and admire such. I can view it as such but then Admiration wouldn't be on that aspect in fact if I saw a person doing such and thinking that equalled how dangerous and competent they were I would shake my head and feel sorry for him.

Violence is harmful. It's not natural to harm. Only to those who validate the violent mind.

I like the twist put on compassion and bringing killing into it and putting them together. Sounds so 'reasonable' thus another way to be led into violence is o.k. type thinking. If you really wan't to see the difference you would have to practice from the view of no violence for whatever reason no matter what your logic thinks. Now that's a discipline of self, mind, and action. Until a person practices such how can they see better solutions?

No, as long as violence and harm is dressed up in 'reason' then we don't have to look at all really. We can all be blind sheep. Actually violent sheep.

Certain truths need to be faced. A hunter does indeed have violence in mind and the intention is violent and harmful. Now justifying it and when it might be necessary is one thing and a good study but not at the expense of what is. It is. Start from there.

IT is malevelant, it is not natural. That's the starting point without which we are not facing reality let alone any truth.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

A second point I'd like to bring up here is Aikido techniques. The alterations in them, subtle, make them perfect as non-violent techniques.

Not that I've met too many who understand this or have ever differentiated in this way

So through thousands of corrections over the years I did come to the belief that most didn't understand. I found then that on here that would be taken as insult, shame. Such is my experience.

I have been shown we do it this way here and this way over here and we were told this and we were told that.I'm used to it, it's nothing new in my world. However virtually all of the techniques done in ways different to mine fitted a lack of understanding, if I consider my understanding correct that is, and all when corrected resulted in the person with a 'light bulb' coming on in their heads and at last having it make sense.

A technique that doesn't harm. A technique that doesn't rely on uke having to do something to avoid pain. A technique devoid of force or violence. A technique the violent mind is not used to. A technique based on the natural way of Ki and love.

A different world.

Regards.G.

[Joe McParland]

Here is a concept to ponder. What if I got a bunch of my friends and we decided to simply walk into your dojo, take it over and refused to leave and cooperate. I decided that I was now in charge and I was going to run things my way or you would have to fight me and all my friends.

Good to see you on AikiWeb again, Kevin! Are you around DC again or in Germany?

[gates]

Violence is harmful. It's not natural to harm. Only to those who validate the violent mind

Firstly I want to say I think you are great.
Secondly I want to say what is this nonsense you babble?

I hear what you are saying but I struggling to follow. I don't see it as being about validation,I think it is about understanding. Understanding that violence is to the long end of a stick, what peace is to the short end.

That is to say that they are dipoles, each implies and even necessitates the existence of the other. You can't have a one ended stick. Just as there cannot be a crest of a wave without a trough, or light without darkness. Without an opening there can be nothing to close. Without a start there can be no finish, without death there can be no life. Without 'Violence' there can be no 'peace', Without Uke there can be no Nage.

Compassion stems from wisdom. To see and understand violence within oneself you can see and sympathise with another persons emotional state more readily, with less judgement.

Graham, I labour the point.
It is not about validation as you seem to suggest. It is about understanding. One example: Incidents of head trauma can cause dramatic personality changes and cause perfectly 'normal' people to completely lose control of their temper, resulting in terrible consequences. (damage to the emotional control centre of the brain)

You say "violence is harmful, it's not natural to harm". I think this kind of rhetoric neither leads to greater understanding, wisdom or compassion. It is an idealistic and somewhat blinkered view of the total human condition.

Keith

[Tim Ruijs]

Violence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Take a look at the animal kingdom. A lion attackes prey and kills (typically) by going for the throat and suffocate the victim. When hunting in groups, the other lions go for the soft tissue area (stomach/abdomen) and rip the victim apart and start eating it alive. Now we might consider this violent, but the lions won't. It is their nature. A praying mantiss bites of the partner's head after sex...
Snakes devour prey whole as do some other animals. Ever seen a crocodile take down a wildebeast?

I think there is difference between (perceived) violence because of natural instinct and intentional violence (malicious act for the sake of violence).

[Kevin Leavitt]

Forest fires are violence in nature, but we have found them to be helpful in the greater scheme of things.

Also on Ghandi. His turn the other cheek strategy worked because of the political world he lived in allowed this to be a good strategy. The conditions were right. There is a bigger picture to all this than the idesal a of one person.

Again, what worked in India did not work so well in Tibet. It could have led to more suffering. Then again, maybe we are also looking too short term.

I think the middle road approach is what is best in todays world with a few exceptions going left or right of the road when necessary.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Violence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Take a look at the animal kingdom. A lion attackes prey and kills (typically) by going for the throat and suffocate the victim. When hunting in groups, the other lions go for the soft tissue area (stomach/abdomen) and rip the victim apart and start eating it alive. Now we might consider this violent, but the lions won't. It is their nature. A praying mantiss bites of the partner's head after sex...
Snakes devour prey whole as do some other animals. Ever seen a crocodile take down a wildebeast?

I think there is difference between (perceived) violence because of natural instinct and intentional violence (malicious act for the sake of violence).

Yes I agree. There is a difference. It is the intent behind the violence or killing that means everything.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Good to see you on AikiWeb again, Kevin! Are you around DC again or in Germany?

Thanks Joe. I am out of the Pentagon and back over in Germany thank God!

[SeiserL]

It is the intent behind the violence or killing that means everything.
Yes agreed.
Intent and intensity.

[graham christian]

Firstly I want to say I think you are great.
Secondly I want to say what is this nonsense you babble?

I hear what you are saying but I struggling to follow. I don't see it as being about validation,I think it is about understanding. Understanding that violence is to the long end of a stick, what peace is to the short end.

That is to say that they are dipoles, each implies and even necessitates the existence of the other. You can't have a one ended stick. Just as there cannot be a crest of a wave without a trough, or light without darkness. Without an opening there can be nothing to close. Without a start there can be no finish, without death there can be no life. Without 'Violence' there can be no 'peace', Without Uke there can be no Nage.

Compassion stems from wisdom. To see and understand violence within oneself you can see and sympathise with another persons emotional state more readily, with less judgement.

Graham, I labour the point.
It is not about validation as you seem to suggest. It is about understanding. One example: Incidents of head trauma can cause dramatic personality changes and cause perfectly 'normal' people to completely lose control of their temper, resulting in terrible consequences. (damage to the emotional control centre of the brain)

You say "violence is harmful, it's not natural to harm". I think this kind of rhetoric neither leads to greater understanding, wisdom or compassion. It is an idealistic and somewhat blinkered view of the total human condition.

Keith

Well may I say that if I am great and what I say is nonsense then it must be great nonsense.

So let's see now, you like great nonsense but struggle to follow it. Mmmmm. Not surprising. Ha, ha.

O.K. Wisdom is a component of compassion along with other qualities. From compassion one can see clearly yes. Thus you can understand better. Yes. So I agree it is a matter of understanding. (However I wouldn't use the word sympathy myself, empathy yes.) So we are in agreement so far, yes?

Now for the difference. There are different levels of understanding. You have your understanding and I have mine.

So now validation. It looks like we are using the word in different ways or else I apply a datum you are unaware of so I should explain.

That which you validate lives. That's a rule I follow. If you validate bad behaviour then you get more bad behaviour. If you validate something you are giving it life, more existence, more power.

In this way I see that the validation of violence creates more violence.

Thus you can understand something negative or untoward but validating it makes it worse. Acknowledge it as real yes, validate it no.

I can acknowledge violence and handle it but validate it , nah. I'll leave that to others.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Yes agreed.
Intent and intensity.

What people need to wake up to is that apart from accidents all harmful actions are preceded by harmful intent.

Without this reality all you do is justify and hide from self.

Regards.G.

[mathewjgano]

What people need to wake up to is that apart from accidents all harmful actions are preceded by harmful intent.

Without this reality all you do is justify and hide from self.

Regards.G.

Do you mean that by causing harm you're acting with a kind of intent that isn't attentive enough; that intent which is negligent is necessarily harmful intent? It depends on the semantics of the terms: intent which turns out to be harmful is different than intent that is designed to be harmful. So in the sense of describing the purpose behind the intent, not all accidents are preceded by harmful intent. Harmless intent can be harmful just as harmful intent can be harmless; you can do your best and still fail...hence the need to train ceaselessly.
Take care,
Matt

[graham christian]

Do you mean that by causing harm you're acting with a kind of intent that isn't attentive enough; that intent which is negligent is necessarily harmful intent? It depends on the semantics of the terms: intent which turns out to be harmful is different than intent that is designed to be harmful. So in the sense of describing the purpose behind the intent, not all accidents are preceded by harmful intent. Harmless intent can be harmful just as harmful intent can be harmless; you can do your best and still fail...hence the need to train ceaselessly.
Take care,
Matt

Hi Matthew. I did say apart from accidents.

Funny thing is that every time a person with such causes harm they then justify it by saying it's an accident.

Let's put it another way. I meet someone who does Aikido, he just so happens to complain and tell me about all the times damage has resulted from his Aikido in practice. All well justified to himself.

Mmmm. A trail of 'accidents.'

I proceed to train with him and get him to show me his skill.

He stops confused. It doesn't make sense. It usually works but against me it doesn't. He's confused.
I point out he's using force, that's why, and get him bit by bit to replace it with Ki.

Now, he's getting it bit by bit bujt bumps into this confusion again. It don't make sense once again. He sees it works but it don't make sense.

Why? Because it doesn't fit his usual parameters of thought. I then proceed to chat to him and find out what he actually thinks he should do and why. I uncover his thoughts, his intentions, what he thinks should be. Oh dear, there they are, harmful intentions.

He didn't know there was a way to do it without them. He's been doing Aikido x years and no one ever told him. Things begin to make sense.

Regards.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

So you are saying the reason he cannot do it "with ki" is because of his harmful intent or state mind. I am going to assume by ki you mean without effort, softly, blending, or whatever commonly gets interpreted as ki as opposed to the opposite of ki which I think u mean force, strentgh, sped, timing, muscle.

[Abasan]

I'd think Graham means spirit more than ki. Ki is neutral and can be used either way. Intent a bit higher than ki, spirit higher still. You can still use soft techniques and blending and what not but ultimately leading to uke's demise. Those soft skills while physically its not violent, comes with violent intentions.

True aikido goes beyond soft skills, but to ingrain a better spirit in oneself. One that doesn't have cause to harm another, this leads to anyone seeking to harm him to ultimately end up fighting themselves. But since Graham likes lone wolf so much, he should look up the chapter on killing Buddha on what I meant about natural violence. He doesn't want to, he just does.

[mathewjgano]

Hi Matthew. I did say apart from accidents.

Funny thing is that every time a person with such causes harm they then justify it by saying it's an accident.

Let's put it another way. I meet someone who does Aikido, he just so happens to complain and tell me about all the times damage has resulted from his Aikido in practice. All well justified to himself.

Mmmm. A trail of 'accidents.'

Hi Graham,
LOL! Sorry I missed that in the very first sentence. Holy cow I scare myself sometimes. My excuse at present is that I've been living off 3 hours of sleep the last week or so. Still...wow. Well at least I got 14 hours of sleep the other day so my excuse is gone for the time being.
...And humility is yet again reinforced. :D

Anyhow, I agree accidents are often too easily written off as "beyond my control." It extends to intended acts of violence too. "Look what you made me do," and all that.
Cheers!
Matt

[graham christian]

So you are saying the reason he cannot do it "with ki" is because of his harmful intent or state mind. I am going to assume by ki you mean without effort, softly, blending, or whatever commonly gets interpreted as ki as opposed to the opposite of ki which I think u mean force, strentgh, sped, timing, muscle.

Kind of but not quite.

He is running into something he knows not what. I do get him to relax more and use Ki yes along with anything else that may be out, be it technical, positional, mind etc. But yes the main important one I would be emphasizing is Ki.

Now he may be someone who 'uses Ki' already and thinks he's relaxed. But the same applies for there are many misunderstandings about Ki also. All those misunderstandings are based on wrong intentions and false understandings.

By Ki I mean that energy which is of course spiritual but you could say it is life energy, healing energy.
Opposite to Ki? I try to keep away from using the word opposite but rather get people to recognise what it's not so yes it's not force or muscle or that kind of strength.

As for timing and speed well that does have something to do with Ki as well as other factors.

From harmful intention you may produce an energy but that energy isn't Ki no matter how many 'experts' say it is.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

Hi Graham,
LOL! Sorry I missed that in the very first sentence. Holy cow I scare myself sometimes. My excuse at present is that I've been living off 3 hours of sleep the last week or so. Still...wow. Well at least I got 14 hours of sleep the other day so my excuse is gone for the time being.
...And humility is yet again reinforced. :D

Anyhow, I agree accidents are often too easily written off as "beyond my control." It extends to intended acts of violence too. "Look what you made me do," and all that.
Cheers!
Matt

Nah, excuses, you had harmful intent. Ha, ha, only joking. Yeah I understand, I was doing some night shifts last week and couldn't sleep much in the day and then it caught up. Strange things happen when your tired. In fact at work if a few minor things happen like losing pencil, dropping something and missing something all in a short space of time I know it's time to stop. Go take a break, even if it's for five minutes rest. Maybe grab a bite to eat etc.

Regards.G.

[graham christian]

I'd think Graham means spirit more than ki. Ki is neutral and can be used either way. Intent a bit higher than ki, spirit higher still. You can still use soft techniques and blending and what not but ultimately leading to uke's demise. Those soft skills while physically its not violent, comes with violent intentions.

True aikido goes beyond soft skills, but to ingrain a better spirit in oneself. One that doesn't have cause to harm another, this leads to anyone seeking to harm him to ultimately end up fighting themselves. But since Graham likes lone wolf so much, he should look up the chapter on killing Buddha on what I meant about natural violence. He doesn't want to, he just does.

Hi Ahmad.

Just to clear my view or my understanding for you.

For me Ki is spiritual and neutral in as much as it is non-resistive. But neutral cannot contain harmful intent.

So my view on neutral is very different to yours I would say. Thus it doesn't mean 'without' for neutral is active. Thus Ki is active, love is active, kindness is active and all are neutral. Being non-resistive they are infinite and don't 'choose' so to speak and thus the saying you can love your enemy.

Lone wolf I would say is already motivated by bad intention, purpose a decision for revenge throughout. If he looked inside himself, beyond the numb facade he would indeed find he does wan't to and beyond that if he looked further he would find in truth he doesn't.

He's trying to be as a robot but in so doing hiding and destroying his true self, a self that feels betrayed.

Such is my view.

Regards.G.

[Abasan]

Graham,

With respect then our views are different from each other. For me ki is nothing more than an invisible part of our body just like blood or muscle. Intangible to the eyes but tangible enough that trained people can use it to perform certain things like manipulate physical bodies without physical contact. These can be healing of self or others, causing heat and even light fires, or cutting things like paper from a distant. The examples I cite of course are not trained in Aikido thus most of us will not be familiar with it, but it exists in other schools.

So in effect, as a tool of your self it is neutral and can be used for good or evil intentions.

Man has been given self awareness that allows him the ability to manipulate his own decisions. Decisions that may run contrary to his spirit or true self. To me in any decision that he makes that runs contrary to his true self, it would be a violent one.

When people say selflessness, it is a misnomer. What they mean is egoless and is actually as close as you can get to achieving unity with your true self. A true self will not aspire to violence, but will in the natural cause of things kill animals to survive, kill malefactors that will destroy society, because it is the natural order of things not because he Wants to. He does this without his ego coming into the picture.

Aiki too should have different levels. In the beginning with conscious intention just like any other tool or knowledge, to be applied. And finally when it becomes in grain to your true self, unconsciously applied. You can emanate good ki unconsciously, it doesn't make ki good or bad.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Bowing out. Conversation is going into an area that I am not able to discuss with any degree of intelligence or rationality. Appreciate you guys allowing me to share my views.

[graham christian]

Ahmad and Kevin, thank you. We did indeed share our views. Respect.

Regards.G.

[Ken McGrew]

When discussing Aikido and it's benefits for dissipating violence, we could separate the training process itself and the application of Aikido in a self defense situation.

Aikido training, if practices in a non-impositional and cooperative manner, cultivates in a person the willingness to walk away from a fight. We could debate what O Sensei would have thought about violence and mercy. He was a strict vegetarian. There is good reason to believe, meaning loads of information to indicate, that he wanted to change his ways after the war. I think Graham is describing the highest ideal that O Sensei encouraged us to strive towards. So the training process itself dissipates violence in us if we let it.

As to the application to self defense things get tricky. You could strive to avoid any harm to an attacker. If you were unable to defend yourself without harming the attacker you could allow the attacker to harm you. That is an ethical choice. If you aren't willing to sacrifice injury for your ideals, then you could strive to minimize harm to the attacker. Often times an attack my place an attacker in a very dangerous situation. You simply blend at the right time and the attacker flies head first into a object that seriously injures or kills him. In such a situation you can attempt to prevent this by protecting the attacker but it is still possible that you will fail in your efforts. Even a controlling technique like ikyo and pen can result in injuries. Even minor injuries like scrapes can occur if nothing else.

Having said this I am not sure, Graham, if you consider it violence if an attacker hurts himself from the attack.

I certainly agree that Aikido works as an art when you don't try to impose. I also agree that Aikido training can be a way to work the violence, and other things, out of ourselves. I can accept the idea that it is violence when you use Aikido to harm an attacker. Even if that's all you could do to protect yourself, it could still be considered necessary but unfortunate violence. We are talking about ideals. The goal should be that there is no injury to anyone. In practice, however, it may be impossible to protect Uke from his own violence or to defend yourself without resorting to violence. Are you saying something different?

[graham christian]

When discussing Aikido and it's benefits for dissipating violence, we could separate the training process itself and the application of Aikido in a self defense situation.

Aikido training, if practices in a non-impositional and cooperative manner, cultivates in a person the willingness to walk away from a fight. We could debate what O Sensei would have thought about violence and mercy. He was a strict vegetarian. There is good reason to believe, meaning loads of information to indicate, that he wanted to change his ways after the war. I think Graham is describing the highest ideal that O Sensei encouraged us to strive towards. So the training process itself dissipates violence in us if we let it.

As to the application to self defense things get tricky. You could strive to avoid any harm to an attacker. If you were unable to defend yourself without harming the attacker you could allow the attacker to harm you. That is an ethical choice. If you aren't willing to sacrifice injury for your ideals, then you could strive to minimize harm to the attacker. Often times an attack my place an attacker in a very dangerous situation. You simply blend at the right time and the attacker flies head first into a object that seriously injures or kills him. In such a situation you can attempt to prevent this by protecting the attacker but it is still possible that you will fail in your efforts. Even a controlling technique like ikyo and pen can result in injuries. Even minor injuries like scrapes can occur if nothing else.

Having said this I am not sure, Graham, if you consider it violence if an attacker hurts himself from the attack.

I certainly agree that Aikido works as an art when you don't try to impose. I also agree that Aikido training can be a way to work the violence, and other things, out of ourselves. I can accept the idea that it is violence when you use Aikido to harm an attacker. Even if that's all you could do to protect yourself, it could still be considered necessary but unfortunate violence. We are talking about ideals. The goal should be that there is no injury to anyone. In practice, however, it may be impossible to protect Uke from his own violence or to defend yourself without resorting to violence. Are you saying something different?

If an attacker hurts himself whilst you are being non-violent then I would consider he has become the effect of his own violence.

Thus I say Aikido can be taken to the level of protecting the attacker even from himself and hence fulfil the spirit of loving protection.

Now when I do this from the outside it looks like uke couldn't have been attacking properly or is unstable etc. Well, that's how it can look to those who haven't experienced it. However, to keep it in the realms of what most are used to may I refer you to ukemi.

I have had students do ukemi who can't do ukemi. I have had one student who is quite stiff and questioned the use of ukemi taken off of his feet and spun in a perfect verticle circle and end up back on his feet in exactly the same position from kaitenage. No foreward motion at all.

The point I was demonstrating was that the nage can create and execute the ukemi for the uke regardless of if the uke wants to do it or not. Thus when Ueshiba did projections I would say he was creating the ukemi and the uke had no choice but to end up doing one and thus it was Ueshiba protecting the attacker. He could have just thrown them into the wall but that wouldn't be harmonious now would it and also it wouldn't protect them.

These are ideals which fit with the theory and to a large extent I already know can be put into effect.

So saying that in practice it may be impossible to so do I would disagree because to me nothing is impossible. There is only can I do it yet and am I progressing more and more towards that goal. That's all.

Meanwhile if someone brings in the usual 'yeah but what if' scenario then for me it's merely their own fear talking.

Whatever happens I do Aikido to the best of my ability and that's all.

Regards.G.

[valjean]

i've always wondered about the Healing Sword. What does that concept mean? How does a sword heal?

Not sure if this is what Graham meant, but isn't a surgical scalpel literally a "healing sword?"

[Kevin Leavitt]

yes, I suppose a scalpel could be considered a healing sword! Thanks for the example. Ahh..but there in is the paradox! the Scalpel must still cut or injure in order to heal!

It doesn't look at the wound and say "I am not going to touch you...in fact I am going to avoid you, and because of this, you will heal and repair".

[genin]

You could heat the tip of the sword and use that to cauterize an open wound--instantly sealing, and technically, healing the wound.

[TimB99]

And thus the wait is on for aiki genetherapy