Vantage points

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[DH]

I am choosing to reply here to an off topic post that appeared in the Aikido no Rentai thread (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=320981#post320981) so as not to derail the thread. Since Krystal was responding to Cady off topic and about IP, I thought I would put it here:
The words you use here and in other posts (the one you referenced, for example) that give me real pause when discussing IP stuff are "precious", "patents and copyrights", and "proprietary". Those words when added to the IHTBF claim really smells bad to me, especially when I can't seem to get much substantial technical info (physics, biomechanics, definitions) about what is happening. The rancor between people discussing IP along with the whiff of profit motive keeps me firmly in the skeptic's camp.
Well I think your response here is a very fine case in point.
I have saved entire threads to track how they went down hill. I have shown some of them to Jun. Your's is another example:

You came in off topic
Stated some one's view smell bad (by default a negative insinuation)
Discussed the "wiff of profit" for IP folks, but not caring to mention the extortion rates of some Japanese teachers seminars (how does a flat fee of $5,000 plus first class air fair and hotels and food), and the money they charge for rank. Why aren't we discussing that? Would you like to name names? No? Then why point out us alone? Is there a reason?
You noted "rancor in IP discussions"
Where does it come from? Have you looked into it. Have you noted long threads and where the attacks begin?
What could trigger "rancor" in your off topic response to a thread discussing IP?


Vantage points
You stated
I intend to make an IP seminar next year, if not a couple. I will feel this for myself.
I prefer to rely upon a strong consensus from a large number of people who are also predominantly rational and trained in examining physical phenomena.
I am happy to be a data point, I am happy to give my most rational assessment of my experience, and I am thrilled to hear from others. I've read enough to agree that there is something worth looking at, questions need to be asked, explored and answered to the extent possible. I am not yet satisfied by other people's answers, or their questions, for that matter.

So from your vantage point:
1. You want to feel it for yourself. Good
2. You prefer to rely on a strong consensus. Okay.
My vantage point:
How does just under 100% Sound to you? That is what we are seeing as the "IP crowd. To put it another way, have you heard a bunch of people come on to the web and say "Ya, I can do that stuff?" I haven't! Have you heard a bunch of people say, we already do that? I haven't. Have you read or heard of a significant number of people stating something, anything... negative to counter the overwhelmingly positive feedback? I haven't.
What you have heard (if you are paying attention) is an incredible amount of people stating that they were impressed and were changing their practice....forever! And that they simply could not handle the IP teachers. It's here in writing.

Have you asked or looked into the feedback from the seminars? Behind the scenes, more and more high ranking teachers in aikido (including a life long friend of Doshu) have listened to the overwhelming evidence of their peers switching to this training. Why...hasn't the community at large looked into or noted the continuous stream of positive affirmations of those training IP?

Were the IP a new brand of car getting these kinds of positive results they would take over the market.

Your vantage point:
A side note. One projection of "dual opposing spirals" is a lissajous. It does not follow that a lissajous is necessarily a projection of "dual opposing spirals". My evidentiary standards are pretty high. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
My view:
Are your standards higher than 17 Shihan, 6 6th dans and 52 go dans and hundreds of others? And that is just with me. Now add those training with other IP guys. Perhaps-as a standard- a bit of research and review would help attain a more balanced view. Wouldn't that at least be more positive than talking about things smelling bad, a wiff or profit, and rancor?

As it is, the Lissajous curve has nothing to do with the body technology that was discussed By Morihei Ueshiba. And more interesting for me, is here again there is no mention of Ueshiba stating something that existed in the very arts he studied, and the classical arts he pointed to, instead we see a complete ignoring of that, and we segue into models for things you have no information or experience in. To equate the dual opposing spirals to a mathmatical curve, while ignoring the founders own statement about them, while ignoring their place in other arts, while openly not understanding them, and in the process ignoring hundreds of Aikido teachers testament to the validity of the very thing you are arguing against. High standards? This certainly doesn't seem a good strategy or approach to research.

Your vantage point:
I've gotten some response for expressing my discomfort with what seems like a profit motive. It is argued that the vast majority of aikido teacher teach for money, and that is certainly true. However, I have met few aikido teachers, and few martial arts teachers in general who use nondisclosure agreements and who forbid basic recording of their seminars. I have agreed a few times to not share the good and useful stuff I've learned in a class, but I dont really fully buy the whole secret art that is too deadly for mere folks can cause demonic health problems song and dance when the agreement is viewed under the spotlight of protecting paid access to a product provided by few individuals. Precious patented and copyrighted proprietary product, or a true return to real aikido? I dont know. I'm just uneasy with the tone of some of the discussion. The responses have not fully eased my mind.

My view:
So tell me. Can you think of anything positive to say about why someone would not produce video or want people to discuss the material?
Anything? Anything at all? Anything come to mind?

If the wiff of profit, profit as thee one and only motive, left a bad smell in your mind...How then, does someone answer your cry for more "products for sale" like video? It sounds like a "no win" set up to me.

1. Sagawa did not produce video and stayed in his own dojo.
2, I have not produced video and stayed in my own dojo for 22 years until I was asked- even chastised- to openly teach.
Can you find anything positive to say about those two examples? Anything? Anything at all?


Can we agree on this?

Choices for better discussions
We can agree to disagree
We can choose to be nice
We can choose to think the best of other peoples motives
We can choose not to assume that when other people do not agree with our way of thinking, that it isn't for negative reasons.
We can choose to ask instead of insinuate

You wanted to talk about IP. Okay, as far as IP
Can we do it without being angry?
Can we assume the best of our motives?
Can we acknowledge the forward progression of IP discussions on the web? How did these discussions start many years ago. It started with those doing IP/aiki being openly derided for stating that this work is different and is the foundation of aikido.
What Happened?
Every....single....Aikido teacher who went to test....failed.
To my knowledge just about every, single, Aikido teacher who went...switched.
Why isn't that mentioned?
For starters:
1. What does it mean, that this has and is... taking place over and over again?
2. What does it mean that it is routinely ignored in the discussion?

These are some pretty serious questions to ask, given that the success rates we are seeing are the result of OUR high standards and hard work.

I think we should begin by talking about those results and why hundreds of teachers (many who are members here who were openly against this) would switch their entire practice to include this. Isn't that a better tact then insinuating all sorts of negative motivations? I at least hope that as a discussion it can include a discussion...of those successes. Something else worth consideration is the fact that most of us who have met, have now become friends. I find that as fulfilling as the work itself.
Dan

[mathewjgano]

Just wanted to contribute what I can to this. I can appreciate where people are coming from when it comes to the profit motive. While I didn't make any assumptions in this regard, when I first began reading these threads and their testimonials (which these threads often produce in abundance) they hit me like an advertizement.
That being said, while I am sure it varies depending on the needs of the venue, my extremely brief exposure to your seminar left me fairly confident that there is more than mere salesmanship going on; I was told to pay what I could afford and was given no demand for what that should be. If I had more time and money (paying is only fair after all) I would definately attend more. Comparing the 2 "IP" seminars I attended (and I only caught a cursory glimpse of those) with others I was hoping to attend, the price was the most affordable.
It was only after reading what certain people had to say here on AikiWeb that my suspension of belief changed to believing it would be worthwhile to check it out. I'm only a beginner, but from what I could see, at the very least there is good stuff being taught (i.e. applies to all ranges of skill, or at least the ones for which I believe I have some recognition) and the exposure to the other folks who attended made it worthwhile in its own right.
The biggest problem I see with these conversations has to do with differences in personality and communication style. For many, the message isn't often put in a user-friendly manner and is rarely apologetic for this fact. Only in the last year or so have I perceived a change in this approach...and I am very happy to see it because, yes, I do see these IP conversations moving forward, even if sometimes only by inches.
"Whatever" though...we all progress in our own time and in our own ways. What matters is that we maintain connection and keep ironing it out, doing our best not to get frustrated to the point where it interferes with how we engage each other, or worse yet perhaps, stop trying altogether.
...my wooden nickle...
Sincerely,
Matthew

[Chris Li]

I've said it before, but I really don't get the profit motive stuff. I know for a fact that Dan doesn't make much money on this stuff, doesn't run a commercial dojo, and doesn't make a living out of it.

Even if he did, so what? Morihei Ueshiba taught for money - Sokaku Takeda. Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Koichi Tohei, Gozo Shioda, Yoshimitsu Yamada, Mitsugi Saotome, Kazuo Chiba, Hiroshi Ikeda and all the rest taught/teach for money (and a lot more money than Dan ever makes), sold books/videos/t-shirts and whatever and nobody blinks an eye.

And what about the "secrets"?


However, I have met few aikido teachers, and few martial arts teachers in general who use nondisclosure agreements and who forbid basic recording of their seminars. I have agreed a few times to not share the good and useful stuff I've learned in a class, but I dont really fully buy the whole secret art that is too deadly for mere folks can cause demonic health problems song and dance when the agreement is viewed under the spotlight of protecting paid access to a product provided by few individuals. Precious patented and copyrighted proprietary product, or a true return to real aikido? I dont know. I'm just uneasy with the tone of some of the discussion. The responses have not fully eased my mind.

First of all, I don't think anybody has really spoken about "demonic health problems" (Lee Price mentioned something along those lines, but AFAIK he's never met Dan, and I don't know whose training he's referring to).

I've never signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Many places that I trained at in Japan prohibit basic recording of some or all of what they're doing. You can't even take video or still photos at Aikikai Hombu without special permission.

Morihei Ueshiba did not allow certain things to be filmed, or even seen publicly. Sokaku Takeda was the same.

Sagawa Dojo is the same to this day, as is the Kodokai.

The Ki Society only releases certain materials to their members.

Mitsugi Saotome did the same thing, when he first produced a two-sword video.

Hiroshi Ikeda only sells certain DVD's to people who have attended certain workshops.

Now, in Dan's case you'll have to ask him, but it's certainly not about proprietary information - one of the requirements that he imposed when he started teaching this stuff publicly was that people would not hoard this stuff to themselves.

However, it is very difficult to transmit in any detail over the internet without a common frame of reference.

If you've ever done any tech support over the phone you should know - how hard is it to explain logging into Facebook to your 80 year old Grandmother? And that's a simple technical sequence with discrete, easily describable physical steps.

The last time I tried something similar I had to ask for a screenshot - and they emailed a picture of their monitor taken with a digital camera (a true story!).

As for videos, they aren't much use, and often cause more trouble than they're worth (they don't seem to settly too many arguments around here, do they?). There are a lot of videos out - if watching them got you anywhere then people would already be able to do this stuff.

The acrimony? This stuff isn't new, it's been the subject of acrimonious discussions on the internet for at least 15 years. For most of that time people like Dan and Mike Sigman (if I can dare to mention them both in the same sentence!) were on the receiving end - a lot of that from me, I'm sorry to say.

Well, times have changed, it seems, and those two are no longer speaking alone when talking about this stuff (which should tell you quite a bit, I would think), but it's hard for many people to imagine that they don't really understand the things that they've been training in and teaching for twenty, thirty years and more, that there's much more work to do. That they weren't even close, in many ways.

It's hard for them to take the chance.

But I did...

Best,

Chris

[Michael Varin]

Frankly, I don't know why people bring up a "profit motive" either.

I don't know much about Dan's seminars or travel expenses. I'm not even in the "IP/IT/IS crowd," but who cares?

If he teaches something that people find value in, than there is no issue as I see it.

I have attended many seminars that are much more expensive than Dan's.

Bottom line, there is no free lunch.

Now, if you suspect that what Dan is teaching isn't as valuable as the price, don't pay it. I don't buy coffee from Starbucks, but practically everyone I work with does. It's not a problem for me, or them.

[Mert Gambito]

Now, in Dan's case you'll have to ask him, but it's certainly not about proprietary information - one of the requirements that he imposed when he started teaching this stuff publicly was that people would not hoard this stuff to themselves.

However, it is very difficult to transmit in any detail over the internet without a common frame of reference.

Yeah, the responsible thing to do, at least for the next few years, is to defer to those who've been pursuing IP/IS for multiple decades and are widely vetted as skilled. Skeptics can wait a few years until our generation of IP/IS seekers, who skeptics may currently see as sycophants, can adequately prove up -- but time is precious, and we're talking about years potentially wasted for no good reason.

[Cady Goldfield]

Regarding proprietary material, some thoughts on a couple of vantage points:

Some of the things IMO are proprietary in the sense that they are personal training methods that were not meant for indiscriminate public broadcast. The core concepts are not themselves proprietary, but the means for developing the skills are someone's creative approach and invention, devised not in a vacuum, of course (everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, after all), but nevertheless a unique and individualized system of training.

It's one thing for IP teachers to state to those training with them that they should (or must) share it with their own students; another thing altogether, for relative- or complete strangers on the Internet to demand specifics about training, videos, etc.

When there is no personal relationship or oversight by the original teacher, information can be scattered to the four winds and claimed by many as their own... with no guarantee that they are actually doing it the way (and to the same result) as the originator. There has to be some modicum of quality control over the material. I'm not talking about stylistic tweaks - but of wholesale misinterpretations of the core concepts and bodywork themselves that lead to something else that does not have the integrity of the original.

That said, some teachers will say that their arts are self-selecting, meaning that even if their personal, creative training methods are broadcast and scattered to the winds, out on YouTube in numerous instructional videos, or "stolen" by casual seminar attendees, only the most dedicated individuals will actually do the work and make something of it.

So, they either try to maintain some kind of oversight, so people at least know and honestly state where their methods came from, or they let it go and let the chips fall where they may.

Or, they copyright their method and system name, and treat it as a business. Or, they only teach the whole enchilada to one or two people, and give the rest varying degrees of various skills, and forbid them to go out on their own and teach it (but if they do, they have to call it something else).

But for us to claim that all material should belong to the world and everyone, including unique training methods that some individual's hard work and creativity devised... well, that should be up to the individual creator to decide. Why is it so difficult to consider this? Why can't I play "Rite of Spring" on my penny whistle and claim that I wrote it? Maybe because some people will suspect I ripped off Stravinsky, no? But I can claim that I am doing a cover of Stravinsky and have adapted it for penny whistle. That, people might accept. "Rite of Spring" may belong to the world as a treasure of human creativity; anyone can play it, whether in a symphonic orchestra or on a tin whistle, but it is still Stravinsky's creative invention, proprietary to him, and he must be credited as its creator if we are to maintain our own integrity.

[Chris Li]

When there is no personal relationship or oversight by the original teacher, information can be scattered to the four winds and claimed by many as their own... with no guarantee that they are actually doing it the way (and to the same result) as the originator. There has to be some modicum of auality control over the material. I'm not talking about stylistic tweaks - but of wholesale misinterpretations of the core concepts and bodywork themselves that lead to something else that does not have the integrity of the original.

"The secrets protect themselves"
-Sam Chin

Best,

Chris

[Cady Goldfield]

Exactly!
:)

[Chris Li]

Exactly!
:)

Glad you got it! I just noticed that I quoted the wrong paragraph - meant to get the next one. Back to training, I guess... :)

Best,

Chris

[Cady Goldfield]

I knew what you were referring to...though I kinda wondered why you selected that paragraph to use for the Sam Chin quote. He is exactly the person (well, one of two) I was thinking of when I wrote about those who view their arts as being self-selecting to those willing to do the work.

[sakumeikan]

I've said it before, but I really don't get the profit motive stuff. I know for a fact that Dan doesn't make much money on this stuff, doesn't run a commercial dojo, and doesn't make a living out of it.

Even if he did, so what? Morihei Ueshiba taught for money - Sokaku Takeda. Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Koichi Tohei, Gozo Shioda, Yoshimitsu Yamada, Mitsugi Saotome, Kazuo Chiba, Hiroshi Ikeda and all the rest taught/teach for money (and a lot more money than Dan ever makes), sold books/videos/t-shirts and whatever and nobody blinks an eye.

And what about the "secrets"?

First of all, I don't think anybody has really spoken about "demonic health problems" (Lee Price mentioned something along those lines, but AFAIK he's never met Dan, and I don't know whose training he's referring to).

I've never signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Many places that I trained at in Japan prohibit basic recording of some or all of what they're doing. You can't even take video or still photos at Aikikai Hombu without special permission.

Morihei Ueshiba did not allow certain things to be filmed, or even seen publicly. Sokaku Takeda was the same.

Sagawa Dojo is the same to this day, as is the Kodokai.

The Ki Society only releases certain materials to their members.

Mitsugi Saotome did the same thing, when he first produced a two-sword video.

Hiroshi Ikeda only sells certain DVD's to people who have attended certain workshops.

Now, in Dan's case you'll have to ask him, but it's certainly not about proprietary information - one of the requirements that he imposed when he started teaching this stuff publicly was that people would not hoard this stuff to themselves.

However, it is very difficult to transmit in any detail over the internet without a common frame of reference.

If you've ever done any tech support over the phone you should know - how hard is it to explain logging into Facebook to your 80 year old Grandmother? And that's a simple technical sequence with discrete, easily describable physical steps.

The last time I tried something similar I had to ask for a screenshot - and they emailed a picture of their monitor taken with a digital camera (a true story!).

As for videos, they aren't much use, and often cause more trouble than they're worth (they don't seem to settly too many arguments around here, do they?). There are a lot of videos out - if watching them got you anywhere then people would already be able to do this stuff.

The acrimony? This stuff isn't new, it's been the subject of acrimonious discussions on the internet for at least 15 years. For most of that time people like Dan and Mike Sigman (if I can dare to mention them both in the same sentence!) were on the receiving end - a lot of that from me, I'm sorry to say.

Well, times have changed, it seems, and those two are no longer speaking alone when talking about this stuff (which should tell you quite a bit, I would think), but it's hard for many people to imagine that they don't really understand the things that they've been training in and teaching for twenty, thirty years and more, that there's much more work to do. That they weren't even close, in many ways.

It's hard for them to take the chance.

But I did...

Best,

Chris
Dear Chris,
Of course your listed named Aikido teachers charge fees , after all they are full time Aikidoka.I do not think that this is being a bread head.eg money men or unworthy. I know personally at least one person on your list who has donated his time and his fee to assist others.I also know that the course fees per person charged by our group are certainly less costly than the price per person at I/P related courses.Now I am not saying that the I/P instructors are overcharging for their services since I have no information concerning the overheads of the course.I am just saying there is a cost differential.The bottom line is that if one wants a product one pays the price,be it a tin of baked beans or an I/P course/Aikido seminar.One has a choice.
As far as video material is concerned I cannot speak for other groups or individuals but all our groups video material are available to all interested parties.In case anybody reading this thinks that sales of this material enables me to enjoy a Brad Pitt lifestyle[I wish ] all monies raised by my efforts go to our group to boost our funds.May I also state that in relation to prices charged by others for dvd material we do not charge an arm and a leg for our stuff?Happy New Year , Joe.

[Carsten Möllering]

the course fees per person charged by our group ...
Who is "our group"?
because:
I am just saying there is a cost differential.
I think it depends on whom do you compare to whom.
I don't see that practicing with Dan is more expensive than practising with other teachers comparable.
I myself only conducted one class of a seminar throughout my life. The seminar was for free.
I attended seminars that where much more expensive than Dan's are.

The bottom line is that if one wants a product one pays the price ...
For this is true I find it disgusting to discuss seminar fees in such a way. This would simply be impossible with other teachers.
And it is simply ridicoulus: I don't know wether you are used to inviting teachers from Japan or other countries overseas. Have you ever had to collect the money for a first class flight from Tokyo and a first class hotel in Berlin? Can you imagine what maybe twenty people would have to pay only for this? Thank god there are about 200 persons paying for the seminars plus we are using a part of the fees we collect in our federation.

As far as video material is concerned I cannot speak for other groups or individuals but all our groups video material are available to all interested parties.
Most teachers I know don't allow taking videos during regular classes or seminars. Even teachers who have released instructional DVD's don't like it or - even if asked - prohibit it. Some allow it only after having edited the video themselves. Or it's allowed to take a video but not to show it openly or load it up to youtube.

To me it's the same thing like talking about seminar fees:
No teacher I practiced with would ever discuss his teachings using a DVD or a youtube video. To me it is not only disrespectfull to demand this.
But what's more important: This is a youtubeish understanding of how budô is taught and learned. You will never get what a teacher has to give without moving yourself to get out and touch him. Going and get him is part of the learning.
Many teachers of "my group" are going to Japan to get their teacher. Other teachers went to Paris once a week for years.
I assume you also move yourself to be with your teacher(s). So why do you think this would not be appropriate in this case?

[sorokod]

Anyone can charge whatever they want for the product they are selling. Its their's to price.

The following quote from Dan Harden captures something fundamental in my opinion:


"Were the IP a new brand of car getting these kinds of positive results they would take over the market.

I do think that more than anything else, this is about branding and identity, the entity being branded is "Aiki". Which of the following is easier to market: "Dan Harden's training method" or "Aiki"?

[Cady Goldfield]

I do think that more than anything else, this is about branding and identity, the entity being branded is "Aiki".

I'd say that the analogy was perhaps not the best one, as this is not about "branding" anything. It's about trying to explain that what Morihei Ueshiba was doing, and talking about, was something completely different than the physical method that modern aikido is based on today, and that those who still know and practice aiki as it was known by Ueshiba and by Sokaku Takeda, are simply trying to convince modern aikido people of 1. its existance and 2. it's availability to be restored into modern aikido for those who would like to be able to experience aikido as Ueshiba could practice it.

The few Japanese arts that still maintain aiki within them, are not generally open to the "the world," and individuals who want to learn aiki must go through the process both of being accepted into those exclusive arts, and to have to learn the entire system in order to learn aiki. Even then, there is no guarantee that they will be taught the essense of aiki.

By contrast, there are a number of people who have the skills and are willing to teach them. And so far, looking at those who do offer this via school membership and/or seminars, it seems to me that what they are charging is extraordinarily inexpensive considering the value (IMO) of what students are receiving.

I mean, really!

Ask accountants, stockbrokers, doctors and lawyers about the questions they get at parties. People want free advice, for stuff that professionals charge by the hour for because it's their livelihood. They just nod and shrug, maybe a clipped "Thanks" if you do provide, but they get put off and sometimes huffy if you don't. What's offered "for free" is so often taken for granted.
Why should people who manage to make a livelihood from their knowledge, be criticized, while those who give it away don't earn any respect, either? Damned if you do or don't.

Be that as it may, some individuals have been incredibly fortunate to be given knowledge by others as a gift, one that, although it was a gift, came with an enormous burden of responsibility to do the work, to sweat, to be frustrated, sometimes to the point of tears. They got far more than they paid monetarily into it. Others pay a relatively few bucks and get some useful training, do the work, and gain skills, feeling they have gotten a great value for what they paid. Still others sit on the sidelines and gripe bitterly about folks whom they believe are hoarding knowledge and won't dish it or will do so for an outrageous $180 or whatever, for a paltry 24 hours of focused training. :rolleyes: Go figure...

[sorokod]

It's about trying to explain that what Morihei Ueshiba was doing, and talking about, was something completely different than the physical method that modern aikido is based on today, and that those who still know and practice aiki as it was known by Ueshiba and by Sokaku Takeda, are simply trying to convince modern aikido people of 1. its existance and 2. it's availability to be restored into modern aikido for those who would like to be able to experience aikido as Ueshiba could practice it.


Please define "Modern Aikido".


The few Japanese arts that still maintain aiki within them, are not generally open to the "the world," and individuals who want to learn aiki must go through the process both of being accepted into those exclusive arts, and to have to learn the entire system in order to learn aiki. Even then, there is no guarantee that they will be taught the essense of aiki.


Please name these arts.

As to the price of the product, I already said that in my opinion, Dan Harden is entitled to charge whatever he sees fit.

[Mary Eastland]

@ Carsten: Do you really think talking about money is disgusting? That seems like a strong word. I know some people think that money is private but disgusting???...could you talk more about why it is digusting?

I think it is important to talk about money. There is nothing to be ashamed of about making it. Many people seem to think that the IP seminars are worth paying for. That is wonderful.

[MM]

I do think that more than anything else, this is about branding and identity, the entity being branded is "Aiki". Which of the following is easier to market: "Dan Harden's training method" or "Aiki"?

It's weird, but it's like you think this is a vacuum of some sort. Here's this "Dan Harden" training. Yet, you overlook some major aikido people out there. Think about what you just stated above. Then talk to Bill Gleason and say that he doesn't have a clue as to what aiki is and he's really just using "Dan Harden's training method". Let me know how that works out for you, considering Bill Gleason's training history and experiences. Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue the point with him? When Bill talks about aikido, I listen. Heck, for that matter, when Bill talks about aikido, Dan listens. :D

Let's move on over to Chris Li. Again, let's view your message above and let's tell Chris Li that he doesn't have a clue what aiki is and he's really using "Dan Harden's training method". Do you know Chris Li's background? Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue with him? When Chris talks about aikido and/or the Japanese language, I listen.

How about George Ledyard? Allen Beebe? Marc Abrams? If you really, really want to know about the rest of those shihan and 6th dans, you should at least make the rounds of training in IP/aiki. There are quite a few who don't want named, including some who were there when Ueshiba was teaching. Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue with them?

Let's go another route. How about an aikido teacher who was around when Ueshiba was teaching who learned exercises that are either directly the same or extremely close to the same exercises Dan teaches? This teacher has never trained with Dan. Extremely gifted teacher, great person, and a treasure to learn from in the aikido world.

A second teacher (who doesn't teach aikido) who was around when Ueshiba taught. This teacher has aikido yudansha grading signed by Ueshiba. And this teacher stated that what Dan was doing was what Ueshiba did.

This material, IP/aiki, is what matters. It is Ueshiba's aiki.

So, whenever anyone thinks of IP/aiki, maybe it's time to start asking these high level people who have 40 years of experience with everyone from Ueshiba to direct students (and have gone to "vetted" IP/aiki teachers) what they think.

Although you probably aren't going to like what they say ... as nearly 100% of them call this IP/aiki and not "Dan Harden's training method".

Takeda's aiki aka Ueshiba's aiki. IP/aiki should be THE central talking point. How to train it. How to rebuild the body. How it is manifested in aikido training. How strategy and tactics work with a rebuilt aiki body. How hard the training is. How IP/aiki fits in with Kisshomaru's vision of Modern Aikido.

[sorokod]

Let's go another route. How about an aikido teacher who was around when Ueshiba was teaching who learned exercises that are either directly the same or extremely close to the same exercises Dan teaches? This teacher has never trained with Dan. Extremely gifted teacher, great person, and a treasure to learn from in the aikido world.

A second teacher (who doesn't teach aikido) who was around when Ueshiba taught. This teacher has aikido yudansha grading signed by Ueshiba. And this teacher stated that what Dan was doing was what Ueshiba did.


This is extremely valuable information. Who are these gentlemen?

[MM]

This is extremely valuable information. Who are these gentlemen?

Well, to be fair, the other info was extremely valuable also. Or do you not know the backgrounds of the named aikido teachers in my post?

Also, from what I understand, there are other people who trained when Ueshiba was around who also have been to IP/aiki workshops. Not just limited to the two I know.

As to those two ... information from both, as far as I know, was done privately. I've met/trained with both. One was second hand info. The other direct. But, you're more than welcome to disregard due to anonymous status.

[Chris Li]

Dear Chris,
Of course your listed named Aikido teachers charge fees , after all they are full time Aikidoka.I do not think that this is being a bread head.eg money men or unworthy. I know personally at least one person on your list who has donated his time and his fee to assist others.I also know that the course fees per person charged by our group are certainly less costly than the price per person at I/P related courses.Now I am not saying that the I/P instructors are overcharging for their services since I have no information concerning the overheads of the course.I am just saying there is a cost differential.The bottom line is that if one wants a product one pays the price,be it a tin of baked beans or an I/P course/Aikido seminar.One has a choice.
As far as video material is concerned I cannot speak for other groups or individuals but all our groups video material are available to all interested parties.In case anybody reading this thinks that sales of this material enables me to enjoy a Brad Pitt lifestyle[I wish ] all monies raised by my efforts go to our group to boost our funds.May I also state that in relation to prices charged by others for dvd material we do not charge an arm and a leg for our stuff?Happy New Year , Joe.

In my experience Dan charges much less then most (all?) of the people on that list. The per head cost may be higher, but the overall cost is generally much lower because of the limit on the number of participants to allow hands on contact time.

When we had Doshu in Honolulu last year there were almost 500 people on the mat for his three hours of instruction time - 180 minutes. Take out the warm-ups, lecturing, and walking around time, and you get a situation in which most people don't even get to touch him once! The per head fees were similar. Doshu's fees were....much much higher.

When we had Doshu in Honolulu last year most of our profit (almost $20,000) came from the brochures/DVD/t-shirt/etc. poster sales (that ended up going to the Red Cross for tsunami relief efforts in Japan). So it can run into some serious money.

Which is beside the point, I guess. I'm not accusing anybody - but I am saying that it's very very hard to point "profit motive" fingers at Dan without also pointing them at all of those folks as well.

For that matter, many AikiWeb members post their own seminars and workshops (I do too, of course) - very few of which are free, many make posts promoting those workshops, but none of them that I've seen are accused of a "profit motive" or "commercialism".

It seems like a hypocritical point to me, that's all.

Happy New Year Joe!

Best,

Chris

[Chris Li]

Anyone can charge whatever they want for the product they are selling. Its their's to price.

The following quote from Dan Harden captures something fundamental in my opinion:

I do think that more than anything else, this is about branding and identity, the entity being branded is "Aiki". Which of the following is easier to market: "Dan Harden's training method" or "Aiki"?

Well, I think that was just an example.

As for "Aiki" - Dan has just as solid an Aiki lineage as anybody posting here. Not to mention the Aikido folks who call what he is doing "Aiki".

Do you object when other people here say that what they are doing is "Aiki"?

Best,

Chris

[chillzATL]

ugh, this again? Stay out of other peoples pockets.

[Gary David]

As to the price of the product, I already said that in my opinion, Dan Harden is entitled to charge whatever he sees fit.

David
As a perspective on price....thinking about Dan and the meditative weekends my wife sometime attends....considering that both are about 12 hours of "mat" time.....Dan is charging somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 an hour.....from that he pays the fee for the dojo rental and airfare. He limits the numbers in the 20s to allow for more personal hands on.... Understand this about Dan.....the mat time is 12-14 hours only because we (the students) burn out before he does. Dan would easily go more hours...like he sez the mind wears out before the body does...... so the per hour price for us could easily be in the $11 per hour range. Now my wife goes to weekend meditative retreats a couple of times a year were the price to the "mat" work is $375 for the same amount of time that Dan instructs.....she is paying $23 per hour......

Just a note...having trained with Dan four times I would gladly pay $23 hour for what he provides. I say this knowing that I have taken ukemi from most of the major teachers in this country that were direct students of O'Sensei and most of the major teachers on the West Coast during the 70's through 2000...... while all of these folks were technical experts, special teachers if you will, only two did anything so different that I ask myself "what was that?" These were Saotome Sensei and Terry Dobson. Dan provides that "What was that?" for me now.......

I have no problem with you staying with what you do or questioning what you question.....but back to the future is out there in a number of places and I have access to it now in a couple of places...Dan being one of them.

good luck with everything....

Gary

[Cady Goldfield]

It's weird, but it's like you think this is a vacuum of some sort. Here's this "Dan Harden" training. Yet, you overlook some major aikido people out there. Think about what you just stated above. Then talk to Bill Gleason and say that he doesn't have a clue as to what aiki is and he's really just using "Dan Harden's training method". Let me know how that works out for you, considering Bill Gleason's training history and experiences. Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue the point with him? When Bill talks about aikido, I listen. Heck, for that matter, when Bill talks about aikido, Dan listens. :D

Let's move on over to Chris Li. Again, let's view your message above and let's tell Chris Li that he doesn't have a clue what aiki is and he's really using "Dan Harden's training method". Do you know Chris Li's background? Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue with him? When Chris talks about aikido and/or the Japanese language, I listen.

How about George Ledyard? Allen Beebe? Marc Abrams? If you really, really want to know about the rest of those shihan and 6th dans, you should at least make the rounds of training in IP/aiki. There are quite a few who don't want named, including some who were there when Ueshiba was teaching. Do you have the equivalent foundation to argue with them?

Let's go another route. How about an aikido teacher who was around when Ueshiba was teaching who learned exercises that are either directly the same or extremely close to the same exercises Dan teaches? This teacher has never trained with Dan. Extremely gifted teacher, great person, and a treasure to learn from in the aikido world.

A second teacher (who doesn't teach aikido) who was around when Ueshiba taught. This teacher has aikido yudansha grading signed by Ueshiba. And this teacher stated that what Dan was doing was what Ueshiba did.

This material, IP/aiki, is what matters. It is Ueshiba's aiki.

So, whenever anyone thinks of IP/aiki, maybe it's time to start asking these high level people who have 40 years of experience with everyone from Ueshiba to direct students (and have gone to "vetted" IP/aiki teachers) what they think.

Although you probably aren't going to like what they say ... as nearly 100% of them call this IP/aiki and not "Dan Harden's training method".

Takeda's aiki aka Ueshiba's aiki. IP/aiki should be THE central talking point. How to train it. How to rebuild the body. How it is manifested in aikido training. How strategy and tactics work with a rebuilt aiki body. How hard the training is. How IP/aiki fits in with Kisshomaru's vision of Modern Aikido.

It just amazes me, utterly baffles me, that all of these high-level people's experiences are just brushed aside, ignored, as though they don't count in the least. Maybe those who are so dismissive are so isolated and sequestered in their own little dojo or organization, that those names just don't ring a bell? Maybe they need to get out more? I can't think of any other reason, except perhaps for a complete and overwhelming case of cognitive dissonance.

[Cady Goldfield]

David Soroko wrote: Please define "Modern Aikido".

Mark already stated it: Aikido as per Kisshomaru's vision.

[Tengu859]

Hello,

Well before ever posting about this stuff, I did research...about a year's worth(in the case of IP/Aiki). I usually make some kind of smarta** remark, mostly for my own amusement. Nothing about the training, because I'm a beginer. Anyhow, it is beyond me why people don't get up and go train. I've gone to Washington DC, Canada, Japan, and soon Finland for seminars. I'm nowhere near rich. There is plenty on this website and others about IP/Aiki...use the search function, or be like me and read each thread from the start. Most times, your basic questions will be answered. For the real training methods, you will have to go TRAIN!!! It's true YouTube won't teach you anything, great to watch but without the training useless. But with a bit of training and direction vids can help. Just my opinion. Get up, open yourself and get out onto the floating bridge. I did and I'm better from it. So far I've had a great time and made many new friends. So if you are a bit intersted do a bit of research and seek it out. You most likely won't regret it!!! :0)

Enjoy,

ChrisW

PS From my vantage point...!!! ;0)

[sorokod]

Well, I think that was just an example.

Obviously I disagree.


As for "Aiki" - Dan has just as solid an Aiki lineage as anybody posting here. Not to mention the Aikido folks who call what he is doing "Aiki".

What is Dan Harden's lineage? As to "Aiki", in this thread http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22083, we have the Founder giving "Aiki" two different meanings. Which one do you have in mind?


Do you object when other people here say that what they are doing is "Aiki"?


Not at all, just asking for what they mean by that and the proof.

[sorokod]

David Soroko wrote: Please define "Modern Aikido".

Mark already stated it: Aikido as per Kisshomaru's vision.

That excludes Iwama, Yoshinkan and Tomiki lineages. Are you saying that they did retain the old goods?


The few Japanese arts that still maintain aiki within them, are not generally open to the "the world," and individuals who want to learn aiki must go through the process both of being accepted into those exclusive arts, and to have to learn the entire system in order to learn aiki. Even then, there is no guarantee that they will be taught the essense of aiki.


You forgot to clarify which "Japanese arts that still maintain aiki" you were referring to.

[mathewjgano]

Do you object when other people here say that what they are doing is "Aiki"?

Best,

Chris

Hi Chris,
this strikes me as a bit ironic...to be fair, isn't this usually what "The IP Crowd" (for lack of a better description) tends to do? And, apart from styles in communication perhaps, isn't this probably the main source of contention we see in these conversations? I know I tend to have a problem with speed reading on AikiWeb (and thus missing crucial bits), and so I apologize if this is another case of that, but from my incomplete vantage, this is central to the difficulties we see; more so than suggestions of profiteering (which I think are fairly easily shown to be false).

That excludes Iwama, Yoshinkan and Tomiki lineages. Are you saying that they did retain the old goods?
I find it hard to believe Tomiki Sensei didn't transmit his understanding of aiki, but based on what I've managed to read, "the goods" do take several years to really develop. Not that it cannot be developed within a few years, but to be "good" (whatever that means) it takes considerable effort...a huge change in day-to-day use of the body, which I assume (and maybe you know what "they" say about assume-ing) most people aren't willing to adopt.
...thinking of the notion that this aspect of Aikido training is somewhat self-selecting (i.e. it takes a degree of commitment that is easy to miss).

[Cady Goldfield]

Krystal wrote:
The words you use here and in other posts (the one you referenced, for example) that give me real pause when discussing IP stuff are "precious", "patents and copyrights", and "proprietary". Those words when added to the IHTBF claim really smells bad to me, especially when I can't seem to get much substantial technical info (physics, biomechanics, definitions) about what is happening. The rancor between people discussing IP along with the whiff of profit motive keeps me firmly in the skeptic's camp.

Krystal, others here have already addressed your viewpoint, but, with all due respect, I think that you are expressing some sort of sense of entitlement, that somehow no one should have a right to decide with whom they share knowledge or something else of value that may have been hard-won by them.

Don’t those who possess it have a right to determine how, or whether, it is disseminated, and to whom? It’s cynical to label all of those practitioners as being salesmen selling a product. Knowledge has value, and if it is given freely without any cost at all (whether in monetary payments or through the effort expended by the recipient to travel to the source and to put the time in), it is very often taken for granted.

I believe that we should be appreciative that there are people teaching without profit in mind. I also believe that they should be allowed to at least break even on their expenses, in doing so. Don’t you?
Yes, I will find a seminar. I will feel this for myself. I have attended a handful of Ikeda's seminars where he has claimed to be teaching IP stuff, but I am not yet satisfied that he is not simply doing on a more practiced level what I learn in my own dojo. I intend to make an IP seminar next year, if not a couple. I will feel this for myself.

I’m really glad that you will get out there and experience it for yourself. Seeking out an appropriate IP seminar and teacher is like searching for a good teacher of any discipline. We have to do the homework, talk to people, ask questions. A lot of people toss around the words “IP” and “IS,” and of course “aiki,” these days, to the point that the terms have taken on a life of their own. Individuals may possess some qualities of these concepts, but their kit is incomplete or lacks depth; even those who have more “complete” skill sets may express them in very different ways than other practitioners with the same core body skills. For every individual practicing, or claiming to practice, IP, there is a different depth and breadth of knowledge and skill, and of teaching ability. Finding the “right” one can be very trial-and-error.

However, I am also resistant to the idea that my individual experience at an IP seminar would be necessary and sufficient (in the mathematical sense) "proof" for me. I am not an entirely rational player, no one is. I prefer to rely upon a strong consensus from a large number of people who are also predominantly rational and trained in examining physical phenomena. I am happy to be a data point, I am happy to give my most rational assessment of my experience, and I am thrilled to hear from others. I've read enough to agree that there is something worth looking at, questions need to be asked, explored and answered to the extent possible. I am not yet satisfied by other people's answers, or their questions, for that matter.

Are you saying that you don’t have enough trust in your own ability to establish an informed opinion after experiencing something firsthand? When you get out and get your hands on a good seminar, you’ll have a basis upon which to compare other people’s input on their first-hand experiences, with your own.

My only caveat is that one seminar or even a couple of them is not enough to really “get” what’s going on; I can tell you from first-hand experience that the first time you feel something as unusual and new as the effects aiki and IP have on your body and senses, your brain is too busy trying to process the new data on a visceral level, to really get a grasp or understand what’s happening. No one goes to a seminar for the first time and says… “Zowie! So THAT’S what it is! I so totally GET it!” Nuh-uh. We come away saying “Holy cr*p! What the heck was that?! I gotta go back and feel it again.”

It takes repeated experience, with very basic exercises provided that help you to parse out the new kinds of body movement and all of the sensations related to them, before anything really starts to sink in. With IP, we have to learn to feel what’s going on inside our own body, get re-acquainted with our own body in a very different way, first, before we can understand what someone else is doing to us with his or her body.

A side note. One projection of "dual opposing spirals" is a lissajous. It does not follow that a lissajous is necessarily a projection of "dual opposing spirals". My evidentiary standards are pretty high. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.

One recurring misunderstanding in these discussions is that physical training is somehow directly translatable into flat mathematical/geometry equations or physics formulas. Sure, anything is, at a very esoteric level, but, when it comes to physical disciplines, terms such as “dual opposing spirals” are more applied concepts, almost metaphors, for the way force is being directed and managed within the body, through the intent-driven manipulation of actual body parts.

It’s very 3-D and involves more layers of activity than the movements of an inanimate object such as a hand-crank apple-peeler (not including the human turning that crank) with simple gears and cogs. IP and aiki are about learning by “feel” more than by the interpretation and extrapolation of theoretical physics.

I've gotten some response for expressing my discomfort with what seems like a profit motive. It is argued that the vast majority of aikido teacher teach for money, and that is certainly true. However, I have met few aikido teachers, and few martial arts teachers in general who use nondisclosure agreements and who forbid basic recording of their seminars. I have agreed a few times to not share the good and useful stuff I've learned in a class, but I dont really fully buy the whole secret art that is too deadly for mere folks can cause demonic health problems song and dance when the agreement is viewed under the spotlight of protecting paid access to a product provided by few individuals. Precious patented and copyrighted proprietary product, or a true return to real aikido? I dont know. I'm just uneasy with the tone of some of the discussion. The responses have not fully eased my mind.

Krystal, I don’t know how to allay your concerns about “profit motive,” though I appreciate anyone’s fear of being taken advantage of. All I can say, is that sometimes we just have to take the chance… but let it be an educated chance, taken after asking questions of people who have taken the plunge and vetted the various experts.

IP and aiki are very old and proven; they are not products, but a heritage and a legacy within the lines of individuals and systems that have perpetuated them for probably more than a millennia now – not just in some Japanese arts, but in various Chinese internal systems and those of a number of other cultures.

That some teachers and systems have chosen to keep their methods a secret, or have maintained tight control over their dissemination (which has already been addressed in this and other threads), is a fact of life, for the reasons that were suggested earlier. Again, it may be more productive for us to let go of any sense of entitlement toward other people’s knowledge, and more diplomacy and polite inquiry.

What many of us have been saying, is that there is a growing body of individuals who can and will teach these methods. Those who have already studied with them ARE bringing the material back into aikido, and, as has been stated, they would never go back to doing aikido the way they used to. For them, learning these things means coming home to their art’s true roots – not going away to something different.

[DH]

I really wish people would stick to the OP and not jump all over the map. Aiki and IP, as a discussion, is much larger than me or a few posters here and what I was addressing.

Questions about profit as motive I find hilarious, given my fees, travel expenses and hours offered in seminars. That said:WHY....IS ANYONE DISCUSSING WHAT I CHARGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
and then accusing me of only being interested in a marketing/profit motive?
Again
WHY?
Why have none of you EVER, sat here and discussed a virtual parade of top Budo teacher's rates, books, DVD's, first class tickets, marketing and mandatory seminars for rank.
Why_________________________?

And as is being demonstrated here by David and others, when you can't successfully address people's responses about fees (like Chris's to him) you change the subject. There is no interest.... none whatsoever......in addressing The OP's questions and issues... hundreds of senior teachers evaluations and switching over to what we are showing. So instead,simply ignore them, or find a way to explain it all away.

Why?
I know why.
1. How can you address the 100% failure rate of your teachers in open rooms (that is virtually undeniable).
2. The impossible scenario of almost 100% of teachers switching to what I and others are providing.
3. The fact that virtually none of you, not even one of you debating.....has demonstrated unusual power anywhere in front of anyone (as your founder was noted for).
4. I stand, in open rooms and discuss, define, and demonstrate Ueshiba's exercises and work, and then provide a means for people to start to at least understand and get power and aiki...on the spot.
5. No Aikido teacher in existence, (Japanese or otherwise that I am aware of) can or has done that for you. Not even a single one. Yet I have been and will continue to offer to help- as I was asked.

Dan

[James Sawers]

Dan: Is your seminar schedule published anywhere I can access it?

Thanks........

[Chris Li]

Hi Chris,
this strikes me as a bit ironic...to be fair, isn't this usually what "The IP Crowd" (for lack of a better description) tends to do? And, apart from styles in communication perhaps, isn't this probably the main source of contention we see in these conversations? I know I tend to have a problem with speed reading on AikiWeb (and thus missing crucial bits), and so I apologize if this is another case of that, but from my incomplete vantage, this is central to the difficulties we see; more so than suggestions of profiteering (which I think are fairly easily shown to be false).

Hi Matthew,

Well, I don't have any objection with someone saying that what we do isn't Aiki because of A, B or C technical or historical reasons. I do have a problem with objections that are based on an accusation of branding.


I find it hard to believe Tomiki Sensei didn't transmit his understanding of aiki, but based on what I've managed to read, "the goods" do take several years to really develop. Not that it cannot be developed within a few years, but to be "good" (whatever that means) it takes considerable effort...a huge change in day-to-day use of the body, which I assume (and maybe you know what "they" say about assume-ing) most people aren't willing to adopt.
...thinking of the notion that this aspect of Aikido training is somewhat self-selecting (i.e. it takes a degree of commitment that is easy to miss).

It's certainly self-selecting. I would have loved to meet Tomiki - but I never did, so I couldn't say what he got and how much. A lot of people that I've met got something, some of them got a lot. However, getting a lot and being able to transmit it in a way that is self-sustaining is very difficult, however much you got, IMO.

It's interesting to note that one of the reasons that Sagawa believed that Takeda had created Aiki himself (rather than inheriting it from a long tradition) is that he believed that it was too difficult to transmit reliably over multiple generations. I'm not sure that I agree completely - but I certainly see his point.

Best,

Chris

[Chris Li]

What is Dan Harden's lineage?

You'll have to ask Dan that. I will say that my lineage is fairly public, along with many of the others who are saying that, yes, this is "Aiki".

I'll also note that the only people who seem to challenge the right to express an opinion based on the lineage of the person stating the opinion seem to come from conventional Aikido.

As to "Aiki", in this thread http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22083, we have the Founder giving "Aiki" two different meanings. Which one do you have in mind?

Greg made a pretty good reply to that (and Carsten added an interesting additional comment) , and I agree - I don't see two different definitions at all.

Not at all, just asking for what they mean by that and the proof.

That's just the thing, I don't see you asking most folks to provide proof when they talk about "Aiki" only a certain group. If you disagree with that definition (and it's been posted fairly clearly at various times) then provide your own and show us why that one should be more valid.

Best,

Chris

[mathewjgano]

Hi Chris, thank you for the reply!
I do have a problem with objections that are based on an accusation of branding.
Wait, you mean I didn't have to get that big "D" burned onto my...dammit!
I sympathize with Krystal's discomfort regarding the way a lot of these discussions read, which was why I mentioned my own initial impressions, which shared a similar "vibe." And, let's face it, this whole IP thing has become quite popular, regardless of the reasoning. Someone could easily take advantage of that kind of situation for personal gain, but I agree with Dan and a bunch of others that it's generally better to assume the best of intentions in people. Speaking of which, I don't think she was making accusations so much as honestly describing how they trigger a response in her.
I think roughly comparing payout is useful as a relative metric. It does put the profiteering issue somewhat to rest, but in a sense it's a red-herring since we don't know her or others' views on the state of costs in Aikido. When you then consider her desire to check "IT" out, I think it's clear she finds some compelling evidence, probably based on the many testimonies we do see (i.e. an acknowledgement of the available evidence on AikiWeb). This was in context of IP, not "Modern Aikido," wasn't it?

...and for the record, I think perhaps I misunderstood part of Dan's point if he doesn't think the issue of monitary gain should have been mentioned in this thread. Considering it was in a bullet point at the top of the OP, it may have been mentioned to support the idea of an unfair treatment of those who support this kind of training in this forum, but that it was mentioned certainly does suggest (to me at least) it was part of the discussion.
...again I fall back on my own ignorance (if it were Fool's Gold I'd still be rich) as my own defense for having mentioned it. Sorry, Dan, for having done so! ...Sincerely, I'm sure you're pretty tired of this particular issue.

It's interesting to note that one of the reasons that Sagawa believed that Takeda had created Aiki himself (rather than inheriting it from a long tradition) is that he believed that it was too difficult to transmit reliably over multiple generations. I'm not sure that I agree completely - but I certainly see his point.

This rings true to me. Of course I have only the weakest of inference to draw from, but it seems getting some of it might be easy, given direct instructions especially, but ultimately it seems to depend on how well people are able to tap into their own body/mind. Then again, maybe that was what he said to placate those he didn't teach directly. Who knows...
What I do "know" is training for many of us is a life-long endeavor and knowledge obfuscates as much as it reveals; maintaining an open mind (beginner mind) is often tougher the further along the path we go.
Ok, enough from this idiot. Take care, folks.
Matt
p.s. And a Happy Happy New Year to all of you and all of yours!!!!!!!

[ChrisHein]

I'll also note that the only people who seem to challenge the right to express an opinion based on the lineage of the person stating the opinion seem to come from conventional Aikido.

This is incorrect. I see comments about "lineage" from the IP crowd constantly.
lin·e·age
: noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.



You don't use the word lineage, but you're getting at the same thing. When the IP crowd talks about "vetting" they are making a lineage comment. When the comments are coming from you directly, Chris, the "lineage argument" takes the form of translations. Usually you ask people to show where the founder said something. If shown this, you will often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others. In essence you are saying that your understanding of "lineage" is better then others.

The "non-conventional" (read IP crowd) uses lineage arguments constantly.


That's just the thing, I don't see you asking most folks to provide proof when they talk about "Aiki" only a certain group.


Are you suggesting that you are not doing this?

If you disagree with that definition (and it's been posted fairly clearly at various times) then provide your own and show us why that one should be more valid.



Yes, this is what both sides are doing. Ad nauseam. There are these two distinct groups. It's a shame really.

[ChrisHein]

So instead,simply ignore them, or find a way to explain it all away.

Why?
I know why.
1. How can you address the 100% failure rate of your teachers in open rooms (that is virtually undeniable).
2. The impossible scenario of almost 100% of teachers switching to what I and others are providing.
3. The fact that virtually none of you, not even one of you debating.....has demonstrated unusual power anywhere in front of anyone (as your founder was noted for).
4. I stand, in open rooms and discuss, define, and demonstrate Ueshiba's exercises and work, and then provide a means for people to start to at least understand and get power and aiki...on the spot.
5. No Aikido teacher in existence, (Japanese or otherwise that I am aware of) can or has done that for you. Not even a single one. Yet I have been and will continue to offer to help- as I was asked.

Dan

1. What teachers are you talking about?

2. I've now talked to several Aikido teachers who met you and "others", that gave the comment of "eh, not that interesting" I must have only talked to the very few who weren't interested, but that's still much less then 100%

3. That is very debatable, who is judging this "unusual power", I'm sure several of the people debating have blown their students minds at one point or another. "unusual power" is dependent on who's judging the demonstration.

4. How is it that you define "open room", Dan? Your seminars are not open rooms, I know this because you prescreen those who are allowed to come, that makes your seminars "closed rooms". When are you at these "open rooms"? I would like to meet you at one some day- they are open right? And you go to them to show your things, right?

5. You shouldn't speak for everyone. I have several teachers that have "done that" for me. I'm sure others here have as well.

[Chris Li]

This is incorrect. I see comments about "lineage" from the IP crowd constantly.

You don't use the word lineage, but you're getting at the same thing. When the IP crowd talks about "vetting" they are making a lineage comment. When the comments are coming from you directly, Chris, the "lineage argument" takes the form of translations. Usually you ask people to show where the founder said something. If shown this, you will often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others. In essence you are saying that your understanding of "lineage" is better then others.


I ask people to show where the founder said something when the are saying that what they are doing is linked to what he said and did in some way - to show how that linkage works.

I'm not asking them to provide a qualifying technical lineage in order to express an opinion, those are two very different things.

If by "often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others" you mean that when I say that some things are difficult to understand in translation, or out of the correct context, then yes, that's true. Are you really saying that isn't the case?


Are you suggesting that you are not doing this?

Yes I am, I've asked my questions of Dan and the others - for years. Then I went to go meet them.


Yes, this is what both sides are doing. Ad nauseam. There are these two distinct groups. It's a shame really.

I haven't really seen much of a presentation of definitions of Aiki from conventional Aikido groups - certainly not of the quantity and detail that's been put out by others. Last time you provided two quotes, the time before that you said that you weren't really interested in linking your definition of Aiki to Ueshiba (or something to that effect).

Best,

Chris

[ChrisHein]

I ask people to show where the founder said something when the are saying that what they are doing is linked to what he said and did in some way - to show how that linkage works.

So when we are talking about Aikido- this includes everything, because the founder created it, and you don't seem to be interested in anything that didn't come from him. So if someone talks about Aikido, and you disagree with what they are saying, you say it's not valid, because it didnt' come from the founder, and he invented Aikido. This is a constant modus operandi of yours.


I'm not asking them to provide a qualifying technical lineage in order to express an opinion, those are two very different things.


It depends on what you mean by "technical lineage". If you mean Aikido waza, then I agree with you. But every time someone wants to express an opinion that you disagree with, and they haven't met Dan, or who ever else from that "lineage", you say that their opinion is not valid.


If by "often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others" you mean that when I say that some things are difficult to understand in translation, or out of the correct context, then yes, that's true. Are you really saying that isn't the case?


I'm saying that you only agree with your translations, or those who are like minded.


I haven't really seen much of a presentation of definitions of Aiki from conventional Aikido groups - certainly not of the quantity and detail that's been put out by others.



Who are the "others", which of them have definitions that you don't agree with, but find compelling? The majority of definitions of Aiki come from conventional Aikido groups. Are you saying that only your definitions, and those of your faction are valid?


Last time you provided two quotes,


We're mixing threads here. However you asked me to provide quotes showing where the way I was defining Aiki was related to the founder.


the time before that you said that you weren't really interested in linking your definition of Aiki to Ueshiba (or something to that effect).


I just want to talk about Aikido, right now. Historical information is useful, and I've spent lot's of my time recently working with it. However I would like to talk about the Aikido world today, but your faction likes to say that todays Aikido isn't valid, because they are not in accord with the founder. I don't believe that is true, but unless pressed, I'm not interested in talking about that. I made my comment here, to hopefully bypass this corner, that it seems we must turn down on every thread here on Aikiweb.

[Chris Li]

So when we are talking about Aikido- this includes everything, because the founder created it, and you don't seem to be interested in anything that didn't come from him. So if someone talks about Aikido, and you disagree with what they are saying, you say it's not valid, because it didnt' come from the founder, and he invented Aikido. This is a constant modus operandi of yours.

Well, Ueshiba's opinion is certainly important, IMO. If you're doing something else, that's fine, but why say that it's what he was doing? I never said anything is not valid, not once.

It depends on what you mean by "technical lineage". If you mean Aikido waza, then I agree with you. But every time someone wants to express an opinion that you disagree with, and they haven't met Dan, or who ever else from that "lineage", you say that their opinion is not valid.

It has nothing to do with lineage - but if there's an opinion that I disagree with then I'll certainly say that.

I'm saying that you only agree with your translations, or those who are like minded.

There actually aren't very many translations that I've directly disagreed with - I can only think of one that I've disagreed with in any major way. I will say that there are quite a few misinterpretations of various translations, IMO - and I've given my reasons. Give me your reasons why my interpretation is wrong and we can discuss it.

Who are the "others", which of them have definitions that you don't agree with, but find compelling? The majority of definitions of Aiki come from conventional Aikido groups. Are you saying that only your definitions, and those of your faction are valid?

Nope, never said that. The majority of "definitions" of Aiki from conventional groups haven't been stated or defended here, that's what I was saying.


I just want to talk about Aikido, right now. Historical information is useful, and I've spent lot's of my time recently working with it. However I would like to talk about the Aikido world today, but your faction likes to say that todays Aikido isn't valid, because they are not in accord with the founder. I don't believe that is true, but unless pressed, I'm not interested in talking about that. I made my comment here, to hopefully bypass this corner, that it seems we must turn down on every thread here on Aikiweb.

Well, there's nothing wrong with the Aikido world today, nobody's said that. People are doing what they're doing, and if they're happy with that then what's the problem?

Stan's been saying for years that what most people are doing is not the Aikido of the Founder. Anybody attacking him on Aiki Web?

If you're saying that x or y is "Aiki", however, then you get into another discussion of what "Aiki" is or might be - and here we are...

Best,

Chris

[sorokod]

As for "Aiki" - Dan has just as solid an Aiki lineage as anybody posting here. Not to mention the Aikido folks who call what he is doing "Aiki".


You appeal to Dan Harden's authority and when asked for clarification you reply with
You'll have to ask Dan that. I will say that my lineage is fairly public, along with many of the others who are saying that, yes, this is "Aiki".

For whatever its worth, in my opinion, that was an argument that wasn't worth making and more than supporting your case it took away.


Greg made a pretty good reply to that (and Carsten added an interesting additional comment) , and I agree - I don't see two different definitions at all.


About that quote, I will just paste it here in context, so that a reader can decide on his own (from http://members.aikidojournal.com/private/morihei-ueshiba-2/):


Q: But unless you resist, it isn't budo. That is why I don't like it.
A: You're talking about budo used for military rule. Kendo and Judo are said to be Japanese budo, but they are concerned with winning, aren't they? Since Aikido pursues harmony, it is different from those arts.

Q: So you throw your partner saying, "Be friends with me!", don't you?
A: How can I reply when someone like you says such things?

Q: Please forgive me if I said something to offend you. I am the one in favor of military rule, you know! (Laughter)
A: When an opponent comes to attack you, you just move your body slightly to avoid his attack, and let him go wherever he wants. This is Aiki. In other words, you give him freedom.


It has been said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".


That's just the thing, I don't see you asking most folks to provide proof when they talk about "Aiki" only a certain group.


You, as in the followers of Dan Harden's method, claim exclusivity on "Aiki" while narrowing its meaning to suit your world view. To me this is extraordinary enough to require a proof. Should be to you too.

[Chris Li]

You appeal to Dan Harden's authority and when asked for clarification you reply with .

It wasn't an appeal to authority. My point was that everybody here attempts to use terms like "Aiki" with whatever definitions they use. My sense, historically, is that Dan has been criticized in many cases because he's "not an Aikido person". That was my point.


It has been said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

You, as in the followers of Dan Harden's method, claim exclusivity on "Aiki" while narrowing its meaning to suit your world view. To me this is extraordinary enough to require a proof. Should be to you too.

Dan's certainly never claimed exclusivity, neither have I. In fact I've said said many times that every one of Ueshiba's students that I've trained with got some or got a lot of what I'm talking about.

That there are opinions that I disagree with is obvious - isn't that true of everyone? That doesn't equal exclusivity.

Maybe this will make it a little clearer - here's something that I posted back in April 2012 (http://www.aikidosangenkai.org/blog/archive/2012-04-29/morihei-ueshiba-profiles-of-the-founder):

Every direct student of the Founder that I've met (and I've met quite a few) seems to have gotten something from the Founder - some a little, and some a lot.

Virtually without exception, however, these students got what they got by the feel of working directly with the Founder, hand to hand. Because of this, those that got what they got seem to share an inability to comprehend exactly what it is that they got, how to explain it, and how to pass it on in turn to their students.

The results, a gradual and steady degradation of skill, ability and knowledge, are plain to see now that there are four or five of teachers descending from the Founder, for those who are honest enough to admit it.

Best,

Chris

[sorokod]

It wasn't an appeal to authority. My point was that everybody here attempts to use terms like "Aiki" with whatever definitions they use.

everybody - 1 at least. In my opinion trying to shoehorn the Founder's "Aiki" into any single paradigm makes no sense.


My sense, historically, is that Dan has been criticized in many cases because he's "not an Aikido person".

No way! Are you sure?

[lbb]

Well, there's nothing wrong with the Aikido world today, nobody's said that.

Uh...really?

[Chris Li]

Well, I see that everybody's sarcasm generators have gone on - so I'll step out.

Best,

Chris

[Lorel Latorilla]

Just wanted to say, I commend Chis Li and Dan and others in demonstrating patience towards their naysayers.

I have no clue why you guys are constantly arguing with people who are clearly not open to this type of work and even are antagonistic towards those who are presenting the work...but for real, respect.

[Gary David]

everybody - 1 at least. In my opinion trying to shoehorn the Founder's "Aiki" into any single paradigm makes no sense.

No way! Are you sure?

Uh...really?

Folks
At some time in the future when youth begins to fail you, technique fails at times with out cooperative help...you will look for other approaches that can step in an support your waza.......and you will. Is Dan the only source...no... While he is a friend is he my only source....no... Dan and I have talked many times...he has been in my home 3 times and we have had this conversation every time.....Dan is not the only source, but he is a source and a solid one. My approach now while trying to keep my hand in Aikido is to find and use whatever is helpful, whether it comes from Dan, from my friend John or another Aikido friend Walter.....or Sam Chin when I get a chance.....all providing approaches outside of technical waza that is very helpful.

As John has said to me a number of times....technique can fail you, but principles never fail....put aside the rancor and take a chance that there may be value in what is being provided.

Just go straight

Gary

[lbb]

Folks
At some time in the future when youth begins to fail you, technique fails at times with out cooperative
etc. etc.

Gary, why did you quote me as a springboard for your thoughts? I was responding to the following statement from Chris Li:

"Well, there's nothing wrong with the Aikido world today, nobody's said that."

Apparently he felt that my response ("Um, really?") was "sarcasm". It was not. I don't know why on earth he would think that it was, or what strange interpretation you're making to call it "rancor", but it seems like you're both off in some direction all your own. Have fun with it, but don't mischaracterize honest disbelief at an astonishing statement as "rancor".

[mathewjgano]

If you're saying that x or y is "Aiki", however, then you get into another discussion of what "Aiki" is or might be - and here we are...


I think many, if not most, people think of "aiki" as Aikido-like behavior; people considering it from an IP standpoint have a much more discrete meaning. In these conversations, rather than accept that people with a different frame of reference will necessarily apply meaning differently, and that most of them are unwilling to change their view of the term "aiki" over the internet, most IP advocates seem to often suggest there is something generally wrong with the understanding of the Aikido world today and give a somewhat formulaic/repetitive response arguing why. I find the points to be compelling on their own, but others do not. This comes up nearly any time someone describes their view of "aiki" (i.e. "I'm considering x, y, and z in my study of Aikido"). In those cases, "x, y, and z" are the intended points, but the threads get turned into reiterations of the same debates surrounding authenticity of the term aiki. I look at AikiWeb and see only a handful of people willing to participate, compared to what I remember from when I first joined several years ago, some of this may be coincidental, but I think most of it has to do with the tone generated by the IP discussions which is itself the product of personality interactions. I get the sense that this is because most people are tired of arguing over what "aiki" means and whether or not they have the right to use it in their posts...I get the sense that if non-IP folks stopped using the term altogether we'd see an improvement, but considering my view expressed in the first sentence, I don't see that happening any time soon.
...now off to read Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett. :D It's fun and helps me to laugh at the human condition. Take care y'all.
p.s. Sorry, Chris, I confused your remark about accusations in my last response to you. It dawned on me just as I was falling alseep.

[akiy]

I think many, if not most, people think of "aiki" as Aikido-like behavior; people considering it from an IP standpoint have a much more discrete meaning. In these conversations, rather than accept that people with a different frame of reference will necessarily apply meaning differently, and that most of them are unwilling to change their view of the term "aiki" over the internet, most IP advocates seem to often suggest there is something generally wrong with the understanding of the Aikido world today and give a somewhat formulaic/repetitive response arguing why. I find the points to be compelling on their own, but others do not. This comes up nearly any time someone describes their view of "aiki" (i.e. "I'm considering x, y, and z in my study of Aikido"). In those cases, "x, y, and z" are the intended points, but the threads get turned into reiterations of the same debates surrounding authenticity of the term aiki. I look at AikiWeb and see only a handful of people willing to participate, compared to what I remember from when I first joined several years ago, some of this may be coincidental, but I think most of it has to do with the tone generated by the IP discussions which is itself the product of personality interactions. I get the sense that this is because most people are tired of arguing over what "aiki" means and whether or not they have the right to use it in their posts...I get the sense that if non-IP folks stopped using the term altogether we'd see an improvement, but considering my view expressed in the first sentence, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Thank you for the above, Matthew. I agree with everything that you wrote.

-- Jun

[Gary David]

Folks
It is clear that I can't add anything here or to this site.....so good luck with it....
Gary

[Janet Rosen]

Thank you for the above, Matthew. I agree with everything that you wrote.

-- Jun

Yep, me too.

[ChrisHein]

Nice post Matthew.

From my perspective (which is basically what I think you are saying, but please correct me if I'm wrong), the IP-crowd is saying something like-

Aiki is this specific thing we know about, and if you haven't touched an IP guy, you can't understand it. So if you use the word "Aiki", we are going to correct you, because we don't believe what you are saying is correct.

When I talk (I will only speak for myself), I am saying that "Aikido" is the way of "Aiki". There is a thing that I call "Aiki" this concept was introduced to me through training in Aikido, given to me by my Aikido teacher, who got the concept from his teacher, who arguably got the concept from his teacher, who was the founder of Aikido.

So to me, it's natural to believe, that this concept, that I learned about through Aikido training, have called Aiki for years, and was told directly came from the founder, is in fact "Aiki". I have not seen enough evidence yet, to change my mind as to whether I am using the word correctly or not. I am however reading more and more historical information every day, trying to understand this problem, because it's important to me. I also find it a real bummer, when I can't use the word to describe the concept, that I believe most people in the Aikido community call Aiki- with out being bombarded with posts telling me I'm wrong. Especially when it comes from the same eight or so people every time, and my email gets loads of emails from quiet supporters who also don't see a reason to believe "Aiki" is something different then they have for years.

On the football video I posted, I wanted to talk about the thing in the video that I call "Aiki". The ability that the ball carrier was using to understand and work with the physical actions of those trying to tackle him. I call that thing "Aiki" I don't know if that's what the founder meant by the word or not, so I simply said what I meant by the word, so we could talk about the thing I was trying to describe with the word. But then the thread got turned into a- you're not using the word correctly- argument. Bummer.

There is not enough "proof"/historical evidence out there yet to say what is, or is not, "Aiki", in my opinion. I'm cool with letting people who practice Aikido call whatever they like Aiki, as long as I can understand what they are talking about, and they will do the same for me.

[Lorel Latorilla]

In other words, resort to intrepretive nihilism/relativism and do what you like. Is that what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting that there is no "truth" to the concept of aiki?

[ChrisHein]

In other words, resort to intrepretive nihilism/relativism and do what you like. Is that what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting that there is no "truth" to the concept of aiki?

Nope, I'm just saying that it's going to take a long time to figure out what "Aiki" means. In the mean time I'm willing to call a truce, so we can talk about Aikido again.

[ChrisMoses]

In 2007 I started a thread on the book translated as "Spirit of Aikido".

One of the main assertions made is that OSensei changed the meaning of "Aiki" thus creating a new art.

The thread is here. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12803)

I would assert that his son and many followers definitely changed the definition of "aiki" to be something new and different than how it was used in Daito Ryu. I doubt strongly that OSensei actually changed what he was doing at all.

I try to use the term as it was used, not as the Aikikai, Tohei or the various other modern lines seem to use it (which according to the book was to join ones energy with that of the attacker and the universe). I'll note too that my definition of "Aiki" has changed a lot since I started that thread, but the idea that there was a shift in the meaning of the term seems fairly relevant.

[Lorel Latorilla]

Nope, I'm just saying that it's going to take a long time to figure out what "Aiki" means. In the mean time I'm willing to call a truce, so we can talk about Aikido again.

1) "Taking a long time to figure out what aiki means" sounds a little like orientalism, where you reduce Eastern things into mysterious artifacts that cannot be analyzed and properly studied. I think it takes a little tenacity to get to the truth of things--being passive and avoiding the real core issues of anything has never rewarded anyone with anything, but with delusions. If you look hard enough, and ask the right questions, you will come across information and people (especially those that were close to Ueshiba and even Sagawa and Horikawa) that will point you to the truth of aiki. To be more practical, what is it that initially drew you towards aikido? What exactly are you trying to achieve with aikido? What bodyskills are you trying to gain to help you realize those ideals? Are there people out there that purport to teach these skills? Is aikido really a martial dance that involves co-operative partners? What is it about Ueshiba and the other guys that made throwing other people so easy..almost effortless? What does "harmony" mean in a world of violence and force? Is aiki about meeting the force or is it evading the force? Did the founder and his teachers and peers talk about aiki is evading or was there a more direct dealing of the forces? Why did those around Ueshiba talk about "aiki" as evading? Does it match what the founder talked about or were they missing something? Is it also possible to be that close to the teacher and still miss the mark?

2) A little humility and an being quiet but observant also pays off. Never assume that you know everything, otherwise you may be antagonizing those who are going out of their way to point out the truth of aiki for you; assuming you know everything you will only see those people as "threats" to your worldview, and for that reason you will naturally antagonize and embitter them.

3) How passionate you are about the truth however determines how tenacious you can be to go after it. If you are not passionate about the truth in aiki/bujutsu, then maybe you should just go home and leave aiki/bujutsu altogether. And that's just beginning of the search. If you are not there, then it is impossible for you to even plumb the depths of the truth.

[DH]

I think many, if not most, people think of "aiki" as Aikido-like behavior; people considering it from an IP standpoint have a much more discrete meaning. In these conversations, rather than accept that people with a different frame of reference will necessarily apply meaning differently, and that most of them are unwilling to change their view of the term "aiki" over the internet, most IP advocates seem to often suggest there is something generally wrong with the understanding of the Aikido world today and give a somewhat formulaic/repetitive response arguing why. I find the points to be compelling on their own, but others do not. This comes up nearly any time someone describes their view of "aiki" (i.e. "I'm considering x, y, and z in my study of Aikido"). In those cases, "x, y, and z" are the intended points, but the threads get turned into reiterations of the same debates surrounding authenticity of the term aiki. I look at AikiWeb and see only a handful of people willing to participate, compared to what I remember from when I first joined several years ago, some of this may be coincidental, but I think most of it has to do with the tone generated by the IP discussions which is itself the product of personality interactions. I get the sense that this is because most people are tired of arguing over what "aiki" means and whether or not they have the right to use it in their posts...I get the sense that if non-IP folks stopped using the term altogether we'd see an improvement, but considering my view expressed in the first sentence, I don't see that happening any time soon.
...now off to read Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett. :D It's fun and helps me to laugh at the human condition. Take care y'all.
p.s. Sorry, Chris, I confused your remark about accusations in my last response to you. It dawned on me just as I was falling alseep.
Hi Matthew
You do realize that the thrust of your argument assumes there is no right or wrong. Let me say it another way. What if the IP crowd was somehow proved to be exactly correct.
What would change? How would perception of the debate, change?
Aiki is either everything and anything to anybody based on individual teachers or it was and is in fact a given and teachable body technology with a history. Can a million people be wrong? Yes.

I would only add once again my OP and what I raised there. Real results
How and why is it that there were many giants in budo who talked about the exact... same... terminology? How is this even possible if there were not a specific teaching of it?
Why has the number of IP posters grown here?
Why?
Because the number of teachers encountering IP/Aiki have grown and there remains an almost 100% conversion rate. That means the counter argument for what aiki is in modern Aikido, continues to fail when tested.
THAT.....rate of results would make any industry BUT BUDO...sit up and take notice. Sadly, traditional Budo is one place where results are meaningless to many participants.

**This thread was meant to address specific points. It has gone completely off track and into the weeds discussing the discussion and the people behind the posts hasn't it.
Who did that Matthew? Who always does that?**

Again and to the point of the OP
I wanted people to address the actual results and testimonies
Group #1 The IP/aiki crowd
Ueshiba used specific terminology.
It wasn't his, it has a pedagogy (which in itself destroys the argument that it is singular to anyone's individual desires)
The terminology he used was well known for producing power
It existed in India, China and Koryu
It produces power today in those who know what to do with it.

Group #2 The modern aikido people
Defines aiki as evading/blending or anything their individual teacher said it was
Yet when asked, cannot explain what Ueshiba actually said and where it came form and what he did.
And explain why they have no unusual power.

Those who are very good in group #1 keep handing group #2 their ass. On top of that, they can define, explain, and perform what Ueshiba was doing and....they.... possess unusual power.
How does this keep happening?
What does that mean?
Why do the people who go out and feel those who are accomplished in IP/aiki change and adopt Ueshiba's style of moving and training, over and over?

Talking about why we keep talking about it
Discussing the discussion
Talking about the people and their personalities
Targeting ...yes...targeting individuals and what they charge
Talking about their personalities

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP
Dan

[ChrisHein]

Hey Lorel,

I don't know if you read my tone as something other than it was. I think lot's of things take a long time to figure out. I wasn't trying to be tricky or in any other way strange.

Frankly I would like Aikiweb to again be a place where Aikido people with all different ideas can come together and talk. I also realize that I have at times made that difficult. So what I was trying to do was wave a flag.

[Janet Rosen]

Mathew's post rang true for me because in terms of semantics one word CAN and often does legitamately mean different things AND because one can differentiate the word from one or all of the described phenomenon.
What the IP folks are doing is 100% effective and valuable and yes can be integrated into aikido whether it is named "aiki", "that weird stuff" or "Tsar Nicholas". Yes, I understand that it is being called "aiki because it is seen as the root of what Takeda, Uashiba, etc were doing. But the word cannot be owned.
Many longtime aikidoka are accustomed to using the same word to mean something else. They are not ipso facto wrong. They are indeed using the word to describe something different from the IP folks. But this is not only a martial arts arguement; it is an ages old LANGUAGE arguement in every culture there are those who want to codify and preserve language in amber ignoring that it is a messy changing human artifact.
Apologies for sp errors, my ipod is hard to edit on.

[Janet Rosen]

I may not have been as consise as intended. Point was, you can be correct about what you are doing but still there is not a right or wrong on use of a word that has had many common meanings. Two separate issues.

[DH]

Frankly I would like Aikiweb to again be a place where Aikido people with all different ideas can come together and talk. I also realize that I have at times made that difficult. So what I was trying to do was wave a flag.
That has never changed. You perhaps just don't like to hear some Aikido teachers opinions.
Aikido people are still talking about their Aikido. Only now you have teachers talking about...their view.....their view....of what Aiki is based on a three thousand year old body technology your founder loved to talk about.

I planned this to happen in 2009 when I came up with the idea to teach teachers. I knew and predicted, and wrote down what was going to happen.
As one well known budo author wrote me privately.
"f___n brilliant!"
Shortest email i ever got from him.
So, here in 2013 Apparently some very credible teachers think its a good thing.
Discussion doesn't mean we always agree. "Iron sharpens iron" and all that. I just wish we could be nicer while debating.
Dan

[akiy]

Group #1 The IP/aiki crowd
[snip]

Group #2 The modern aikido people
[snip]

Those who are very good in group #1 keep handing group #2 their ass. On top of that, they can define, explain, and perform what Ueshiba was doing and....they.... possess unusual power.

This line of argument that one group is "better" than the other has no place in a discussion forum. Please stop.

Frankly I would like Aikiweb to again be a place where Aikido people with all different ideas can come together and talk.

Agreed.

-- Jun

[MM]

This line of argument that one group is "better" than the other has no place in a discussion forum. Please stop.

-- Jun

I find it amazing that the preeminent reason that people trained with Ueshiba was that he martially handed them their ass, as the saying goes. Pre-war students to post-war students were interviewed and most of them said they had no idea what he was talking about when he rambled on spiritually. Yet, there's anecdotes of students first experience with Ueshiba and it was them (them meaning some solid martial artists with a lot of experience) getting manhandled in a way in which they could not understand.

The same was said of Sagawa. The same with Horikawa. As with Takeda. As a group, the only reason men/women trained with them, men/women begged to train with them, and men/women did whatever they could to be accepted was because, as a group, they dominated in a manner in which none could understand.

And now, you say that what the very founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, did, has no place on this forum? Morihei Ueshiba and his peers were far better than most other martial artists. It was their being so different that allowed them to stand out. Some very experienced, very tough martial artists came, experienced, and were converted by being manhandled. And not by just more of the same martial applications they'd already trained for 20-40 years. As a group, people with aiki dominated and students came to study with them exactly for that reason.

Jun, if you want Aikiweb to be a place for just Modern Aikido, all you have to do is state it outright. I'll stop. I'll quit posting about the founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, his unusual abilities, his mysterious skills, his aiki, all which are specific things and not something that is everything to everyone. If you want the Modern "aiki" that is everything to everyone, from the receiver dodging defenders to the person wearing a beret, just say so. I'll stop talking about Ueshiba's aiki. I do what I say. If that's what you want, let me know.

[akiy]

And now, you say that what the very founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, did, has no place on this forum?
No, I said no such thing. What I said was, "This line of argument that one group is "better" than the other has no place in a discussion forum. Please stop."

Just because you (the generic "you" in this case) might be able to best someone in a physical altercation does not have bearing to a discussion. That is one line of argument that I do not want to see here on AikiWeb.
Jun, if you want Aikiweb to be a place for just Modern Aikido, all you have to do is state it outright.
Please stop putting things into my mouth, Mark. I have never said any such thing.
If you want the Modern "aiki" that is everything to everyone, from the receiver dodging defenders to the person wearing a beret, just say so.

On this topic, for the moment, I will say that there is much to be said about bringing up historical information regarding a term and its "original" meaning(s), and I welcome such discussions. And, at the same time, to keep countering its accepted use within the broad, global aikido community as a blunt weapon to seemingly delegitimize the way in which others train is something I do not want to see on my website.

-- Jun

[DH]

Thanks
Dan

[DH]

Jun
The reason I posted the thread was to discuss how one form of aiki has proven to be effective historically and now in the modern era.
I also wanted to specifically discuss why it has caused just about 100% of those who encounter it to switch to that method. I thought *effectiveness* would place a foundational talking point as a start. It was the one talking point that addressed some of Krystals talking points in the OP.
I don't know how to discuss that now.
The historical aspects are hotly debated and denied. You've seen that.
The translations are denied and debated
I think the real results happening in rooms around the world are worth mentioning although I see what you mean by a blunt instrument, and it''s a fair point. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to figure out the guideline. As I stated earlier, the translations, and the historical and cultural connections have been debated into nothing. There isn't a lot left to even add to that argument. Effectiveness and clarity, one form aiki versus the other, certainly is the one and only point that has ended all debate in person. And this while a very friendly discussion over the training model and exercises ensued.
To me effectiveness of one over the other is the one element that should be defining a budo discussion. And it has led to profound changes in peoples careers.

In Judo BJJ, MMA, Karate, and many other arts effectiveness is the actual starting point. I realize that traditional budo people are not as concerned with effective results, but it sure has changed the minds of over a thousand Aikido people from shodan to shihan. Isn't that worthy of discussion? its why I started the thread. I thought so. Why is it a negative?
And I am sincerely asking.
Dan

[mathewjgano]

Hi Dan,
Hi Matthew
You do realize that the thrust of your argument assumes there is no right or wrong. Let me say it another way. What if the IP crowd was somehow proved to be exactly correct.
I don't think is assumes there is no right or wrong; certainly, I do not think there is no right or wrong. I tend to assume the IP crowd is pretty much right in their assessment of things in general...so much of it rings true to me and my assumptions about human nature and learning. What I'm saying is that we would generally do better to address the intended meaning rather than the terms; to excuse the fact that "aiki" as Ueshiba Morihei meant it is simply inaccessible to a large number of people (I consider myself to be one of them, based on my relatively low level of personal study) and that we will rarely be able to change a person's mind once they have a working definition developed...particularly when it's corroborated by so many of their peers and teachers. Rather than trying to change this, which is almost impossible in a venue like this, it would be better to read between the lines to whatever it is they actually mean. On the mat, I think framing things in terms of right and wrong (with reasoning provided) is essential. On the internet, not so much. Some might think this is rhetorical dishonesty, but I view it as a kind of etiquette necessary when talking with strangers.

Aiki is either everything and anything to anybody based on individual teachers or it was and is in fact a given and teachable body technology with a history. Can a million people be wrong? Yes.
Absolutely a million people can be wrong! However semantics do change over time and geography and social settings. When someone says O Sensei meant this or that, it's a time for saying, I believe you're right or wrong and here is the historical evidence for why. That's not always what these discussions have said though. And really, I'm not talking about who's right or wrong. I'm talking about how rancor can be abated in a conversation over the internet.

I would only add once again my OP and what I raised there. Real results
I took your OP to include more than results. I think you are very much an empiricist and that it why I trust your point of view, even though I'm not in a position to understand it like many other people. I think many people mistake your efforts at pointing to empirical evidence (albeit evidence that is inaccessible to most people here and as such is essentially hearsay to their "ears") for bragging. I think that is another cause for the rancor and another reason why I agree with your suggestion that people try to see the best in each other.
I am being pulled away right now before being able to review what I've written so please forgive any poorly written bits. I'll only add for now that I don't think the personalities are the problem; I attribute all rancor to problems of personality interaction; that doesn't mean the personalities are flawed in my mind, only that some personalities have a harder time of interacting with other personalities; both can still be great personalities.
Ok gotta go for now. Thank you for the reply, Dan, sincerely!
I'll try to come back tomorrow and give a better reply.
Happy New Year!
Take care,
Matthew

[DH]

I have to go as well.
I hope everyone has a great new years. Chris Hein, I appreciated both the private and public posts.

Jun
Please don't be too frustrated. Your forum has actually exposed people to new methods and fostered friendships that have changed peoples lives, mine included. Please don't run out of patience with us.
Happy New Year
Dan

[Mert Gambito]

Yes, Jun.

Somehow you ended up taking on a Max Yasgur-type role in all this -- or at least that sentiment is an indication of the significance some of us attach to being here and participating, at this time.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

[phitruong]

...now off to read Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett. :D It's fun and helps me to laugh at the human condition. Take care y'all.
.

it's turtle all the way down. *plop*

i found it's amusing to read these threads. it's really like a great big dysfuntional family arguing at a birthday party. it's kinda interesting from the social and psychology point of view. it's like those reality TV shows, some love them, some hate them, some hate and love them, some just watch because nothing else on, some watch them so they can talk to friends and family about it, some watch to see the fashion, the fights, the personalities, and of course some just want to keeping up with the kadashians :D

[hughrbeyer]

Reflecting on this post and this topic at the beginning of a new year, I'd like to start with an expression of gratitude.

To Jun, for putting up with the hassles of maintaining a forum like this, without which I never would have met some very wonderful people.

To Dan, for having the tenacity to beat on the aikido world until it listened, and the skills to back up his words when they finally started paying attention.

To the AikiWeb community for beating on Dan long enough and sincerely enough to force him out of his cabin in the woods and share his stuff for real.

To Bill Gleason, my sensei, for having the moral honesty and courage to be still seeking ways to take his aikido to the next level after 40 years of practice.

To Stan Pranin, who really should take the blame for it all, for going out and asking uncomfortable questions and then--quelle horreur--publishing what he learned.

The state of the discussion as I see it is this:

The claim is made that "aiki" was a special and important term to both O-Sensei and to Takeda, his teacher. Given that both chose to use that term to name their arts, this seems self-evident, but it is bolstered by sayings of O-Sensei highlighting the importance of whatever it is he called aiki ("I defeated him because I understood aiki.") I think the evidence that's been presented over the years here and partially collected in Chris Li's blog is very strong on this point.

The claim is also made that the understanding of "aiki" as a special body of skills has been largely lost in the aikido world over time, though artifacts of those skills remain in specific exercises and in the very real abilities of at least some senior aikido teachers. But to the extent they remain they are not articulated as a body of knowledge. Justification for this claim is found in the words of O-Sensei's students themselves, who admit they didn't understand the guy and couldn't reproduce what he did. Justification is also found in the specific teachings and exercises of O-Sensei which have been dropped over time, because they were not understood.

It is certainly fair game to argue that O-Sensei used the term more loosely by presenting other quotes and evidence, and any such evidence needs to be accounted for by the IP crowd.

It's also fair to argue that "aiki" has been used more loosely in this or that lineage. But since part of the argument is that the aiki skills have been lost over time (and are worth recovering) I think it's fair and useful to talk about what should properly be called aiki and what shouldn't. And in that discussion, I think a careful analysis of how O-Sensei and his teacher used the term trump "this is what I think" or "this is what my teacher thinks." We can have that discussion respectfully. But I think we have to have it.

The claim is also made that "aiki" skills will trump other skills on the mat. The evidence provided for this is that so many senior practitioners have taken up studying these skills as soon as they are introduced to them. (There's also the in-person, hands-on evidence of meeting up and finding out what happens--but you can't do that across the web.) This is contentious because we all have ego involved but if we aren't willing to engage at this level and submit our understanding to this test, we have no right to call what we do budo.

One counter to this argument is that "aiki" as the IP/IS crowd define it is not the whole story, that avoiding, timing, blending, and jitsu techniques like wrist locks all have a place. I think it's an argument worth making. Recently someone pointed to the Asahi News video where O-Sense escapes out of a ring of people attacking him with a bo. Was that just avoidance? Timing? What else was going on? I think it's a real question and deserves a real discussion.

Another counter is that aikido is not designed for contest fighting and therefore testing your aikido by fighting in a contest is silly (and counter to the Founder's intent). Which would be a fair point, except that no one is talking about an Old West style throwdown. There are lots of ways, in person, to see who's got what and what they can do with it.

Another counter is that aikido isn't just a martial art--it also has spiritual goals of harmony and peace. Proponents quote the Founder's words on this. I think this is profoundly true, and would be a great area for discussion and inquiry--I only wish it would be pursued with the same intellectual rigor that the IP/IS crowd has pursued their arguments. Go find the original Japanese, make translations that seek to be accurate, rather than understandable to a Western audience. Tie O-Sensei's words and perspective to that of O-Omoto kyo and Deguchi. Talk to people who follow that religion and practice those rituals, practice them yourself, and then come back and tell us what you found out. That's what's been happening on the budo side. That's the standard you have to live up to.

One final claim being made is that O-Sensei's "aiki" is not his invention, or Takeda's, but that it ties into an immensely long martial tradition extending back to China and from there to India. In fact, the discovery of this historical continuity is the really new thing Dan brings to the table--and he brings it by talking to and putting hands on with the people from a variety of arts and discovering that the body skills correlate and the language and imagery correlate with what he learned and with how O-Sensei talked. I myself have had the experience (I posted about it a year or so ago) of walking off the mat having done an exercise and encountering exactly that exercise in the words of O-Sensei, words I never would have recognized without the experience of the body practice.

I haven't tried to corral every thread of evidence in this short :) post, but that's the outline of how I understand the debate to stand right now. I think it's worthy of vigorous debate--and the debate *should* be vigorous, if we care about our art at all. But the bar for debate has been raised and it was first raised not by Dan but by Stan Pranin, who wouldn't accept what all the teachers taught but instead went out and looked at the real evidence for himself. In this argument, if someone justifies a claim with "O-Sensei said this, and it translates this way, and correlates to other Japanese budo terms this way, and to Chinese budo classics like this, and looks like this in this video of O-Sensei, and is supported by these exercises," you really aren't going to get very far responding with "But I feel this way." Or even, "But my teacher taught me this way."

Finally--these are bloody huge ginormous opportunities on the table in front of us here. Nobody has to respond to them. If you're happy with what you're doing, walk away. Keep doing it with like-minded people. But don't complain if you feel like there's a conversation happening behind your back--because there is. And try not to get too frustrated if every topic you post gets brought back to this new/old aiki/IP/IS. Once you learn to see aikido this way, it's really hard not to see it in everything.

[Howard Popkin]

Who knew you could write something that good :-)

[Nicholas Eschenbruch]

Awesome post, Hugh, goes straight to my desktop collection of reference snippets...

And the oportunity you mention is really, also, joyful and creative.

[Ernesto Lemke]

Wow Hugh, great post. To me, it also covers big parts of the thread on "online decline". The points you raise are indeed worthy of vigorous debate. And here I was thinking that most every topic had by now seen the light of day.
I've read Aikiweb nearly from it's inception and it's become a habit since years to check this (and a few other) forums on a daily basis. These days however, only occassionaly do I end up following a thread with any great interest. Many times I catch myself wondering why I keep reading it with the frequency that I do. If it wasn't for my interest in, and I guess also being part of the "IP crowd" (whatever that means) I probably would have been gone a long time ago.

Though I rarely participate, and I still think better minds than mine have more to offer to the discussions, I would hate to see the discussions stop. It was Aikiweb amongst others that put me in touch with many interesting people around the globe. I've made friends as a result and hope to make many more.

Sorry for the thread drift. Let me finish by pointing out the obvious: Hugh's points could form the start of several new threads for those who take an interest....

[NathanMishler]

I could use some help in these discussions. I sense ( and by sense, I mean I have been TOLD DIRECTLY by various people ) that there is a big shift happening in Aikido.

Great! Awesome! Count me in.

Ah, but there is a problem I have. Much of what is said in the IP/AIKI discussions fly over my head, or around my head. While I find a lot of what Dan says to be intriguing, a lot of it feels like rhetorical questions, or questions that he obviously has an answer for, but I don't.

How to get them? Well of course, go and feel. Awesome. At first opportunity, I think.

In the meantime... maybe we should think about building something on the web to speaks to these things. When the IP / AIKI crowd talks about "Aiki" and its definition, and InYo, and other things ... it would be really nice to have a definition written down.

Or, when talk about O-Sensei and his solo training occurs - can we point to them and say what the were? Can we reconstruct them?

When talk comes up about the long lineages of thought that Uaeshiba subscribed to - can we point to those as well?

And if by "we" that means "I need to set up a wiki or something" then I guess I'm volunteering...

I know there has been some derision about people being "too cerebral" here, and I understand it. Things need to be felt and done. I'm just looking for some understanding in the meanwhile. Maybe do some of that solo training.

[Ernesto Lemke]

Fair enough. (Of course, one can also point out the fact that a lot of threads have been dedicated to some of these very questions.) To sum up Hugh’s points (a bit):
- What did Ueshiba mean with “Aiki?”
Is it (as “the IP crowd” says) a specific body method, presuming to date back centuries and spanning cultures and countries? (If so, it’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence – Chris Li’s blogs have done much to point this out).
- Is it that AND is it also a reference to other things? (Ueshiba’s “Aiki is love” comes to mind).
- Can it be that this specific body method was not passed on “successfully” to the aikido world?
- If not a specific body, then how is Aiki defined and does this present a problem? (Aiki extensions comes to mind).
- If rephrased or adopted differently or maybe perhaps even historically incorrect, in what sense is this a problem for a discussion format such as Aikiweb?
- The skills, as been claimed by “the IP crowd”, are presented as physically superior to nearly every method within “conventional” (some say Modern) Aikido. The IHTBF argument seems to be a bone of content for some people who wish to discuss, even question the existence of these skills. IOW can these skills, without actual exposure be discussed on Aikiweb?
Some random questions….

[renshin]

IOW can these skills, without actual exposure be discussed on Aikiweb?

I really don't think so. Before seeking out Dan at your place, Ernesto, I had read hundreds of posts by him and others. It made me curious, but I had no idea how to start doing this myself. Or how it really worked. Even if there are some quite detailed explanations available in written form. And I was actually worried that if I actually did something, I'd end up spending a lot of time going in the wrong direction.

When I was finally shown this stuff and felt it myself, the things that I'd read made perfect sense. They were suddenly something tangible and something I could feel in my own body. I got a terminology for the methodology, and a path to follow.

Trying to learn anything about this without direct exposure to someone who knows it is, IMHO, not possible. If you do go to a seminar with Dan, however, you will be greatly rewarded. Not a single day has passed since last April without me thinking of this stuff and trying to figure out how it works both mentally and physically.

And now, the discussions here and elsewhere, and Dan's statements, make perfect sense. I still suck at it, but at least I know why and can discuss it :D

[sakumeikan]

Who is "our group"?
because:

I think it depends on whom do you compare to whom.
I don't see that practicing with Dan is more expensive than practising with other teachers comparable.
I myself only conducted one class of a seminar throughout my life. The seminar was for free.
I attended seminars that where much more expensive than Dan's are.

For this is true I find it disgusting to discuss seminar fees in such a way. This would simply be impossible with other teachers.
And it is simply ridicoulus: I don't know wether you are used to inviting teachers from Japan or other countries overseas. Have you ever had to collect the money for a first class flight from Tokyo and a first class hotel in Berlin? Can you imagine what maybe twenty people would have to pay only for this? Thank god there are about 200 persons paying for the seminars plus we are using a part of the fees we collect in our federation.

Most teachers I know don't allow taking videos during regular classes or seminars. Even teachers who have released instructional DVD's don't like it or - even if asked - prohibit it. Some allow it only after having edited the video themselves. Or it's allowed to take a video but not to show it openly or load it up to youtube.

To me it's the same thing like talking about seminar fees:
No teacher I practiced with would ever discuss his teachings using a DVD or a youtube video. To me it is not only disrespectfull to demand this.
But what's more important: This is a youtubeish understanding of how budô is taught and learned. You will never get what a teacher has to give without moving yourself to get out and touch him. Going and get him is part of the learning.
Many teachers of "my group" are going to Japan to get their teacher. Other teachers went to Paris once a week for years.
I assume you also move yourself to be with your teacher(s). So why do you think this would not be appropriate in this case?
Dear Carsten,
For someone who appears to against dvd usage / video .dvd reticent, you yourself use video material on your webpage.If you are a student of Endo Sensei I would suggest that Endo Sensei [a Youtube contributor ] seems to be quite happy posting videos.
Regarding seminars I have probably went to more seminars than most people have had hot dinners.Same as running courses, no need for you to tell me anything about running /casing courses.As far as travelling to courses etc,my cv [should you care to read it ]will give you info.
As for 'our group ' a bit of Sherlock Holmes detection on your part , surfing the web, will reveal all.
As far as me being a YouTube warrior, posting endless tit bits on the Y/Tube, sorry you will not find much of me on the Net.I prefer to be elusive and I refrain from doing this.Deep down I am like a latter day Howard Hughes of the Aikido fraternity.
Dvds cannot replace hands on instruction training with good teachers. Dvds are only traing tools/visual aids.They have their place. Some well known people in the Aikido firmament seem to have little reservations about churning out for the masses Aiki material.Maybe its a charitable gesture on the part of the people who make the decision to publish this material?
Last but not least I am non judgemental in respect of course fees.If instructors wish to charge
a certain price for their services and people are prepared to pay a sum of money to attend the course, that is a mutual commercial transaction between the parties involved.Happy New Year, Joe.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

The IHTBF argument seems to be a bone of content for some people who wish to discuss, even question the existence of these skills. IOW can these skills, without actual exposure be discussed on Aikiweb?


I'd say one can't learn these skills via e-discussion, but some of the claims and counterclaims Mr. Beyer mentioned in his great post could be analyzed.

[DH]

I could use some help in these discussions. I sense ( and by sense, I mean I have been TOLD DIRECTLY by various people ) that there is a big shift happening in Aikido.

Great! Awesome! Count me in.

Ah, but there is a problem I have. Much of what is said in the IP/AIKI discussions fly over my head, or around my head. While I find a lot of what Dan says to be intriguing, a lot of it feels like rhetorical questions, or questions that he obviously has an answer for, but I don't.

How to get them? Well of course, go and feel. Awesome. At first opportunity, I think.

In the meantime... maybe we should think about building something on the web to speaks to these things. When the IP / AIKI crowd talks about "Aiki" and its definition, and InYo, and other things ... it would be really nice to have a definition written down.

Or, when talk about O-Sensei and his solo training occurs - can we point to them and say what the were? Can we reconstruct them?

When talk comes up about the long lineages of thought that Uaeshiba subscribed to - can we point to those as well?

And if by "we" that means "I need to set up a wiki or something" then I guess I'm volunteering...

I know there has been some derision about people being "too cerebral" here, and I understand it. Things need to be felt and done. I'm just looking for some understanding in the meanwhile. Maybe do some of that solo training.
The questions were not meant to be rhetorical and where they lead should be quite compelling. What is equally relevant is that the undisputed and actual results I am achieving facing teachers on a world wide stage are the physical evidence of a much broader topic, one that can ONLY be debated online. In person...it's over.

I thought the startling fact that almost 100% of the teachers exposed to this work change and adopt it would be the....single....most compelling talking point to help bring the discussion forward.

The above statement has never been fully addressed. Chris Hein decided to tell us that he knows some people who thought the work (in this case, mine) was nothing special. Fine by me. I never said 100%. What he still doesn't address is the other 99%, or that fact that his "people" still failed to demonstrate unusual power...face to face. Why can I say that? Because I would have remembered them. They would have been different.

So here again we have

Talking point #1
What on this earth would cause almost 100% of the people going in one direction (many of whom have invested significant portions of their lives to it)....to entirely change direction?
I think that is a compelling talking point.

Talking point #2
Even if only 99% of those exposed change their direction...100% of those exposed....failed.

What does that really say about skills and teaching methods?

It is my belief that those two issues will forever remain un-addressed. They are not rhetorical questions. They should require an answer. The reasons they will not be addressed are simple:
1. It is irrefutable. Too many credible teachers were present in all those rooms.
2. It means that one must accept the claims that are associated with them:

There is a historical pedagogy outside of Aikido
A historical pedagogy within Aikido.
Direct terminology containing the same concepts across cultures and eras
Those concepts are known for producing power
There is a means to demonstrate the understanding of the above along with clear demonstrations of that power.
That the teachers in the art (in whole or in part) either don't know this, can't show this or can't teach this.


It is for those reasons I started this thread. I wanted to go past the never ending internet debate and get someone to address the face to face results. Long past the debate over translations and every other imaginable debate point (mostly pivoting around "My teacher told me,") the face to face results...remain beyond reproach. The one and only counter that remains is to somehow disqualify actual results. The results make a defining statement.

Of course I am aware that it is an uncomfortable discussion. One would have to be fairly dull not to realize that tackling these issues head-on was going to cause some distress for both parties. But what does it say when one side, continues to clearly demonstrate and prove their point, without anyone from the other side who is capable of demonstrating a counter in person. The points still remain and they are not our enemy, they are our friend, for they challenge us all.

In continue to look forward. Many now understand and realize that this work will move the art of Aikido forward into the West in the hands of teachers who now will have a much better teaching model for Ueshiba's work to give to the world. We can display power, place his work in the proper light, explain, teach, and do things in a way that Westerners can understand and that the traditional teaching method either cannot or will not, address or answer. It's a good time to be in Budo.
Dan

[DH]

One quick note I would make is that the discussions are not nearly as negative as believed at first glance. There are complaints, but the IP/aiki threads are the most watched here on Aikiweb. Watch the numbers. And I have met readers (you know those "guests" at the bottom of the screen) from around the world in many different arts who have all pointed to Aikiweb as their first choice discussing internals. This also includes others in the Internal arts who come here to read discussions having given up on other boards.
Dan

[DH]

To a select few....by their own admission.

Why does this quote even exist?
What does it mean?
Why....did he, a student of Ueshiba have solo training methods to help produce #1. How does #1 contribute significantly to producing the rest.
1. Place the immovable body
2. In an invincible position
3. Release metsubushi
4. Until the opponent becomes
Non resistant...Shirata

Why was his solo work not taught at Hombu?
Why did he openly state that he didn't even teach it to all of his students (including some very famous ones), but to only a few. That statement is such a reality in Japanese budo that it has been quoted by many Japanese teachers, interview after interview for over a hundred years. Why then are we so surprised, that so many did not get it? Whats new? They told us up front. Would you be surprised if I listed four shihans and two Koryu sokes who said the same thing in 2012? It's just the way it is.

Again, why are we so very surprised that so many of us didn't get it? And now we argue with those who actually did, fighting with each other instead of helping support each other. No one else is out there helping Westerners get a leg up.... BUT the IP guys.
Dan

[Carsten Möllering]

... For someone who appears to against dvd usage / video ...
You missed my point. Which is in very shot terms, that it's useless to watch a video without having touched the teacher and maye got oral instruction.

My personal videos on youtube are clearly not instructional and they are clearly not showing aikidô on a level that could help others in any way.

Regarding seminars ... Same as running courses, no need for you to tell me anything about running /casing courses.Yes, I had assumed that, even without knowing your biographie. You just sound this way.
The more I found it "astounding" and "not very good mannered" to discuss fees in the way you did.

As for 'our group ' a bit of Sherlock Holmes detection on your part , surfing the web, will reveal all.As for you compared "your group", I would have found nice to know about it. I then googled your name + aikido and that didn't lead me to "your group". So I let it go.

Last but not least I am non judgemental in respect of course fees.
You compared yours to others.

Maybe I simply didn't understand you.
Maybe the language barrier is a problem so I got you wrong.
For sure I am oversensitiv.

I understood:
Comparing one's own fees to those of other teachers and pointing at them because they seem to be more expensive.
Demanding videos (on the internet) of a teacher instead of going and practice with him.

[ChrisHein]

The above statement has never been fully addressed. Chris Hein decided to tell us that he knows some people who thought the work (in this case, mine) was nothing special. Fine by me. I never said 100%. What he still doesn't address is the other 99%, or that fact that his "people" still failed to demonstrate unusual power...face to face. Why can I say that? Because I would have remembered them. They would have been different.

Hey Dan,

I'm not trying to get into an argument here, so please read my tone, as discussion oriented and not attacking.

The feeling of "unusual power" is a bad point of discussion in my opinion. The reason is because the statement is so subjective. For example, both Patrick Cassidy, and Tim Cartmell have done things to me that felt "unusual". I have done things to my students that made them ask me time and again, "how did you do that, how is that possible". I'm not in anyway claiming with this that Cassidy, Cartmell or myself have what you call "IP/Aiki" However all of us have demonstrated "unusual power" at one point or another. Something being unusual doesn't make it "IP/Aiki" it only makes it out of the ordinary for some people.

On another note, and again I'm trying to be friendly here; it would be nice if your posts were more concise. The reason I say this is because lot's of times when you post, there are so many things to read and then address, it's nearly impossible to fully get to any of them. If we stick to one part at a time, I think we'll all benefit. And maybe you'll be able to convince more people of your points, even over the internet. Thanks!

[hughrbeyer]

@Nathan, and others in the same boat, I have all kinds of sympathy for you and none at all.

All kinds of sympathy, because I know how frustrating it is to be told you have to put hands on and you can't (yet).

None at all, because there has never been a time in the history of budo when it's been so easy to get ahold of this stuff. O-Sensei searched his whole early life for it, and when he finally found it on a godforsaken frozen island in north Japan he abandoned his wife and children for months to make a start on acquiring it. Others left the US and lived in Japan for years, studying diligently, only to have their own teachers say that they never taught the good stuff to them. We are living in the days of wine and roses, by comparison.

And IHTBF isn't a one-time thing, either. I recently got back from a IS/IP seminar with a whole new understanding of the most basic exercise and how it relates to my Aikido practice. And then someone made a comment about the Asahi News video and suddenly I could see the same insight operating in O-Sensei's movement.

Partly this is because I'm a little dense. But partly it's because insights come in layers, and when you've progressed enough to be ready for them. So you have to keep going back to the stream, because the water you drink from it is never the same.

[Ernesto Lemke]

Hi Dan (btw email wink wink)

Let me take stab at one of your points:


Talking point #1
What on this earth would cause almost 100% of the people going in one direction (many of whom have invested significant portions of their lives to it)....to entirely change direction?
I think that is a compelling talking point.

Let me not directly address your question so much as in pointing out something else. Now I’m speculating here, but my best guess is that a portion of readers are simply put off by the tone. Knowing you in person, your statements don’t strike me that way – at all - but is there a certain amount of bluntness? I’d say so, but that in itself does not refute the facts.
Speaking of which….
What for you are facts, may simply be an opinion of yours to others. I have frequently wondered why so many of those shihan and higher ranking teachers are not forthcoming. Of course I can sympathize with implications of which I have no knowledge and that do not personally concern nor affect me. OTOH without the support of verifications, it does turn Dan’s “facts” thus far mostly into “claims.” (btw I’m not saying no one of stature has supported you: Howard Popkin, Allen Beebe, Marc Abrams, George Ledyard to name just a few, have done so directly. Indirectly it is an established FACT that Bill Gleason trains under you. I’m mostly implying that the Aikido community at large would, perhaps, be more inclined not to question these “claims” once credible Sensei X, Y and Z openly state that this “stuff” had them change their direction…entirely!

Thus, it first requires a willingness of people to accept your claims as facts. Once that’s done…well…

PS
Email? :D

[hughrbeyer]

Cogitating on Dan's last few posts.

I suspect a lot of folks are going to read them and think, "There goes Dan bragging about how unbeatable he is again." Amiright?

If so, that's totally not the way to read the point Dan's trying to make. Instead of getting annoyed at the "tone" ask yourself--who is contradicting him?

Who's saying, "Nah, I was there, and it wasn't much"?

This is a way of trying to show on the web something that you would otherwise only be able to tell in person. Okay, you can't feel it in person--but all these other people have. Of them, who's saying it's worthless? Who *isn't* saying it's critical?

I can think of three (3) negative posts over the years from people who have actually been on the mat with Dan. Most of those, to the best of my recollection, talked more about not liking Dan (their prerogative) than not liking the skills. Balance this against all the posts from people who went from hostile or neutral to strong supporters. How did that happen?

Add to this: These people aren't running off to study karate, or taiji, or todo-ha-no-bujitsu-kata-reiki. It's not that they're looking for some other martial art which is going to be somehow better. They're enthusiastic about the work not because it's an alternative to Aikido but because they recognize something that can strengthen their Aikido. How can that be?

If these skills really come from the outside, if they're foreign to Aikido, how come so many practitioners think they're critical to Aikido?

If O-Sensei created and refined his art as the ultimate expression of a certain way of being, which he described as "aiki" do... why do these skills fit into it like a hand into a glove?

[Cliff Judge]

As for "Aiki" - Dan has just as solid an Aiki lineage as anybody posting here.

Dan Harden has a solid Aiki lineage? I am pretty sure you have to have a Sensei for that.

[Chris Li]

Dan Harden has a solid Aiki lineage? I am pretty sure you have to have a Sensei for that.

And he did - but you'll have to talk to him about that.

Best,

Chris

[akiy]

One quick note I would make is that the discussions are not nearly as negative as believed at first glance. There are complaints, but the IP/aiki threads are the most watched here on Aikiweb.
I think that the number of "views" a thread has had is a better measure of how controversial and/or active a thread is rather than how positive or negative that topic may be.

-- Jun

[Cliff Judge]

And he did - but you'll have to talk to him about that.

Best,

Chris

I think that makes his lineage fail the test of solidity.

[Chris Li]

I think that makes his lineage fail the test of solidity.

Whether or not he choses to tell you about it or not has no effect on his solidity. In any case, there are plenty of us with solid and public lineages that are calling it "Aiki", so what's the problem?

Best,

Chris

[Ernesto Lemke]

Phew, this thread is going all over the place while I’m busy typing…

Yeah, to what Hugh said….

But then also, I really wonder whether yet another support from virtual “nobody’s” like me (not you Hugh) would really – tongue in cheek - “convert” the Aikiweb readers at large (and no, not all of “us” are out to convert). Still, for the most part it’s the Gospel of the individual’s dojo that will dictate the policy, the sentiments, the understanding and thus, influence ones point of reference.

Take the situation in my country, the Netherlands, for instance. From all the Dutch attendees of Dan’s seminars, we have had only one high ranking individual who, to the best of my knowledge, does not share/teach this stuff in his own dojos. There may be various reasons for this, I’m sure. Most other attendees where individuals not in charge of their own dojo’s, some of whom have faced problems of no longer fitting in the dogma of their dojo or origin. Not all, but some. Many have a hard(er) time trying, wanting to hold on to this IP/Aiki thing as individuals but have not succeeded in getting their dojo buddies (or instructor) enthusiastic enough to either attend or be open to the possibility there may be more behind the horizon. I think it’s praiseworthy that these individuals refuse to ignore what they were exposed to while not having the luxury of being able to train this with like minded people on a regular basis (apart from the irregular get togethers).
Only three individuals (myself included) are running their own dojo’s and are focused fully on (or have integrated) Dan’s approach.
So, it goes to show how little interest or exploration urge/need there is at “the top” of Dutch Aikido. If there is any revolution at hand, it’s a very slooooooow one. I’ve noticed, throughout the years only a tiny number of participants on Aikiweb are Dutch. Even in my hometown, from the two other Aikido dojo instructors, both never visit Aikiweb. And the one Dutch Aikikai forum went debunked a couple of years ago due to a lack of interest (and quality control IMHO).

So, it is up to that particular individual who keeps an open mind. Who is also active on the internet and can differentiate what is what and who is who (which takes time). Especially so for those who have yet to step on to the scene and have tons of threads to sift through before being able to make any distinction at all (I think most of the fiercest IP/Aiki debates took place between 2006-2010).
What keeps these discussion also going, maybe, is that us “IP crowd” would love to have been able to have had exposure to this years ago. To the point of sometimes wanting to shout it (not too subtle) from the rooftops, we all share the incredible enthusiasm of the treasure of this “stuff.” If I could go back in time, I would really have loved to had this been my first exposure to MA’s. And I’m sure somewhere amongst the Aikiweb readers, is another (like I was at the time when I began) 14 year old not that different from me back then….

Now what was this thread about again….? :confused: :cool:

[Carsten Möllering]

I think that makes his lineage fail the test of solidity.Why do you think so?

To my experience and my understanding of "etiquette" it is natural, that the lineage of a teacher is displayed by himself in face to face conversation. And only by himself.

I have more than once experienced that a lineage that was to read or was told even by advanced studends differed from what the teacher himself said, when asked. And in some cases it was kind of complicated, not so one-dimensional even when directly talking about it.

This is another aspect (comparison of fees; demanding some "video-proof" without practicing with the teacher concerned; discussion of lineage without talking directly to the concerned teacher) that I have never experienced being discussed regarding another teacher. Why is this so? I don't understand that.

[ChrisHein]

I suspect a lot of folks are going to read them and think, "There goes Dan bragging about how unbeatable he is again." Amiright?

If so, that's totally not the way to read the point Dan's trying to make. Instead of getting annoyed at the "tone" ask yourself--who is contradicting him?

Who's saying, "Nah, I was there, and it wasn't much"?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to show the other side of this argument.

There are people out there who have seen Dan, and weren't blown away. Now do they want to go on public record saying something negative about someone for no real reason; that's another important question to ask.

Let's say Dan has a 90% seminar success rate. Thats a pretty good rate of people who like what he's doing to people who don't care for what he's doing. Out of those 10% who didn't like it, how many were just underwhelmed, but not upset, I would guess 5%. How many of the 5% who were upset, would actually make public note of it, maybe 1% or so, how many of that 1% use internet forums....

See what I'm saying here? People are more likely to talk positively about someone then negatively. So it's rare that someone is upset enough, or public enough to want to blast someone else that they've had a negative experience with, unless it's dramatic.

[yugen]

I think that makes his lineage fail the test of solidity.

The first seminar I attended with Dan I found very informative and good. I wanted to know his lineage, who he learned from, who did they learn from etc. I could have just blurted the question on the floor, but i believe in martial etiquette.

So after the class I waited because as I've come to learn he gets surrounded by people still practicing and wanting more and Dan just keeps talking and talking... ;)

Finally I got him aside and I asked him.... and... he told me. No big deal. Meet him and ask him. I don't want to put words in Dan's mouth, but listening to him at his seminars it comes across to me that the lineage thing to Dan is about Ueshiba and the other giants and not about Dan.

If I'm not mistaken in Koryu there is a culture where you never show someone else your Menkyo scrolls, its personal and private - Not saying Dan is a Menkyo holder or anything, I'm just talking to the etiquette that still exists in some forms of Budo and isn't meant for forum discussion. IMO

[hughrbeyer]

Of course, Chris. The Good Lord himself had his detractors, it would be very surprising if Dan didn't have more than a few. But the same calculation of % out of all those who were there applies on both sides of the ledger. And balancing those who don't like to say anything negative are those who would very much have liked to say something negative about Dan. :)

But (all together now) IT'S NOT ABOUT DAN. It's about the overwhelming acceptance of the skills he's been kind enough to share among experienced aikidoka. That's the phenomenon that needs explaining.

[stan baker]

Hi Chris
I am sure that there were people who saw Ueshiba that did not
think it was a big deal either.There are different degrees of interest regarding this info.

stan

[DH]

Of course, Chris. The Good Lord himself had his detractors, it would be very surprising if Dan didn't have more than a few. But the same calculation of % out of all those who were there applies on both sides of the ledger. And balancing those who don't like to say anything negative are those who would very much have liked to say something negative about Dan. :)

But (all together now) IT'S NOT ABOUT DAN. It's about the overwhelming acceptance of the skills he's been kind enough to share among experienced aikidoka. That's the phenomenon that needs explaining.
You would be hard pressed, very hard pressed to get any section of attendees to say I make this stuff about me. It was NEVER about me. I can state definitively that I make that case pretty strongly at every seminar I have ever done.
We need to keep our eyes on the work that produced all these giants for generations, and stop getting side tracked on the people themselves.

Chris Hein
Your counter argument for such tiny percentages makes my case when I say to you "Do you have anything positive to say at all?" Given any opportunity you choose to accent the negative and almost begrudgingly mention something that might be positive. That said, we are not talking about just me are we? At least I'm not. The overwhelming impact that those with IP have had on Aikido (once an art based on IP) is the real point. Hence the argument for the correct translations, the correct pedagogy, the fact that the same work produced other unusual men, etc etc.

And last...two small points you missed.
1. While it remains an almost 100% success rate...the real point is that all 100% upon testing...failed. and this by their own admission. I find that significant, so did they. So, *I* don't need to really say this is a better way to produce soft power and aiki. Virtually all of the Aikido teachers I have met -100%- have proved that Ueshiba's way is a better way to move just by standing on a mat against it.
2. That said.
None of this was ever mine. It is Ueshiba's....and it is brilliant.

Lineage
How valuable was the connection to Takeda to all but a handful of his students?
How valuable was the connection to Ueshiba for all but a handful of his students?
Ask the students of Tokimune Takeda, including the president and treasurer of his organization for over 35 years how valuable their association with him was? He stated openly at the end of his life that he never taught them the real art.
Sagawa stated openly that he lied and hid the real art from his people.

We must face facts.
They...do...not...teach large groups of people. How many times do you have to be told and see it occur that only one of two under a teacher "get it?" A VERY famous Japanese shihan goes around teaching internals ...this very day... and states plainly in open rooms. "I don't care if anyone get's it. Its not my job to teach!"
Fine. Thanks for telling us. Next!!.
How many times do we need to hear these things before we get it? Before we finally realize that all of this lineage stuff promises nothing. It has always been handed down in small numbers.

I would suggest that instead of hugging the tree that bears little fruit, you cultivate the ones that do.

Dan

[Gary David]

...........There are people out there who have seen Dan, and weren't blown away. Now do they want to go on public record saying something negative about someone for no real reason; that's another important question to ask.

Let's say Dan has a 90% seminar success rate. Thats a pretty good rate of people who like what he's doing to people who don't care for what he's doing. Out of those 10% who didn't like it, how many were just underwhelmed, but not upset, I would guess 5%. How many of the 5% who were upset, would actually make public note of it, maybe 1% or so, how many of that 1% use internet forums....

See what I'm saying here? People are more likely to talk positively about someone then negatively. So it's rare that someone is upset enough, or public enough to want to blast someone else that they've had a negative experience with, unless it's dramatic.

Chris
Another thought here is what hard work is involved with the solo training offered by Dan (and others) and how long it may well take to achieve a level of proficiency that provides useful results, results without thinking. Many will not take the time and will drop the practice if they don't see results the following week or so. Some will see the level effort needed to even get started and be underwhelmed..... It is easier to be underwhelmed than do the time.

Gary

[DH]

I think that the number of "views" a thread has had is a better measure of how controversial and/or active a thread is rather than how positive or negative that topic may be.

-- Jun
Good point
Aren't we seeing that as more and more budo-ka being actively interested then?
Why do they write in if they are not interested at all? How many who write have gone on to meet?
As a progression, I am intimately aware of so many teachers here, who debated with me vehemently who have become close friends, not only with me, but with other teachers they would never have met were it not for aikiweb.
This is all because of you Jun. And your efforts with aikiweb.

I know you hear from people who are upset, and I know you have been upset yourself on your own terms. I keep hoping you will continue to strive for us all. Aikiweb has made an impact that people will be talking about long after the web has gone to pasture to be replaced by some other venue.
"Where did you first meet?"
Oh...funny story. I met him on the web on what used to be forums it was called Aikiweb!"
Or...Remember aikiweb?"


In the fullness of time aikiweb may prove to be as critical to a dynamic shift happening in Aikido as Aikido Journal was.

Anyway...thank you for your efforts.
Dan

[Peter Goldsbury]

Hello Ernesto,

Happy New Year!

Fair enough. (Of course, one can also point out the fact that a lot of threads have been dedicated to some of these very questions.) To sum up Hugh's points (a bit):
PAG. Well, yes. One of the continuing achievements of AikiWeb is that it is still a general aikido forum, with no specific rules laid down as to content and form, the content being Aikido, as generally understood, and the form being the obligation for mutual respect. One of the problems, however, is that, by comparison with face-to-face interaction, it is limited as a communication tool, but I think this imposes a greater obligation for users to be more careful about how they state what they state than would be necessary in face-to-face communication. For this reason, such a general forum needs constant and careful moderation.

- What did Ueshiba mean with "Aiki?"
Is it (as "the IP crowd" says) a specific body method, presuming to date back centuries and spanning cultures and countries? (If so, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence -- Chris Li's blogs have done much to point this out).
PAG. This question leads to another question, of what you are going to accept as evidence, given the centuries, the cultures and the countries.

- Is it that AND is it also a reference to other things? (Ueshiba's "Aiki is love" comes to mind).
PAG. I think the answer to this will depend on answering another question, at least to some extent, which relates to Morihei Ueshiba's preferred style of communication. Given the particular nature of the Japanese language, especially the multiplicity of homonyms, and the great liking for metaphor and word-play of Onisaburo Deguchi, there is a strong possibility that Ueshiba also used word-play and homonyms and that this might make a great difference to how he is to be understood. I mean, for example, that metaphor, homonyms and word-play might well make a scientific or academic text (where the emphasis is on clarity) less easy to understand, especially for a general reader who is not a native speaker of Japanese.

I think that you and Merlijn might have encountered problems in translating Ellis Amdur's book into Dutch. Clearly, translation is a major boon for those who cannot read the original language, but translating a text can actually create as many problems as it is intended to solve. I am acquainted with the editor of Kodansha and I know exactly what he was looking for in the published translations of Morihei Ueshiba's discourses, done by John Stevens. He wanted a translation that was not inaccurate, but which was shorn, as much as possible, of technical apparatus and footnotes, and which was in a style that the ‘average reader' (meaning the people that marketing surveys have shown typically buy Kodansha publications) can read.

Though this is not directly connected with issues of translation so much as interpretation, have you ever read Peter Heath's The Philosopher's Alice or Martin Gardner's The Annotated Alice? Both are editions of the stories with extensive explanations and annotations. Heath, for example, goes through all the philosophical questions that Dodgson was concerned with and suggests that the idea that he wrote books for children is a popular myth. In the same vein, I can see someone in future producing The IP Morihei Ueshiba, with a translation specially geared to IP training. Later still, when IP ceases to be a fad, I can imagine a future translator saying, 'Well, Ueshiba might well have meant this, but he meant other things as well and a translation has to take this into account.'

- Can it be that this specific body method was not passed on "successfully" to the aikido world?
PAG. Well, assuming that it is a specific body method, it would certainly appear so, but again, this depends on other factors, such as the importance of "success" for those who are supposed to be doing the "passing on".

- If not a specific body, then how is Aiki defined and does this present a problem? (Aiki extensions comes to mind).
PAG. You assume here what we do in fact need to define it. I occasionally hear statements that aikido is indefinable and you have the added problem, alluded to above, that AIKI is a Japanese term that is usually left untranslated.

- If rephrased or adopted differently or maybe perhaps even historically incorrect, in what sense is this a problem for a discussion format such as Aikiweb?
PAG. Well, as I suggested earlier, a general discussion forum imposes certain communication constraints. In another thread the topic is the decline of online discussion forums and it seems that there is a general tendency for texting and blogs. Blogs allow the presentation of detailed information in a concentrated form, but without the complexity and academic paraphernalia (footnotes etc) of an academic text, and without the detailed discussion in a forum—as the information is being presented. I myself prefer columns, which are really long essays, but I am well aware that these make heavy demands on the reader.

- The skills, as been claimed by "the IP crowd", are presented as physically superior to nearly every method within "conventional" (some say Modern) Aikido. The IHTBF argument seems to be a bone of content for some people who wish to discuss, even question the existence of these skills. IOW can these skills, without actual exposure be discussed on Aikiweb?
PAG. The points you make, I think, are quite correct, but I also think that problems actually start at this point. Even with the IHTBF argument, there is still a need for a very careful analysis of what is actually happening, and in a common language, shorn of metaphor, homonymy and word-play. I think this is much more difficult for ‘intentional' concepts and actions than for ‘external' movements.

Some random questions….
PAG. In my opinion they are not particularly random. The questions are interconnected and the answers to one will directly influence the answers to others. Of course, this is not meant in any way as a criticism.

Best wishes,

PAG

[Gary David]

...........
Happy New Year!

PAG. In my opinion they are not particularly random. The questions are interconnected and the answers to one will directly influence the answers to others. Of course, this is not meant in any way as a criticism.

Best wishes,

PAG

Peter
The questions about IP/IS to me are simple.........1) Does it work? 2) Is it usable? 3) Is my stuff more effective with it? 4) Is it trainable? 5) How do I get it? The answers to 1, 2, 3 & 4 are yes...and for me the answer to 5 brings up several names....one of which is Dan. The who, the where did it come, what countries.......all of that is an interesting study but is not the actual training.......
Gary

[Peter Goldsbury]

Peter
The questions about IP/IS to me are simple.........1) Does it work? 2) Is it usable? 3) Is my stuff more effective with it? 4) Is it trainable? 5) How do I get it? The answers to 1, 2, 3 & 4 are yes...and for me the answer to 5 brings up several names....one of which is Dan. The who, the where did it come, what countries.......all of that is an interesting study but is not the actual training.......
Gary

My post was a specific response to Ernesto's. I do not think we disagree, do we?

PAG

[Gary David]

My post was a specific response to Ernesto's. I do not think we disagree, do we?

PAG

Not at all......for us simple folks it is to easy to get a headache with all the going back and forth....just cut to the chase...does it work and how do I get it?
Gary

[Howard Popkin]

I'm sure I'm going to get yelled at but this is my vantage point:

1) Takeda - O'Sensei - Unusual Power
2) Takeda - Kodo - Unusual Power
3) Takeda - Sagawa - Unusual Power

Common Thread - Daitoryu Aiki

Gozo Shioda - Unusual Power - from where?
Shirata - Unusual Power - from Where ?
Dan Harden - Unusual Power - from where ?

I'm not saying that there aren't other systems that possess unusual power, but in historical context of Aikido/Daitoryu, I find this to be true.

And please, don't question Dan's Daitoryu lineage. All it means is that you don't have enough information to back up what you say.

Happy New Year !

Howard

[Cliff Judge]

Whether or not he choses to tell you about it or not has no effect on his solidity. In any case, there are plenty of us with solid and public lineages that are calling it "Aiki", so what's the problem?

Best,

Chris

You can define "strong" any way you like. But for me a "strong lineage" would be authentic, verifiable, and credible. If it's not fit for public discussion then it is what it is, but it's not strong.

[DH]

Not at all......for us simple folks it is to easy to get a headache with all the going back and forth....just cut to the chase...does it work and how do I get it?
Gary
I see both points or sides of that issue. We can no longer just look to individuals. At some point we need to recognize that this body technology is old...ancient...and is the foundation for all of the legends we have heard about. Otherwise we will continue to be victimized by poor teaching, and on a continual quest for yet another face to put on it...and that typically Asian.

Recognizing the richness and the context is intriguing and rewarding in itself. And in the end it helps is to understand an analogy that would forever have escaped our ability to...translate or absorb. Hence the budo scholars who didn't get it either.
Dan

[DH]

You can define "strong" any way you like. But for me a "strong lineage" would be authentic, verifiable, and credible. If it's not fit for public discussion then it is what it is, but it's not strong.
So dismiss me. Fine by me. I would even strongly encourage you to, Cliff. Stick with someone proven....by lineage.
After all Takeda Sokaku didn't have one either. Why he didn't even have a black belt!!
These things are important to a lot of people Cliff. Be careful out there.
Dan

[Cliff Judge]

If I'm not mistaken in Koryu there is a culture where you never show someone else your Menkyo scrolls, its personal and private - Not saying Dan is a Menkyo holder or anything, I'm just talking to the etiquette that still exists in some forms of Budo and isn't meant for forum discussion. IMO

I have never heard of that of koryu generally. I could see it being a Daito ryu thing to go along with the factionalism and the inherited pathos of Aizu culture. But whatever, it's private knowledge. So that leads us to here, where we cannot stop wrestling with this material on the internet, but nobody can openly talk about where it comes from.

[Cliff Judge]

And please, don't question Dan's Daitoryu lineage. All it means is that you don't have enough information to back up what you say.

Well, it seems to me that most questions do arise from a lack of knowledge, sir. :)

[Chris Li]

You can define "strong" any way you like. But for me a "strong lineage" would be authentic, verifiable, and credible. If it's not fit for public discussion then it is what it is, but it's not strong.

I happen to know (as Howard mentioned) that it is indeed authentic, verifiable, and credible. It's also private - although Dan was never hesitant to discuss it in my hearing.

Notice that nobody's asked for verification of your lineage as qualification to put out your ideas.

Anyway, Dan mentioned that it doesn't matter, and he's absolutely right.

Best,

Chris

[hughrbeyer]

It's just been pointed out to me that in my attempt to come up with a nonsense-sounding Japanese ryu name up above, I managed to land on a phrase that might be taken as a reference to an actually existing school. Ack! My apologies to all, and please be assured I didn't intend any disrespect to any ryu there. Just my clumsiness with the language.

[Howard Popkin]

That is why we went with Daito ryu Aikijujitsu Ginjukai :-)

Maybe Chris could translate the kanji? :-)

[Gary David]

.......At some point we need to recognize that this body technology is old...ancient...and is the foundation for all of the legends we have heard about. Otherwise we will continue to be victimized by poor teaching, and on a continual quest for yet another face to put on it...and that typically Asian.

Dan
I had this conversation back in the '80s with a couple of friends, one you will meet next time you are out.

.
Recognizing the richness and the context is intriguing and rewarding in itself. And in the end it helps is to understand an analogy that would forever have escaped our ability to...translate or absorb. Hence the budo scholars who didn't get it either.
Dan

As for this I think that this is the stuff that gets people looking for other hidden gems, to other sources and for the future. I do think it takes a certain kind of individual who has desire to look, the time and the research approach, as well as abilities to put it to effective practical use. If not it is valuable only if someone can find the research, figure it out and then work it out. There are a few of the first type and more of the second....but not many more.

Gary

[yugen]

I have never heard of that of koryu generally. I could see it being a Daito ryu thing to go along with the factionalism and the inherited pathos of Aizu culture. But whatever, it's private knowledge. So that leads us to here, where we cannot stop wrestling with this material on the internet, but nobody can openly talk about where it comes from.

Well my recollection is from about 8 years ago now, I briefly trained in one of the older Koryu with a Menkyo holder here outside Seattle. That's what I remember being told by him, but I could be wrong about that. I have no experience or abilities really to speak of.

All the best to you and your Budo path.

[ChrisHein]

Chris Hein
Your counter argument for such tiny percentages makes my case when I say to you "Do you have anything positive to say at all?" Given any opportunity you choose to accent the negative and almost begrudgingly mention something that might be positive. That said, we are not talking about just me are we? At least I'm not. The overwhelming impact that those with IP have had on Aikido (once an art based on IP) is the real point. Hence the argument for the correct translations, the correct pedagogy, the fact that the same work produced other unusual men, etc etc.


I know, it's just that most Aikido people don't really want to put themselves out there in that way, so I do it because we some balance. Also, I disagree with much of what you've said. Nothing personal, but I don't agree with much of it. The main problem I have with the "IP" community, is that they are so eager, that this whole discussion seems like a done deal to them. In my opinion, your hard work has just now started. You've gotten people to listen, now you have to prove what you say.

So I'll give you the props I think you deserve:

1. Dan Harden must be a very charismatic person in real life, many people seem to like him.
2. He has done lot's of work on his stuff, and it seems to interest lot's of the people in the internet Aikido community.

Those are the two things I can say that I'm pretty sure about. You've also gotten enough people interested in you, that I would like to meet you myself, and would like to come to ADV and meet you. I'm also pretty sure about that.

Beyond that, let's talk some more and see where it goes.

[mathewjgano]

Talking point #1
What on this earth would cause almost 100% of the people going in one direction (many of whom have invested significant portions of their lives to it)....to entirely change direction?
I think that is a compelling talking point.
...
1. It is irrefutable. Too many credible teachers were present in all those rooms.
2. It means that one must accept the claims that are associated with them:

There is a historical pedagogy outside of Aikido
A historical pedagogy within Aikido.
Direct terminology containing the same concepts across cultures and eras
Those concepts are known for producing power
There is a means to demonstrate the understanding of the above along with clear demonstrations of that power.
That the teachers in the art (in whole or in part) either don't know this, can't show this or can't teach this.



I remember talking with someone who (as best I can recall) described people they knew who had a relatively advanced understanding of "internals," but who didn't or couldn't apply them in a martial context. The implication I got was that there may be many people who know the content on its own, but that there are fewer people who can apply it very well in a highly demanding setting.
So the stuff is or can be relatively tough to learn on its own (at the very least in terms of the consistency of training required); add the demands of "fisticuffs" and it becomes even tougher. Finding folks who have a strong understanding of both is probably fairly rare. When people are found, I would guess they tend to stand out.
That being said, there's always a "yeah but" that can come to mind; people are great at thinking of creative solutions (it's a major reason we soft-skinned humans with no real natural weapons are more or less the top of the food chain): "Maybe those people were just blown away by a better fighter who had a cool way of describing his system; etc." In the realm of ideas, it's not irrefutable. The operant mechanisms are invisible, even though "we" (some, more than others) can point to places people like me can start looking to build a solid understanding. Ultimately for me it comes down to a whole bunch of "maybes" with one or two certainties: can I learn something useful? And once again it seems to point to the basic idea of constant training; when I have the opportunity to train with someone who might have something to teach me, how open-minded am I going to be? In person, whatever it might be is almost moot so long as I'm learning (and having fun :D).

[sakumeikan]

You missed my point. Which is in very shot terms, that it's useless to watch a video without having touched the teacher and maye got oral instruction.

My personal videos on youtube are clearly not instructional and they are clearly not showing aikidô on a level that could help others in any way.

Yes, I had assumed that, even without knowing your biographie. You just sound this way.
The more I found it "astounding" and "not very good mannered" to discuss fees in the way you did.

As for you compared "your group", I would have found nice to know about it. I then googled your name + aikido and that didn't lead me to "your group". So I let it go.

You compared yours to others.

Maybe I simply didn't understand you.
Maybe the language barrier is a problem so I got you wrong.
For sure I am oversensitiv.

I understood:
Comparing one's own fees to those of other teachers and pointing at them because they seem to be more expensive.
Demanding videos (on the internet) of a teacher instead of going and practice with him.[/QU

Dear All ,
Intended to reply to Carstens comments above.My fingers /computer got mixed up.Cheers, Joe.
Ps .Carsten check out British Birankai Web Page under Officials/Shihan. Have a nice day. Joe.

[Carsten Möllering]

Carsten check out British Birankai Web Page under Officials/Shihan. Have a nice day. Joe.
Thank you very much!
I did.

[DH]

The main problem I have with the "IP" community, is that they are so eager, that this whole discussion seems like a done deal to them. In my opinion, your hard work has just now started.
It is a done deal. I think you are basing the reality of what we are doing on some sort of uneducated consensus among the western folk. We don't need a Sudanese child to know about Algebra in order to make Algebra a "done deal." There is no requirement that Chris Hein know about this in order to make it a done deal. This debate was over a long time before you or I were born.
Ueshiba didn't need anyone to know "how" he did what he did either in order to make it a done deal.. In fact most of our founding teachers didn't give a rip if we EVER found out.
You've gotten people to listen, now you have to prove what you say.
I have been proving what I say for quite a while in rooms filled with dozens of people and I may be on the downward side of that soon. This isn't the wild west where I have to prove it to every gun slinger.

Don't operate under the impression that I want everyone to accept that what I am saying is true. Mind/body work was never for everyone. As Sagawa noted, most aren't cut out for it. This stuff is rockin good fun that will last a lifetime if you have a disciplined and curious mind. The nature of the work ensures it will remain elusive or elite as a treasure for those who chase it. But sadly, there are plenty of teachers who spent decades in Asia and never got it either and are convinced they did. I am not talking to them either. I am reaching out and having a dialogue with select, motivated people who are sharp enough to have realized that something didn't add up. Something wasn't quite right and have at least been searching.

At a certain point I hope this skill becomes self selective and most people simply "opt out." That will leave the majority of Budo people to be athletically driven, normal people convinced that better athletics is all there is. As one well known teacher said to me. "Don't TELL everyone....we need normal people to practice on."...Hey wait! Maybe that explains why so many Asian teachers said Only teach one or two people...hhmmm.;)
Dan

[Jim Sorrentino]

I thought the startling fact that almost 100% of the teachers exposed to this work change and adopt it would be the....single....most compelling talking point to help bring the discussion forward.

The above statement has never been fully addressed. Chris Hein decided to tell us that he knows some people who thought the work (in this case, mine) was nothing special. Fine by me. I never said 100%. What he still doesn't address is the other 99%, or that fact that his "people" still failed to demonstrate unusual power...face to face. Why can I say that? Because I would have remembered them. They would have been different.
I'll add one "data point" to Chris Hein's. Peter Bernath, a USAF 7th dan and shihan, has attended at least one workshop with Dan. As it happens, I have a friend who is a very well-seasoned 2nd dan in the USAF and who attends many of the major USAF seminars on the east coast. My friend has taken many classes with Mr. Bernath over the past ten years, and has taken ukemi for Mr. Bernath as well.

My friend most recently trained with Mr. Bernath in November 2012 at the USAF Winter Camp in Florida. When my friend returned from Winter Camp, I asked him whether Mr. Bernath had changed the form or substance of his classes, or made any reference to IP in those classes. The answer was no.

I've left my friend's name out of this discussion because he is not a member of AikiWeb. If anyone would like to contact him to verify his account, please PM me and I will put you in touch.

Jim

[Chris Li]

I'll add one "data point" to Chris Hein's. Peter Bernath, a USAF 7th dan and shihan, has attended at least one workshop with Dan. As it happens, I have a friend who is a very well-seasoned 2nd dan in the USAF and who attends many of the major USAF seminars on the east coast. My friend has taken many classes with Mr. Bernath over the past ten years, and has taken ukemi for Mr. Bernath as well.

My friend most recently trained with Mr. Bernath in November 2012 at the USAF Winter Camp in Florida. When my friend returned from Winter Camp, I asked him whether Mr. Bernath had changed the form or substance of his classes, or made any reference to IP in those classes. The answer was no.

I've left my friend's name out of this discussion because he is not a member of AikiWeb. If anyone would like to contact him to verify his account, please PM me and I will put you in touch.

Jim

If you're implying that Peter didn't think much of Dan...then I suppose that it's best to talk to Peter directly about that. My impression however, based on conversations directly with Peter (not some ni-dan who sees him at seminars) is quite diferent.

Best,

Chris

[Jim Sorrentino]

Hi Chris,
If you're implying that Peter didn't think much of Dan...then I suppose that it's best to talk to Peter directly about that. My impression however, based on conversations directly with Peter (not some ni-dan who sees him at seminars) is quite diferent.
I'm not implying anything of the kind. I'm simply reporting that Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Because you know Mr. Bernath (I do not), you might ask him why that is.

Jim

[gregstec]

If you're implying that Peter didn't think much of Dan...then I suppose that it's best to talk to Peter directly about that. My impression however, based on conversations directly with Peter (not some ni-dan who sees him at seminars) is quite diferent.

Best,

Chris

Ditto to what Chris said - I was there when Peter first met Dan.

Greg

[Jim Sorrentino]

Ditto to what Chris said - I was there when Peter first met Dan.

My reply to Chris stands: Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Why is that?

Jim

[MM]

Hi Chris,

I'm not implying anything of the kind. I'm simply reporting that Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Because you know Mr. Bernath (I do not), you might ask him why that is.

Jim

I know Peter. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Peter. So, from one person attending a recent Summer Camp and taking a few classes there, your point is? It's the official USAF Summer Camp. Had I been attending, I would have expected to train in USAF material. If I go to an ASU Camp, I expect the same thing. These, to me, are where you get to train with other people, shihan, and high muckety-mucks of that organization in that organization's material.

What's your point here? Did you contact Peter directly and ask him about this before you dragged his name out in public? Why not? It's common courtesy and you might get answers directly from the source.

Mark

[Chris Li]

My reply to Chris stands: Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Why is that?

Jim

Well, I've spoken to Peter about just this point before - if he wants to talk about it publicly, then he will, if not, then I suggest you contact him directly.

Best,

Chris

[akiy]

Well, I've spoken to Peter about just this point before - if he wants to talk about it publicly, then he will, if not, then I suggest you contact him directly.
I agree with Chris on this.

-- Jun

[Cliff Judge]

I happen to know (as Howard mentioned) that it is indeed authentic, verifiable, and credible. It's also private - although Dan was never hesitant to discuss it in my hearing.

Notice that nobody's asked for verification of your lineage as qualification to put out your ideas.

Anyway, Dan mentioned that it doesn't matter, and he's absolutely right.

Best,

Chris

I don't believe it should matter, but it is unavoidable. Whenever a claim is made that this material has anything to do with Ueshiba - let alone that it is the true, inner secret of Aikido - and this claim is made and goes unrefuted in public, then there needs to be something to back that up, publicly. Something authentic, verifiable, and credible. I'd be much more comfortable with this being just about Dan.

Nobody needs a lineage to put out ideas. Putting out ideas is different than teaching. Were I to ever teach you can bet your life I would be entirely forthright and open about who I trained with and how I developed my skills. If I had my name and/or blood on a document forbidding me from divulging the source I would not publicly discuss ideas I gained or were seeded by that source. Maybe I am not perfect in this regard but I work on it.

[MM]

No, I said no such thing. What I said was, "This line of argument that one group is "better" than the other has no place in a discussion forum. Please stop."

Just because you (the generic "you" in this case) might be able to best someone in a physical altercation does not have bearing to a discussion. That is one line of argument that I do not want to see here on AikiWeb.


I think I understand what you meant. Wasn't how I took your post, so my apologies for misreading/misunderstanding you. FWIW, I don't see any "group" as better. I do see IP/aiki as making differences in martial contexts, though. So, in that light, those aiki legends (Ueshiba, etc) did prove better than most. But, that certainly doesn't mean anyone who has the availability to train IP/aiki couldn't replicate what they did.


Please stop putting things into my mouth, Mark. I have never said any such thing.


I never said you did. One of the downsides to taking a very limited, unseen approach to managing a forum is that people don't know what you want. I can't read your mind. Sometimes, it does seem like you want IP/aiki to go away. Sometimes it doesn't. I really didn't know. I'm still unsure. But, I'd guess it isn't a Modern Aikido only thing. :) So, again, Jun, my apologies.

Sorry it took so long to reply. December has been a rough month...

Mark

[DH]

I have permission to say some father startling things that Peter has shared with me....but I wont. They are deeply felt and although they would directly benefit my talking points seeing them used and kicked about is ugly to me.
As I said before.
Can anyone -without an agenda- think of any positive reason for him waiting?
I bet not.
Dan

[MM]

Well, it seems to me that most questions do arise from a lack of knowledge, sir. :)

Research will get you answers. If I remember correctly, there are posts here on Aikiweb that state Dan's lineage. Have you looked for it?

[Gary David]

Hi Chris,

I'm not implying anything of the kind. I'm simply reporting that Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Because you know Mr. Bernath (I do not), you might ask him why that is.

Jim

Jim
Some more perspective here.....the work is really hard.....not physically tiring..rather mentally and it goes against a lot on what one's current movement/motion is based on. I know that Dan has been doing this practice and his solo work for years, that he does it every day and puts time into it. I know that he has created for himself specialized training methods (see Segawa) that fit him. I know he has several outstanding students with great skills working with him locally.....that have been training with him for years and with each other in a single location.....this is what it takes..... One needs a) introduction to the idea and concepts of IP/IS, b) a set of starter solo practices to get one off the mark, c) the willingness to develop personalized drills and aids, d) people of like mind to practice with to help baseline, e) someone to check back with (like Dan) to make corrections as needed, and f) TIME-TIME-TIME (like years) to develop any level of proficiency.

It is ready hard to just make oneself go out into the garage and work solo. It is really had to find folks to work with. The few times I have included some of the concepts and ideas I got from Dan into my teaching I get blank stares and wrinkled brows. The truth here is this work is self-selecting. The effort I have to make is how do I include some of the ideas into the training to get something across to the folks that improves their Aikido?

So that Peter Bernath didn't exhibit a total change over after visiting with Dan one or two times is understandable to me.

Gary

[Chris Knight]

Touche

The vast majority of my aikidoka friends joke with me or look at me like I have two heads when I talk about the exercises and demonstrate them. They're not really interested, but then that's their perogative.

I just put my head down and get on with it. Why would a Shihan start trying to transmit this stuff after one seminar??

Regards

[sorokod]

If you're implying that Peter didn't think much of Dan...then I suppose that it's best to talk to Peter directly about that. My impression however, based on conversations directly with Peter (not some ni-dan who sees him at seminars) is quite diferent.


* "Are your standards higher than 17 Shihan, 6 6th dans and 52 go dans and hundreds of others?"
* "but it sure has changed the minds of over a thousand Aikido people from shodan to shihan."
* "Would you be surprised if I listed four shihans and two Koryu sokes who said the same thing in 2012?"

all quotes from this thread. Shame they aren't scrutinized as intensely.

[akiy]

Sometimes, it does seem like you want IP/aiki to go away. Sometimes it doesn't. I really didn't know. I'm still unsure.
Quickly, as I'm pretty busy right now at work, but I'll just say that it is not my intention to push away any sector of aikido practice. To be clear: I am not trying to make internal training discussions to go away.

With that said, I will be succinct (and perhaps blunt) here when I say that the tone employed on AikiWeb by many of those who engage in internal training practices has become unacceptable. Additionally, I believe that many of the lines of arguments brought forth by those who engage in internal training methods do not support civil and respectful discussions but, rather, only lead to creating division and rancor. These, I wish to see changed (ie eliminated), and I will be addressing these points in the near future.

-- Jun

[Cady Goldfield]

Chris
Another thought here is what hard work is involved with the solo training offered by Dan (and others) and how long it may well take to achieve a level of proficiency that provides useful results, results without thinking. Many will not take the time and will drop the practice if they don't see results the following week or so. Some will see the level effort needed to even get started and be underwhelmed..... It is easier to be underwhelmed than do the time.

Gary

Adding on to that thought --

1. When feeling this stuff for the first time, even the first few times, it doesn't register in our brains what we are feeling and where it’s coming from. We look for something familiar to connect it to, and that familiar something usually is physical strength. Some of the underwhelmed are those who just write off what they are feeling as being conventional muscle power and body mass/weight, particularly if the person demonstrating is large and muscular. We are conditioned to equate size with physical power. Of course, that notion is quickly dispelled once smaller, slighter practitioners start demonstrating on the big guys. But if there aren't any present, some individuals may come away less than impressed because they couldn't discern the skills as separate from the physical size and appearance of the individual.

2. Some folks attending a seminar geared toward beginners and newcomers, mistakenly think that the introductory seminar curriculum represents all there is to the method. Furthermore, attending just one or even a few IP seminars, without really doing the work after and in between is not enough to inculcate skills or fully appreciate their value. It takes a couple years of serious effort to start seeing the real effects and to understand what one is doing with his or her body. To be able to apply the skills and maintain the body state under duress takes even longer. Therefore, people who attend one or a couple of IP seminars and then state that they don’t see any benefits, simply don’t have the level of skill and understanding yet and are writing off the training’s value prematurely. As with any discipline, we must be motivated to truly do the work in order to gain the benefits.

3. If the presenter doesn't perform Amazing Feats to awe the crowd, those who come expecting a magic show will be... underwhelmed. Even more so if the teacher parses out the material into bite-sized pieces of information and basic exercises that demystify the subject and the process and lay out the path to development, step-by-step. For a few this may make it seem ordinary and unimpressive, particularly if they get caught up in the component pieces, mistake training exercises for the skills themselves, and fail to see the big picture. For the rest, the vast majority of us, though, the wonder of IP and aiki become even greater once the mystique is dispelled and we begin to understand how it works.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Touche

The vast majority of my aikidoka friends joke with me or look at me like I have two heads when I talk about the exercises and demonstrate them. They're not really interested, but then that's their perogative.

I just put my head down and get on with it.

Go old school and clean the mats with them so they open their eyes to Budo.

Joking, of course.

[Toby Threadgill]

Hi,

Sorry to interrupt but earlier in this thread a comment was made concerning koryu and the propriety of allowing individuals to inspect a document like a menkyo kaiden. I cannot speak for all koryu but most individuals I know who hold official licenses in koryu will be more than happy to present theirs for examination. Heck, last year I rolled my menkyo kaiden out on the floor at a seminar in Berlin, Germany and allowed a Japanese Wado ryu shihan to translate it the the attendees. It is true we have other more "restricted" documentation in a school like TSYR but teaching licenses generally do not usually contain restricted information, and when they do, its presented in such an obscure manner that only initiates to the school could interpret it properly. Teaching licenses like menkyo kaiden are intended to be scrutinized.

The net out? Anyone who claims to have a license in a koryu but refuses to allow anyone access to it is...Well....Probably selling ocean front property in Colorado.

Back to your discussion.....

Toby Threadgill / TSYR

[phitruong]

The vast majority of my aikidoka friends joke with me or look at me like I have two heads when I talk about the exercises and demonstrate them. They're not really interested, but then that's their perogative.

I just put my head down and get on with it. Why would a Shihan start trying to transmit this stuff after one seminar??

Regards

i have the same experience with my aikido folks. most don't have the inclination or the drive/obsession to do this stuffs. most just want to know how to do aikido techniques and in some new ways. i just slided some of these stuffs into the warm-up routines, but not telling them about it. wait a minute, didn't Shirata sensei did just that? yup, i hid the thing in plain sight (sorry for using your phrase Ellis). i wouldn't be surprise that some of the aikido teachers who had exposure to IP/IS do the same thing and not bother to explain it. i am sure they would explain to folks who are persistance in asking. sort of a test. do you have the right aptitude to learn this stuffs? why teach the uninterested? you want it? you have to fight for it and work for it. old school approach.

[Ernesto Lemke]

Hello Peter,

Happy New Year to you as well! Thank you for your considerate response to my “random questions.” I do not wish to derail this thread too much by going further into your observations and comments. Thus, I just send you a PM which you may find interesting as it addresses this passage of yours…

I can see someone in future producing The IP Morihei Ueshiba, with a translation specially geared to IP training.
Cheers

[sakumeikan]

Thank you very much!
I did.

Dear Carsten,
Hope the info helped . Good to chat with you.Cheers, joe

[Howard Popkin]

Well, it seems to me that most questions do arise from a lack of knowledge, sir. :)

You are correct, but there is a way to question someone that implies an intentional lack of honesty.

Sometimes, especially when on the internet, it is difficult to read the feeling of intent behind one's statements.

I prefer face to face myself.

Hope this helps :)

Howard

[Howard Popkin]

My reply to Chris stands: Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Why is that?

Jim

Really ?

You have a 40+ year SHIHAN who studies something else and you expect him to start teaching it at a seminar ?

Case in point, I went to an Aikido seminar in New Jersey.

The woman teaching the seminar was quite skilled at Aikido. I am not. My aikido stinks. I can't move like that, just not trained that way. I looked like a fool, stumbling over my feet.

Why would a Shihan alter what he was doing until he was an expert at the new movement ? ESPECIALLY AT A SEMINAR, IN PUBLIC???? Playing with a few of his own people, maybe.....

Sounds silly to me, but then again, what do I know.

Howard

[Garth]

Hi Chris,

I'm not implying anything of the kind. I'm simply reporting that Mr. Bernath, although "exposed to this work," does not seem to have adopted it explicitly in the seminar classes he is teaching. Because you know Mr. Bernath (I do not), you might ask him why that is.

Jim
An observation,
Maybe as Dan has said , it is not all about Dan, "Its about the work". Exactly the point, does so and so , ranked so high in the whatever organization, down to the last man say I am now enamored with Dan Hardens point of view. Or does he just have to be enamored enough with the IS/IP work to change what he is doing. No one , is trying to blow up the USAF or any other Aikido organization here, and yet that seems to be where the conversation leads....everytime.
As a pretty low ranking so and so in an Aikido organization(notice how i dont have to drop names here)I dont see why there is conflict , unless , someone is not telling the whole truth. So exactly what does the Organization have to hide? What are they protecting? I am able to observe both sides of this argument(being low rank and not caring about title holding):D and can tell you Dan is just about preserving the work and incorporating it into Aikido , back where it belongs amongst others

[Cliff Judge]

An observation,
Maybe as Dan has said , it is not all about Dan, "Its about the work". Exactly the point, does so and so , ranked so high in the whatever organization, down to the last man say I am now enamored with Dan Hardens point of view. Or does he just have to be enamored enough with the IS/IP work to change what he is doing. No one , is trying to blow up the USAF or any other Aikido organization here, and yet that seems to be where the conversation leads....everytime.
As a pretty low ranking so and so in an Aikido organization(notice how i dont have to drop names here)I dont see why there is conflict , unless , someone is not telling the whole truth. So exactly what does the Organization have to hide? What are they protecting? I am able to observe both sides of this argument(being low rank and not caring about title holding):D and can tell you Dan is just about preserving the work and incorporating it into Aikido , back where it belongs amongst others

So if it is just about "the work" where does it come from?

[ChrisHein]

Chris
Another thought here is what hard work is involved with the solo training offered by Dan (and others) and how long it may well take to achieve a level of proficiency that provides useful results, results without thinking. Many will not take the time and will drop the practice if they don't see results the following week or so. Some will see the level effort needed to even get started and be underwhelmed..... It is easier to be underwhelmed than do the time.

Gary

There is another perspective. This perspective is simply "would it be worth my investment of time". So let's say, Dan has some ability that no one else has. He's far better at it than anyone else. But no one knows exactly what Dan is doing, even Dan. No one has taken the time to really investigate what is happening, and understand what makes Dan's approach unique and "better". So you spend lot's of time learning what Dan is teaching you to do, but that's not actually what gives Dan his special ability. You end up wasting lot's of time, doing something that wasn't actually what gave Dan his ability.

This is the problem with "IHTBF". So you feel it, and it's impressive, and you want to do it. How do you learn how to do it? From nothing I've read here I Aikiweb can I ascertain what Dan is doing. When asked specific questions, all one gets in reply are references to Ueshiba, quotes from the Taiji classics, and lot's of talk of how it's been done in "open rooms" or how almost 100% of people now think this is best. These things don't tell us anything that about why "IHTBF" and can't be described in a coherent way.

Now I know among the "IP" crowd, there are red flags going up. Because there is this feeling that it has been explained, but it never has been. I would point to Hunter Lonsberry's thread "is aiki clash of forces" (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=318999) in this thread you can see where several attempts were made to get to the bottom of what people mean by the terms they are using. Very little was discovered. For example we never got to the bottom of what people mean when they use the word "dan tien". This is suppose to be a core principle in Dan's body method. Yet what the word is referencing is unknown. There are not standard explanations for any of the things that are suppose to explain what is happening. What are the duel opposing spirals made of, what do they spiral around/in/on? This a question that seems to be at the very heart of the issue, yet is never answered.

So why would anyone take on this practice, especially if it's going to take a long time to learn? If you were blown away by the demonstration of "IP", then maybe you are willing to take it on faith alone. Maybe, if you're a very trusting person, taking it on some "authority's" word, maybe enough. But I have been down the "trust me" road before, and I would like to see some proof that there are results at the end of the road.

When most "IP" people are pressed about what they've learned I hear again and again, something to the effect of, "well I'm not really that good, so I couldn't demonstrate it, but you should see so-and-so". This, in and of it self tells me that the methods to train this body skill are not very effective, even if the body skill is impressive. After all the years of debate we've had, there should be hundreds of people popping up showing this stuff. Yet I only see the same small number of names presented again and again. Why would you devote yourself to a long training period, with so little proof that you are going to get anything from it?

[ChrisHein]

It is a done deal. I think you are basing the reality of what we are doing on some sort of uneducated consensus among the western folk.
We don't need a Sudanese child to know about Algebra in order to make Algebra a "done deal." There is no requirement that Chris Hein know about this in order to make it a done deal. This debate was over a long time before you or I were born.


Which debate are we talking about? There are several going on.

One debate is whether the stuff you are doing has anything to do with what Ueshiba was doing. That debate is still in full swing, and if we diligently pursue this debate, it will probably be going long after you and I are both dead.

Another debate we are having is whether what you are doing is different than anything you can find in modern athletics. This debate is still going on, and will go on until we can get some serious studies done- if it ever makes it that far. So that debate is still raging.

These are only two of the larger debates that we are having, both are far, far from being over.



I have been proving what I say for quite a while in rooms filled with dozens of people and I may be on the downward side of that soon. This isn't the wild west where I have to prove it to every gun slinger.


I believe there is a huge difference between "proving" and "showing". If a magician ( I know I'm going to get into trouble with this analogy...) Shows a huge audience of people he that he can "fly", that is not "proving" it. It's simply a demonstration. Demonstrations are all fine and well, but they don't begin to approach a proof.

[Gerardo Torres]

So if it is just about "the work" where does it come from?
It comes from Asia.

In practice, it comes from hara/dantian and in-yo/yin-yang.

[Gary David]

................When most "IP" people are pressed about what they've learned I hear again and again, something to the effect of, "well I'm not really that good, so I couldn't demonstrate it, but you should see so-and-so". This, in and of it self tells me that the methods to train this body skill are not very effective, even if the body skill is impressive. After all the years of debate we've had, there should be hundreds of people popping up showing this stuff. Yet I only see the same small number of names presented again and again. Why would you devote yourself to a long training period, with so little proof that you are going to get anything from it?

Chris
It is not my place to share Dan's training approach, just as it was not my place to share that of Mike Sigman or that of my friend John Clodig....... Now the next time you come down to see your teacher Tim Cartmell let me know and if you like you can stop by and we can talk Aikido....see were we differ and were we are similar. That is the best I can do.....

Gary

[ChrisHein]

Chris
It is not my place to share Dan's training approach, just as it was not my place to share that of Mike Sigman or that of my friend John Clodig....... Now the next time you come down to see your teacher Tim Cartmell let me know and if you like you can stop by and we can talk Aikido....see were we differ and were we are similar. That is the best I can do.....

Gary

I'll take you up on that! Thanks for the offer!!

[phitruong]

After all the years of debate we've had, there should be hundreds of people popping up showing this stuff. Yet I only see the same small number of names presented again and again. Why would you devote yourself to a long training period, with so little proof that you are going to get anything from it?

just wondering if you are trying to convince yourself or other folks.

i don't think folks should look into IP/IS stuffs. lots of tedious and boring works for little return and might ended up with nothing. folks should just go and do what they please, which they will anyway. who would want to listen to aiki folks like Howie, for example, who can't even do proper aikido stuffs! :D

[Gary David]

I'll take you up on that! Thanks for the offer!!

Chris
Remember I am 70......so don't hurt me or you will have to deal with my wife..........:)

Oh by the way...I look like my avatar though I smile more.....

Gary

[NathanMishler]

So why would anyone take on this practice, especially if it's going to take a long time to learn? If you were blown away by the demonstration of "IP", then maybe you are willing to take it on faith alone. Maybe, if you're a very trusting person, taking it on some "authority's" word, maybe enough. But I have been down the "trust me" road before, and I would like to see some proof that there are results at the end of the road.


I feel you in some ways, but what's funny to me is that most "Hard Art" martial artists I know say almost this exact same thing about Aikido in general. Why would anyone do that, it takes so long to learn and who knows if it will ever be effective...

[Garth]

It comes from Asia.

In practice, it comes from hara/dantian and in-yo/yin-yang.

Ditto that, and to add to it, more recently:
Takeda
Sagawa
Ueshiba

Before Takeda
The Chinese "classics" that we now know from Chris Li and Stanley Pranin were being widely distributed thru Japan during the last century and the one before that.
Which gives the whole
Chen family lineage amongst a great many others
Before them
Boddhidarma when he visited China, so India
Pretty much the transmission of martial arts across all of Asia and other points
Its just who "didn't get" it and "who decided not teach it " or " who decided to leave it out or not teach it"
out their respective arts

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Ditto that, and to add to it, more recently:
Takeda
Sagawa
Ueshiba

Before Takeda
The Chinese "classics" that we now know from Chris Li and Stanley Pranin were being widely distributed thru Japan during the last century and the one before that.
Which gives the whole
Chen family lineage amongst a great many others
Before them
Boddhidarma when he visited China, so India
Pretty much the transmission of martial arts across all of Asia and other points
Its just who "didn't get" it and "who decided not teach it " or " who decided to leave it out or not teach it"
out their respective arts

Boddhidarma? Seriously?

Keep going back in time and you'll arrive at Alexander the Great invading India and teaching Pankration and πνεύμα theories to hindustanies. Maybe Arrichion, Polydamus, Dioxippus, et c. had Aiki. What about Achilles?

[ChrisHein]

Chris
Remember I am 70......so don't hurt me or you will have to deal with my wife..........:)

Oh by the way...I look like my avatar though I smile more.....

Gary

No problem Gary, I take your offer as a very nice gesture, and wouldn't do anything to disrespect the kindness. I may be in your area around spring, I'll look you up, and I'm sure we'll have fun, whatever we discover!

[Cady Goldfield]

What about Achilles?

Obviously had IP everywhere but in his heel...
:cool:

[Garth]

Boddhidarma? Seriously?

Keep going back in time and you'll arrive at Alexander the Great invading India and teaching Pankration and πνεύμα theories to hindustanies. Maybe Arrichion, Polydamus, Dioxippus, et c. had Aiki. What about Achilles?

I am sorry Demetrio,
What was the gentleman's name that bought something to the Shaolin temple way back when?

[Garth]

Demetrio,
From Wikipedia, ( I am sure this is not the only source of this material). Not really hard to find, and even though even though Wikipedia offers differing accounts of who did what , where and when,
The technologies when "felt" in person, then read about , sound strikingly similar. Was everyone nailing this stuff 100%? Hell no, exactly why there were standouts along the way to point the way.

Pre-History

The evolution of the martial arts has been described by historians in the context of countless historical battles. Building on the work of Laughlin (1956, 1961), Rudgley (2000) argues that the martial arts of the Chinese, Japanese and Aleut peoples, Mongolian wrestling all have "roots in the prehistoric era and to a common Mongoloid ancestral people who inhabited north-eastern Asia.".[1][2][3] Todd & Webb (2005) claims that "when Alexander the Great expanded his empire to stretch as far as India, he may have sown the seeds of modern Asian martial arts.".[4]
[edit]India

Further information: Indian martial arts

The Nataraja dance pose.
Around the 3rd century BC, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali taught how to meditate single-mindedly on points located inside one's body, which was later used in martial arts, while various mudra finger movements were taught in Yogacara Buddhism. These elements of yoga, as well as finger movements in the nata dances, were later incorporated into various martial arts.[5][6][7]
Indian martial arts were an important influence in the development of a number of modern Asian martial arts, particularly within the Indian cultural sphere (countries outside India influenced by Indian culture and religion) of Southeast Asia. Examples include Indo-Malay silat,[8] Burmese banshay, naban and bando,[9] Filipino escrima and kali,[10] Thai krabi krabong[11] and Cambodian bokator. Indian martial arts also lightly influenced[clarification needed] the various forms of Indochinese kickboxing, namely Muay Thai from Thailand, Muay Lao from Laos, Tomoi from Malaysia, Pradal Serey from Cambodia and Lethwei from Myanmar.[11]
[edit]China

Main article: Chinese martial arts
Chinese boxing can be reliably traced back to the Chou Dynasty (1122-255 BCE).[12] During the Spring and Autumn Period, the literature mentions displays of archery, fencing and wrestling by nobles. Warfare between rival states was conducted according to Confucian chivalry (deference to rank, attacking in turn, food sent to hungry enemies). During the Warring States Period, warfare grew bloodier and common men were expected to have skill in personal attack (chi-chi).[12]
Shaolin monastery records state that two of its very first monks, Huiguang and Sengchou, were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma.[13] The martial arts Shuāi Jiāo and Sun Bin Quan predate the establishment of the Shaolin Monastery by centuries.[14]
Indian martial arts may have spread to China via the transmission of Buddhism in the early 5th or 6th centuries of the common era and thus influenced Shaolinquan. Elements from Indian philosophy, like the Nāga, Rakshasa, and the fierce Yaksha were syncretized into protectors of Dharma; these mythical figures from the Dharmic religions figure prominently in Shaolin boxing, Chang boxing and staff fighting.[15] The religious figures from Dharmic religions also figure in the movement and fighting techniques of Chinese martial arts.[16] Various styles of kung fu are known to contain movements that are identical to the Mudra hand positions used in Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which derived from India.[17] Similarly, the 108 pressure points in Chinese martial arts are believed by some to be based on the marmam points of Indian varmakalai.[18][19]
The predominant telling of the diffusion of the martial arts from India to China involves a 5th-century prince-turned-monk named Bodhidharma who is said to have traveled to Shaolin, sharing his chuan style and thus creating Shaolinquan.[20] According to Wong Kiew Kit, the Monk's creation of Shaolin arts "...marked a watershed in the history of kungfu, because it led to a change of course, as kungfu became institutionalized. Before this, martial arts were known only in general sense."[21]

Main gate of the Shaolin temple in Henan.
The association of Bodhidharma with martial arts is attributed to Bodhidharma's own Yi Jin Jing, though its authorship has been disputed by several modern historians such as Tang Hao,[22] Xu Zhen and Matsuda Ryuchi.[23] The oldest known available copy of the Yi Jin Jing was published in 1827[23] and the composition of the text itself has been dated to 1624. According to Matsuda, none of the contemporary texts written about the Shaolin martial arts before the 19th century, such as Cheng Zongyou's Exposition of the Original Shaolin Staff Method or Zhang Kongzhao's Boxing Classic: Essential Boxing Methods, mention Bodhidharma or credit him with the creation of the Shaolin martial arts. The association of Bodhidharma with the martial arts only became widespread after the 1904–1907 serialization of the novel The Travels of Lao Ts'an in Illustrated Fiction Magazine.[24]
The discovery of arms caches in the monasteries of Chang'an during government raids in 446 AD suggests that Chinese monks practiced martial arts prior to the establishment of the Shaolin Monastery in 497.[25] Moreover, Chinese monasteries, not unlike those of Europe, in many ways were effectively large landed estates, that is, sources of considerable wealth which required protection that had to be supplied by the monasteries' own manpower.[25]
[edit]

[Michael Varin]

I have permission to say some father startling things that Peter has shared with me....but I wont. They are deeply felt and although they would directly benefit my talking points seeing them used and kicked about is ugly to me.
As I said before.
Can anyone -without an agenda- think of any positive reason for him waiting?
I bet not.
Dan

I hope I don't have much of an agenda, but I would simply say that it is possible that Mr. Bernath just wants to get better at the material before he presents it.

[renshin]

There is another perspective. This perspective is simply "would it be worth my investment of time". So let's say, Dan has some ability that no one else has. He's far better at it than anyone else. But no one knows exactly what Dan is doing, even Dan. No one has taken the time to really investigate what is happening, and understand what makes Dan's approach unique and "better". So you spend lot's of time learning what Dan is teaching you to do, but that's not actually what gives Dan his special ability. You end up wasting lot's of time, doing something that wasn't actually what gave Dan his ability.

This is the problem with "IHTBF". So you feel it, and it's impressive, and you want to do it. How do you learn how to do it? From nothing I've read here I Aikiweb can I ascertain what Dan is doing. When asked specific questions, all one gets in reply are references to Ueshiba, quotes from the Taiji classics, and lot's of talk of how it's been done in "open rooms" or how almost 100% of people now think this is best. These things don't tell us anything that about why "IHTBF" and can't be described in a coherent way.

I understand your concern. And it could have been a valid one, if not for the fact that Dan's method - is in fact - a method. He will show you the effects of it, and then tell you how to train your body and how this works. He knows how it works - and he can explain it.

Personally, I was lucky enough to be at a seminar with mostly people who had done several seminars with Dan already. I was one of a few beginners. So we did a lot of stuff. My brain was fried after 6-8 hours of training each day and there was NO waza. One of the interesting things, though, was that I could feel the effects that Dan had on me, but I could also feel it from others. And I could feel that those who had put in time felt different from the other beginners. Not at the same level as Dan, but definitely something similar.

It reminds me of a seminar with Okamoto sensei, where he did a Fure aiki technique on me. He barely touched my hand, and my knees went forward, making me fall backwards. Then, his senior student (from Japan) did the same to me. It had the same effect, but I could feel his actual movement. Not so with Okamoto - his way was SOOO much smoother and (for me) impossible to detect before he had me.

It's not like you train, train, train and not feel anything, and then suddenly: You're an IP expert. There are small improvements over time, and you test each other with just enough resistance / push / whatever to explore what you have and where your limits are. Then, at some point, you will be able to fight with it. Before that, it take a lot of work and patience. Probably why that 7th dan didn't do anything in public - yet. He might in the future, but he's probably working just as hard as the rest of us, doing the solo work for now.

These things don't tell us anything that about why "IHTBF" and can't be described in a coherent way.

Again, if you go to Dan's seminar, it's all there. His method is spelled out. He talks, he demonstrates on and with everyone, he draws diagrams and stick figures on large sheets of paper, he answers questions about everything, he has people touch his body to feel what's going on etc. etc. And did I mention that he smiles and laughs a lot? ;D So there is a method. It can be described. But he doesn't explain it online to everyone and his grandma.

I think it would be very strange for Dan to spend almost every weekend teaching seminars around the world if what he was doing wasn't producing results. I'm not saying everyone will get it - most people won't put in the time and effort needed. And yes, it needs some faith in what you are doing, too. Doesn't everything?

[Demetrio Cereijo]

I am sorry Demetrio,
What was the gentleman's name that bought something to the Shaolin temple way back when?

If by 'something' you mean Ch'an Buddhism, well, that has been attributed to this legendary individual called Bodhidharma. If you mean martial IP/IS/Aiki, I think that is unfounded speculation.

[Garth]

If by 'something' you mean Ch'an Buddhism, well, that has been attributed to this legendary individual called Bodhidharma. If you mean martial IP/IS/Aiki, I think that is unfounded speculation.
I meant martial arts of which IP/IS "was" a part. Just reading it from the book. Just wondering if you have any better speculation? At this point, it doesn't matter, people are beginning to understand how and why it was a part of martial arts. Or are you speculating that IP was never a part of the martial arts?

[Cliff Judge]

Research will get you answers. If I remember correctly, there are posts here on Aikiweb that state Dan's lineage. Have you looked for it?

I know the thread you are referring to. Have you looked for it recently?

[Demetrio Cereijo]

I meant martial arts of which IP/IS "was" a part.

An how are you going to connect daoism (internal alchemy, Qi theories, etc) with the arrival of Bodhidarma, assumming he ever existed, at China?

Just wondering if you have any better speculation?
Knowledge developed locally, information flowing across the Silk Road... things like that which don't need legendary people of dubious existence.

At this point, it doesn't matter, people are beginning to understand how and why it was a part of martial arts. Or are you speculating that IP was never a part of the martial arts?

Mi opinion about this subject is thar IP has been/is part (in various degrees) of combative skills across eurasia for thousand of years, but is not the Holy Grail for martial awesomeness that some people claims IP to be.

[Cliff Judge]

So dismiss me. Fine by me. I would even strongly encourage you to, Cliff. Stick with someone proven....by lineage.
After all Takeda Sokaku didn't have one either. Why he didn't even have a black belt!!
These things are important to a lot of people Cliff. Be careful out there.
Dan

Dan,

I wish I could simply dismiss you, but even if I stopped reading Aikiweb completely, some of my senior seniormost sempai train with you, so at best its like an elephant in the room with a tablecloth over its back, and some pictures, flowers, etc.

I guess one of the things about me is, I prefer following systems to following individuals. I have loyalties to individuals - but I seem to prefer training with individuals who offer me a path to a system that I can convince myself is "legit." I haven't been able to come to this conclusion with you and your system, because you are both uncomfortable with owning your system and making it "Dan Harden's IP Method" and you are unable to publicly discuss your training history.

I understand the latter issue...I don't expect you to share your training history publicly and I don't think that would fix anything. I think what has been going on in the past year or so is that you haven't strongly defined your own role in the martial arts communities you work with. You haven't provided a compelling story of how you developed the system that you teach. So others have started to define a role for you and everyone comes up with their own story.

i.e. it isn't that you don't discuss your lineage publicly - it is that your friends and associates do. And you haven't actually managed to get yourself into a place where your lineage doesn't matter.

Thanks for listening.

[DH]

Dan,

I wish I could simply dismiss you, but even if I stopped reading Aikiweb completely, some of my senior seniormost sempai train with you, so at best its like an elephant in the room with a tablecloth over its back, and some pictures, flowers, etc.

I guess one of the things about me is, I prefer following systems to following individuals. I have loyalties to individuals - but I seem to prefer training with individuals who offer me a path to a system that I can convince myself is "legit." I haven't been able to come to this conclusion with you and your system, because you are both uncomfortable with owning your system and making it "Dan Harden's IP Method" and you are unable to publicly discuss your training history.

I understand the latter issue...I don't expect you to share your training history publicly and I don't think that would fix anything. I think what has been going on in the past year or so is that you haven't strongly defined your own role in the martial arts communities you work with. You haven't provided a compelling story of how you developed the system that you teach. So others have started to define a role for you and everyone comes up with their own story.

i.e. it isn't that you don't discuss your lineage publicly - it is that your friends and associates do. And you haven't actually managed to get yourself into a place where your lineage doesn't matter.

Thanks for listening.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. By the end of my response you will go back to dismissing me. I cannot offer you what you seek.

I would simply say:
You're still in the box.... that I have escaped from.
Why would I go back to systems that produce men that face me and want to change once they see?
Ueshiba got free of systems and refused to be trapped by them.It was the same with Bruce Lee. I refuse to be trapped.

As far as your lack of interest in me because I don't define our defend "a system?" that's fine. All I can offer is that at the end of decades of training in them with Asian legends.... men come and there I sit....waiting, and take their system apart and show them what is at the core of martial movement.

How is it that teachers from Aikido, and Daito ryu as well as Taiji and Win chun tell me I am addressing the heart of their budo?
How can that even be possible.
a long list of people here on aikiweb have flat out stated that the people who follow me are idiots and other unkind descriptions of their judgement.
I ask you. What if those who have come and trained...were right after all?

It is the study of the foundation of all the great arts that is the key to truly understanding them, and defeating them.
It is freeing and joyful and healing and it gets better as you age. But to my knowledge you will never find it taught...contained within in a system.

And that said...how is it that everyone who trains with me, can go back to their systems and train this while doing them?
Because what I am teaching is the foundation of those systems. Sometimes you have to step outside in order to really see what is going on.
It's called a vantage point.
And it is why I see...what you cannot see.
Dan

[akiy]

a long list of people here on aikiweb have flat out stated that the people who follow me are idiots and other unkind descriptions of their judgement.
Yes, I, too, would like to see removed from AikiWeb that kind of rhetoric -- of criticizing or putting people down due to whom or how they train.

-- Jun

[DH]

My opinion about this subject is thar IP has been/is part (in various degrees) of combative skills across eurasia for thousand of years, but is not the Holy Grail for martial awesomeness that some people claims IP to be.
Oh hell ya it is. Oh good Lord it most certainly is!!
This boils down to vantage points again.
Getting hit or kicked by it, or trying to throw someone who gets it, or seeing your naginata, sword or twin sticks completely blasted right through or controlled as if they had little meaning can be quite alarming. And traditional techniques, for the most part, just simply will not function anymore on someone with good IP/aiki. Hence the reason for so many of the legends or greats in our past.
This stuff made and it will continue to make....legends.
What on earth do you think so many teachers are being impressed by? A better way to make a quilt?
What would impress so many of the jaded, been there done that pros I keep meeting? This includes Judo, MMA and Bjj people as well.
Anyway, the only problem is you first have to *get it* to even have or hold much of an opinion *about it* in the first place. Understanding and getting this and then adding a study of (actually *martial*) martial arts is the best edge you can possible have. Period.

Most will tell you that once you start to see the pieces put together -you see it everywhere and you finally understand how it was missed by so many.
It is the foundation for all we do, right there in your face and people missed it, But after training it for a while...it becomes as Ueshiba said:
"Takeda opened my eyes to true budo!"

I can't tell you how many guys with decades in Japan have said the same thing about me or to me regarding this work. I take it all in stride...it isn't mine and there are others teaching it, so how can anyone get an ego about it? It is the truth of budo, but no single person really owns it. We need to see past the individuals and put our hands to the work itself.
Dan

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Oh hell ya it is. Oh good Lord it most certainly is!! Getting hit or kicked by it, or trying to throw someone who gets it, or seeing your naginata, sword or twin sticks completely blasted right through or controlled as if they had little meaning can be quite alarming. And traditional techniques, for the most part, just simply will not function anymore on someone with good IP/aiki. Hence the reason for so many of the legends or greats in our past.
Too many legends, stories, folklore and narratives on our past. Embellished, aggrandised, poorly documented.

This stuff made and it will continue to make....legends.
Sure. There will be more legends. More narratives, more embellishments, more aggrandisements and more poorly documented heroic feats of martial awesomeness. More folk stories.

What on earth do you think so many teachers are being impressed by? a better way to make a quilt?
They became better than they were. How good were they? Compared with who? Under which standards were they considered good?

Anyway, the only problem is you first have to *get it* to even have or hold much of an opinion *about it* in the first place. Understanding and getting this and then adding a study of (actually *martial*) martial arts is the best edge you can possible have. Period.

Period?

Fine. I'm not going to adress the rest of your post. You do not need to adress this one for your answer is not going to be displayed in my screen.

Bye Dan. Happy new year.

[ChrisHein]

I would simply say:
You're still in the box.... that I have escaped from.
Why would I go back to systems that produce men that face me and want to change once they see?
Ueshiba got free of systems and refused to be trapped by them.It was the same with Bruce Lee. I refuse to be trapped.


Dan I think this is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is talking about. So here in this paragraph you're saying that you've "escaped the box". You've left systems behind, and are doing your own thing. You are no longer "trapped" by a system or a lineage or anything from the past. You are an autonomous are free of old ideas and the past.



How is it that teachers from Aikido, and Daito ryu as well as Taiji and Win chun tell me I am addressing the heart of their budo?


Here again, you're supporting that idea. But a small shift is happening. Here you are saying that that the "heart of their budo" is in what you are doing. If you are autonomous, and un-trapped by system, why di you feel the need to reference, Aikido, Daito Ryu Taiji and Wing Chun? You're pointing at systems, and using them are support for you points.


Because what I am teaching is the foundation of those systems.

Ah, here in the last part of the post you've left a "backdoor". This is a rhetorical device, used to give yourself an "out". You've said that you are free of system, through out this post. But at the end here you give yourself an out- you say that what you are doing is the "foundation of those systems", in essence saying that you are a part of every system, because you are at the foundation of those systems. You are now giving yourself permission to talk again about systems, and being part of them. But you're not part of the systems- you are free of them. So why reference them. Shouldn't you just be speaking of what you are doing?

This is unfair. In the beginning you say how you are fee of systems, and have left them behind, likening yourself to Ueshiba and Bruce Lee. Then at the end, you say that you're doing the same things that all the systems do, so you are in essence part of all systems.

See you're playing both sides, that, I believe is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is getting at.

[Garth]

Too many legends, stories, folklore and narratives on our past. Embellished, aggrandised, poorly documented.

Sure. There will be more legends. More narratives, more embellishments, more aggrandisements and more poorly documented heroic feats of martial awesomeness. More folk stories.

They became better than they were. How good were they? Compared with who? Under which standards were they considered good?

Period?

Fine. I'm not going to adress the rest of your post. You do not need to adress this one for your answer is not going to be displayed in my screen.

Bye Dan. Happy new year.

Demetrio,
I hope you realize that everything you say in your responses or your opinion is based on speculation, as you so quaintly put it. As I stated in the Wikipedia piece, you can argue history and lineage all day long. I wasnt there, so at that point History doesnt matter, nobody anything said at any time is anything but speculation according to who? You?
You are correct about one thing, this technology spans cultures, languages and time and I am right about one thing, put your hands on someone with this stuff and arguments pretty much end, unless of course you like having body parts rearranged, which brings back to the argument whether it is athletic awesomeness or something else the 80 yo man was doing. And yet another argument, because the reason that O'sensei is one of the last recent people who people still alive have actually "felt", he is pointed to and analyzed and researched as doing this stuff. Either you think he was athletically awesome at 80 or those people were being "dive bunnies" for him and thats fine.

This picture is a man doing something called "Fong Jerng" in Thai, I think. In Chinese its called Fa Jin, pretty close right? In English its called power issuing. Same thing across three cultures and languages and thats what is important.

[Krystal Locke]

It comes from Asia.

In practice, it comes from hara/dantian and in-yo/yin-yang.

Would you please explain those terms further, in terms of that practice?

[DH]

Dan I think this is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is talking about. So here in this paragraph you're saying that you've "escaped the box". You've left systems behind, and are doing your own thing. You are no longer "trapped" by a system or a lineage or anything from the past. You are an autonomous are free of old ideas and the past.

Here again, you're supporting that idea. But a small shift is happening. Here you are saying that that the "heart of their budo" is in what you are doing. If you are autonomous, and un-trapped by system, why di you feel the need to reference, Aikido, Daito Ryu Taiji and Wing Chun? You're pointing at systems, and using them are support for you points.

Ah, here in the last part of the post you've left a "backdoor". This is a rhetorical device, used to give yourself an "out". You've said that you are free of system, through out this post. But at the end here you give yourself an out- you say that what you are doing is the "foundation of those systems", in essence saying that you are a part of every system, because you are at the foundation of those systems. You are now giving yourself permission to talk again about systems, and being part of them. But you're not part of the systems- you are free of them. So why reference them. Shouldn't you just be speaking of what you are doing?

This is unfair. In the beginning you say how you are fee of systems, and have left them behind, likening yourself to Ueshiba and Bruce Lee. Then at the end, you say that you're doing the same things that all the systems do, so you are in essence part of all systems.

See you're playing both sides, that, I believe is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is getting at.
*Sigh*
Good Lord, Chris
I would love to open my browser some day and find a post by you that had a positive spin on anything I say.
Wouldn't it be nice to ask me what I meant?
How about asking me for further clarification?
Good grief man..can't you see how shitty this sounds?
The insinuation you offer (that you almost ALWAYS offer) is negative and judgmental and smells of some nefarious motivations on my part.
Thanks!!
It is highly personal as it directly speaks to motives and alludes to some agenda I am supposed to have. It always skirts just past open insult.

Okay. In an attempt once again to be nice in the face of this kind of conversation you like to have with me.....

Traditions
I had to escape or leave the strictness of kata in two systems I trained in, in order to deepen the movement in those systems... in order to transcend them. Yes, transcend my teacher could no longer throw or do waza on me.
I needed to go back to freestyle sparring with weapons and fighting without weapons in order to more fully understand how to use the body skills that were in those systems and transcend them. Yes, transcend as I could use aiki in freestyle fighting in a way I had not seen.
Interestingly enough my friends in those systems get it and fully agree with what I just said.


That said, although I no longer am active in them, I remain supportive of traditional systems to this day

Why I have refused to boost or teach a system
I think it best for the moment to remain neutral when I am addressing people in Budo from seven continents. We stand in rooms devoid of affiliation and ranks and we meet as friends. They are not burdened to "represent" nor am I.



*Careful with your reply to me. You don't have to agree with what I just said, but it is the truth and my actual motivations behind what I am choosing to do. I am dealing with you with an open hand. Any further inference that I am lying or am being coy or dishonest will permanently end our discussions. I for one don't want to see that happen. Do you?

Dan

[Carsten Möllering]

--- completely off topic --- just my personal story ---

I guess one of the things about me is, I prefer following systems to following individuals. I have loyalties to individuals - but I seem to prefer training with individuals who offer me a path to a system that I can convince myself is "legit."
Thank you very much for these words! They struck me deeply.
You touch, how the way of my own development changed during the last years.
And you touch, how may teaching and the relation to the people who train with me in my classes changed.

When I met Endo Seishiro, I met someone who is teaching his own aikidô. His aikidô is different, he himself refers to it as "strange". And he is known for making clear, that what he does is singular.
Not everybody likes this singularity and this strangeness. Because you can't go and follow his stuff and then come back and integrate it to what you have allways done and what the people in your dôjô at home are allways doing. I ditn't realize immidiately, but only over time: I wasn't longer following a certain system, but was following an individual.

This has consequenses for teaching: "Why do you change our regular way of doing ikkyo?", "Why do you change the footwork?" "Why do you stay in the line of the attack???" And - most important: "Where does this come from?!?!?"
I could not longer refer to what was done by a lot of teachers in our "system".
I could not longer refer to the system of what we do, how we do it and how we will learn it over time. I could only say: "This is what I (individual) understood and brought with me from practicing with Endo sensei (individual)."

I was very lucky - and I am happy - and thankfull in a very deep way that the people praciticing with me in my classes followed this change.

I think a system (whatever that really is) can be important to give safety, confidence, security. But if we ourselve want to become an individual a next step can be to follow another individual, i.e. a teacher.

[Chris Knight]

I would simply say:
You're still in the box.... that I have escaped from.
Why would I go back to systems that produce men that face me and want to change once they see?
Ueshiba got free of systems and refused to be trapped by them.It was the same with Bruce Lee. I refuse to be trapped.

As far as your lack of interest in me because I don't define our defend "a system?" that's fine. All I can offer is that at the end of decades of training in them with Asian legends.... men come and there I sit....waiting, and take their system apart and show them what is at the core of martial movement.

How is it that teachers from Aikido, and Daito ryu as well as Taiji and Win chun tell me I am addressing the heart of their budo?
How can that even be possible.
a long list of people here on aikiweb have flat out stated that the people who follow me are idiots and other unkind descriptions of their judgement.
I ask you. What if those who have come and trained...were right after all?

It is the study of the foundation of all the great arts that is the key to truly understanding them, and defeating them.
It is freeing and joyful and healing and it gets better as you age. But to my knowledge you will never find it taught...contained within in a system.

And that said...how is it that everyone who trains with me, can go back to their systems and train this while doing them?
Because what I am teaching is the foundation of those systems. Sometimes you have to step outside in order to really see what is going on.
It's called a vantage point
And it is why I see...what you cannot see.

the best post ive ever read on here. quite simply

[ChrisHein]

*Sigh*
Good Lord, Chris
I would love to open my browser some day and find a post by you that had a positive spin on anything I say.
Wouldn't it be nice to ask me what I meant?
How about asking me for further clarification?
Good grief man..can't you see how shitty this sounds?
The insinuation you offer (that you almost ALWAYS offer) is negative and judgmental and smells of some nefarious motivations on my part.
Thanks!!


Dan I keep seeing this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be personal, I'm just pointing out what I see. To me, the way you write sounds like you are trying to win all angles of conversation, while not addressing anything. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to me. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. It's not personal, I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm simply explaining how I see what you're writing.


It is highly personal as it directly speaks to motives and alludes to some agenda I am supposed to have. It always skirts just past open insult.


I'm not trying to insult you.


Okay. In an attempt once again to be nice in the face of this kind of conversation you like to have with me.....

Traditions
I had to escape or leave the strictness of kata in two systems I trained in, in order to deepen the movement in those systems... in order to transcend them. Yes, transcend my teacher could no longer throw or do waza on me.

If you are making a comparison here between Aikido and something else, unless you're talking about a sport Aikido, being an Uke means falling for Nage. If your teacher could not throw you, it was something strange you were doing, and it wasn't Aikido Ukemi. If you are talking about sport martial arts, your "teacher" or "coach" doesn't have to be able to throw you. Most professional (all?) boxers can out box their coaches, that doesn't mean that they know more about boxing then the coach does. Transcending a system doesn't simply mean you can "out play" your teacher. It means developing a method that goes beyond what the system your teacher teaches can do.


I needed to go back to freestyle sparring with weapons and fighting without weapons in order to more fully understand how to use the body skills that were in those systems and transcend them. Yes, transcend as I could use aiki in freestyle fighting in a way I had not seen.
Interestingly enough my friends in those systems get it and fully agree with what I just said.


I have experience with this myself. I understand the power of this type of training. However, if you could use what you call "aiki" in free styles practice and Ueshiba and Takeda could use what you would call "aiki" in freestyle situations, how is it that you transcended their systems? If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method? If you've created a good way to transmit this power to others (and it sounds like you believe that you have) then why not simply say that you are teaching your own system?


That said, although I no longer am active in them, I remain supportive of traditional systems to this day


So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Can you see it from my perspective? It seems like you want the best of both worlds. On one hand you want to say that what you are doing in original, better and different. And on the other hand you are saying that what you do is proven by people like Ueshiba and Takeda, and other "aiki" students can gain from what you are teaching, because it's basically the same thing Ueshiba and Takeda were talking about.

[Garth]

"So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems?"
I think he also said he found what is behind the foundational movement to "systems" allowing him to transcend them. He supports them because he realizes that there were standouts in each art who also realized it, such as the ones he has pointed to. I also think he said while it is unique, it is not unique to him, an important point and often overlooked.

[Cady Goldfield]

The problem here, as I see it, is that old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt." That is, if someone is alive and actively participating in Internet forums here with all of the other human beings, he must be just some schmoe who is talking crazy talk. In order for anyone to have any credibility at all, apparently he has to be 1. Dead, 2. An Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking, or 3. Dead, and an Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking.

Demetrio, has it occurred to you that some of the people writing here actually CAN DO everything they're writing about, and that others CAN DO some at least some of the things being written about, and are on their way to growing and excelling in those skills? It's not some misty legend, but reality happening right now, perhaps even history in the making. And it's most definitely not being embellished, aggrandised or poorly documented... just the opposite, in fact, and right here on AikiWeb and in private scholarly research and writing. So, it will more likely be the stuff of academically written martial arts histories that future scholars will turn to for furthering their own research, rather than become "legends, stories, folklore and narratives."

Too many legends, stories, folklore and narratives on our past. Embellished, aggrandised, poorly documented.

Sure. There will be more legends. More narratives, more embellishments, more aggrandisements and more poorly documented heroic feats of martial awesomeness. More folk stories.

They became better than they were. How good were they? Compared with who? Under which standards were they considered good?

Period? snip

[renshin]

If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method?

Have you ever heard Dan claim this stuff is "his system" or his creation? Quite the opposite: He's arguing that Takeda / Ueshiba had this, but (most of) their students didn't get it. It's being rediscovered.


So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Have you considered that Dan's intentions are good? That he actually cares about this stuff. And that he spent years trying to discover it himself. It wasn't even his idea to start teaching it outside his own dojo / small group of friends. He was asked time and time again by a senior Aikido instructor and finally decided to help people in the Aikido community find back to something that was lost.

Consider the facts: He does not have any organization, he does not give out any titles, grades or ranks. There are no uniforms used during the seminars - just your regular sweatpants and T-shirts. And nobody's allowed to call him sensei. How this can be about him and "his system" is beyond me...

I'm happy he offers his knowledge here and in seminars - and I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe you should, too, while it's still possible?

[Garth]

The problem here, as I see it, is that old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt." That is, if someone is alive and actively participating in Internet forums here with all of the other human beings, he must be just some schmoe who is talking crazy talk. In order for anyone to have any credibility at all, apparently he has to be 1. Dead, 2. An Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking, or 3. Dead, and an Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking.


Cady,
Going in the Top Ten
:)

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Demetrio, has it occurred to you that some of the people writing here actually CAN DO everything they're writing about, and that others CAN DO some at least some of the things being written about, and are on their way to growing and excelling in those skills?

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

[Cady Goldfield]

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

But has it also occurred to you that there are more than just one individual with such skills, and who openly teach them?

Let's step out of the kingdom of the one-eyed fellow, and into the forest where trees fall but there is no-one there to hear them. Just because these other individuals do not post on AikiWeb, does it mean they don't exist?

[Chris Li]

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

And here I am, just moved up to bi-focals. Getting old sucks worse than my IP :D

Best,

Chris

[Demetrio Cereijo]

And here I am, just moved up to bi-focals. Getting old sucks worse than my IP :D

Best,

Chris

They've recently tried to put one of these satanical inventions on my face... not yet, not yet*

*HIPS reference for those in the know.

[Garth]

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?


Does that mean other "non similar arts" are not blind? Fighting, MMA, BJJ being more realistic martially thereby "seeing". I would like to see that tried not even suggesting on Dan, because its crude and ugly to suggest it and the ensuing aftermath will certainly be. It is same reason it very hard to get your hands on the Chinese masters let alone fight with them. After you get your butt handed to you trying to pankrase one of them, then you are going to prostrate yourself before them and say "Teach me master" ??
Not likely

[ChrisHein]

Have you ever heard Dan claim this stuff is "his system" or his creation? Quite the opposite: He's arguing that Takeda / Ueshiba had this, but (most of) their students didn't get it. It's being rediscovered.

No I haven't. That is my problem. Is Dan teaching something new? Or is Dan teaching someone else's system? What is Dan teaching, because from Dan I hear a little of both. That is the part that sounds strange to me. If Dan "Transcended" older systems, then he's teaching his own system, right? Well if Dan isn't teaching his own system, then he's teaching someone else's system, right? We can't have it both ways.


Have you considered that Dan's intentions are good? That he actually cares about this stuff. And that he spent years trying to discover it himself.


Yes, I have. And he might be, I'll even say that right now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and asking him to clear up things that are hard to understand from the way he writes.


It wasn't even his idea to start teaching it outside his own dojo / small group of friends. He was asked time and time again by a senior Aikido instructor and finally decided to help people in the Aikido community find back to something that was lost.


This is kind of misleading. Dan have been a big promoter of his stuff for many years. For a very long time he's been on the internet talking about how he understands stuff ( I say stuff because it's changed a bit over the years) that most people in the Aikido world don't get. The Aikido community is ripe for this kind of thing, so of course he was eventually asked to come and show his stuff. He must also be pretty good at it, because he's still around, and lot's of people on the net seem to like him. But you can't exactly paint Dan as a humble, quiet guy who doesn't want to tell others that they are wrong and he is right. I don't think that's a bad thing, sometimes we need that sort of thing.



Consider the facts: He does not have any organization, he does not give out any titles, grades or ranks. There are no uniforms used during the seminars - just your regular sweatpants and T-shirts. And nobody's allowed to call him sensei. How this can be about him and "his system" is beyond me...


The flip side of this is, Dan is always saying that he understand things others don't. And that if others would do what he's doing they would become great martial artists. He is always talking about how other systems don't teach what needs to be taught. He's always saying the he has a method that has proven results, and that most people switch over to what he's doing when they see it. To me it sounds like he's talking about his own system, but he say's he's not.

So is it a unique system, or is it someone else's system? It has to be one or the other.



I'm happy he offers his knowledge here and in seminars - and I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe you should, too, while it's still possible?

I'd love to.

[DH]

All conflated points over issues I never raise or discuss.
Example: I never say these are things only I know. EVER!! I continue to point out they are known elsewhere, and that others know and can do them. Once you know you can spot who knows or doesn't know by what they write and how they move.

This one point alone, among so many others, shows me you really have no ability to hear me, or process what I say to you in a discussion. I have no wish to degrade the discourse so, I wish you well, Chris
Dan

[Lorel Latorilla]

Dan I keep seeing this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be personal, I'm just pointing out what I see. To me, the way you write sounds like you are trying to win all angles of conversation, while not addressing anything. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to me. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. It's not personal, I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm simply explaining how I see what you're writing.

I'm not trying to insult you.

If you are making a comparison here between Aikido and something else, unless you're talking about a sport Aikido, being an Uke means falling for Nage. If your teacher could not throw you, it was something strange you were doing, and it wasn't Aikido Ukemi. If you are talking about sport martial arts, your "teacher" or "coach" doesn't have to be able to throw you. Most professional (all?) boxers can out box their coaches, that doesn't mean that they know more about boxing then the coach does. Transcending a system doesn't simply mean you can "out play" your teacher. It means developing a method that goes beyond what the system your teacher teaches can do.

I have experience with this myself. I understand the power of this type of training. However, if you could use what you call "aiki" in free styles practice and Ueshiba and Takeda could use what you would call "aiki" in freestyle situations, how is it that you transcended their systems? If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method? If you've created a good way to transmit this power to others (and it sounds like you believe that you have) then why not simply say that you are teaching your own system?

So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Can you see it from my perspective? It seems like you want the best of both worlds. On one hand you want to say that what you are doing in original, better and different. And on the other hand you are saying that what you do is proven by people like Ueshiba and Takeda, and other "aiki" students can gain from what you are teaching, because it's basically the same thing Ueshiba and Takeda were talking about.

Why do you have to be so stubborn? Some people teach the principles (the so called heart of a system) of a given system, and explore those principles in frameworks (of which are formed through historical and cultural context--which is why some people have to go OUTSIDE of the box because often times the framework is not suited for newer demands/challenges in martial movement) that traditional systems do not provide. Doing this does not necessarily mean that the person is negating or denying the validity of the traditional system--how could he if he is using principles that were derived from the traditional system? There need not be a disconnect in your mind--a person can be teaching Ueshiba and Takeda's aiki, and learned the validity and power of it through freestyle sparring with competent fighters, weapons with competent people that can handle weapons, grappling with trained wrestlers--i.e., frameworks that traditional systems do not offer.

Do you also not understand the notion of innovation? It happens all the time--in technology, in pedagogy, in learning methods, in business management, and in...yes...you guessed it, bujutsu. Would you consider that perhaps some people are teaching the same AIKI that ueshiba and takeda taught but finding ways to streamline their methods so that that acquisition and transmission of skill become more efficient? Can you accept these states of affairs?

[Demetrio Cereijo]

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?


Does that mean other "non similar arts" are not blind? Fighting, MMA, BJJ being more realistic martially thereby "seeing". I would like to see that tried not even suggesting on Dan, because its crude and ugly to suggest it and the ensuing aftermath will certainly be. It is same reason it very hard to get your hands on the Chinese masters let alone fight with them. After you get your butt handed to you trying to pankrase one of them, then you are going to prostrate yourself before them and say "Teach me master" ??
Not likely

Sorry, I don't understand your English.

[Garth]

Sorry, I don't understand your English.

Perfect:cool:

[Gary David]

................So is it a unique system, or is it someone else's system? It has to be one or the other.

Chris
What is the difference between a System, a Method or an Approach? Can you separate these three?

What are Opportunities?
Gary

[DH]

Why do you have to be so stubborn? Some people teach the principles (the so called heart of a system) of a given system, and explore those principles in frameworks (of which are formed through historical and cultural context--which is why some people have to go OUTSIDE of the box because often times the framework is not suited for newer demands/challenges in martial movement) that traditional systems do not provide. Doing this does not necessarily mean that the person is negating or denying the validity of the traditional system--how could he if he is using principles that were derived from the traditional system? There need not be a disconnect in your mind--a person can be teaching Ueshiba and Takeda's aiki, and learned the validity and power of it through freestyle sparring with competent fighters, weapons with competent people that can handle weapons, grappling with trained wrestlers--i.e., frameworks that traditional systems do not offer.

Do you also not understand the notion of innovation? It happens all the time--in technology, in pedagogy, in learning methods, in business management, and in...yes...you guessed it, bujutsu. Would you consider that perhaps some people are teaching the same AIKI that ueshiba and takeda taught but finding ways to streamline their methods so that that acquisition and transmission of skill become more efficient? Can you accept these states of affairs?
Hi Lorel
I don't think you are having a discussion that will move forward. Case in point:
Chris Hein wrote:
So you spend lot's of time learning what Dan is teaching you to do, but that's not actually what gives Dan his special ability. You end up wasting lot's of time, doing something that wasn't actually what gave Dan his ability.'

I think this summarizes what Chris really thinks. What is he saying?
1. Either I'm stupid and don't know what I'm doing
2. People who train with me are stupid and can't tell the difference.
3. It makes a statement that I have not produced anyone with power and to train with me is a waste of time.
BASED ON WHAT?
It is in direct contrast to what everyone has said who did come train isn't it. It is contrary to people feeling the difference themselves and also having felt some of my long terms guys- who some have said are as good as me.

So...in keeping with the OP (my thread) I asked people to address
Can we acknowledge the forward progression of IP discussions on the web? How did these discussions start many years ago. It started with those doing IP/aiki being openly derided for stating that this work is different and is the foundation of aikido.
What Happened?
Every....single....Aikido teacher who went to test....failed.
To my knowledge just about every, single, Aikido teacher who went...switched.
Why isn't that mentioned?
For starters:
1. What does it mean, that this has and is... taking place over and over again?
2. What does it mean that it is routinely ignored in the discussion?

These are some pretty serious questions to ask, given that the success rates we are seeing are the result of OUR high standards and hard work.

I think we should begin by talking about those results and why hundreds of teachers (many who are members here who were openly against this) would switch their entire practice to include this. Isn't that a better tact then insinuating all sorts of negative motivations?
....I at least hope that as a discussion it can include a discussion...of those successes not a discussion of the discussion.
Referring to the last line..Has that actually happened? Other than one person..who if you will note chose to make a shining example of all of one Aikido teacher (hint...its all agenda all the time) Nope. Want to know why? They can't discuss it. To do so would be to have to acknowledge that
a. We stepped up. We had fabulous success.
b. It forced a change in those who came
c. It did so because......we were right

Chris Denies any forward progress, denies the public record and testimonies given here and essentially states we now have to prove what we have been talking about.Now?...NOW?
In one fell swoop it is not only off topic,,, but it does exactly what I said people would do. Why? Because there really is nothing to say in counter is there?

So here we are....years in and thousands of people later with various IP guys and Aikido teachers and it's as if we went back in time, with someone who has been here all along.
So, do you really think you are having a discussion that is even remotely productive?

Dan

[akiy]

I think this summarizes what Chris really thinks. What is he saying?
1. Either I'm stupid and don't know what I'm doing
2. People who train with me are stupid and can't tell the difference.
3. It makes a statement that I have not produced anyone with power and to train with me is a waste of time.
I can't get into Chris's head to figure out what he was "saying," but, again, I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread that I would like to see removed from AikiWeb the kind of rhetoric that criticizes or puts down people because of how or with whom they train.

-- Jun

[Gary David]

I can't get into Chris's head to figure out what he was "saying," but, again, I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread that I would like to see removed from AikiWeb the kind of rhetoric that criticizes or puts down people because of how or with whom they train.

-- Jun

Jun
What I have always looked for is opportunities........what I see here by some is the rejection of opportunities.

Dan is an opportunity....as it turned out for me an approach changing opportunity that has been a positive addition to how I look at things relating to my Aikido.

I have been taking opportunities since I started Aikido in 1974, and I ask my instructor Harry Ishiska for his permission which he always granted. His thought was always to go where you needed to get what you needed to formulate your individual Aikido.

Is Dan the only opportunity out there....no....and he has never said that he was.......

Again what I see here by many is the rejection of an opportunity.......and with that an effort to remove that opportunity for others....

Gary

[ChrisHein]

Dan,
Look it's simple. I'm asking you a single question- do you teach your own system, or do you teach someone else's system? You can replace the word "system" with "approach" or whatever word you choose to describe what it is you are teaching. Or do you teach another system, like Daito ryu, or Aikido, or something that's main points come from someone else.

For example, I teach Aikido. I have lot's of things that I do differently then other Aikido teachers, but most of what I teach is what you would find in many other Aikido schools. I teach someone else's system.

Living in both worlds can be done, but you need to be clear with people about what you are doing. So do you teach your own system or do you teach someone else's?

[akiy]

What I have always looked for is opportunities........what I see here by some is the rejection of opportunities.
I think it's up to the individual what choose to pursue in their path. I think criticizing those who choose differently is entirely non-constructive and that kind of discussion does not belong here on AikiWeb.

-- Jun

[ChrisHein]

Also I'd like to clear up a point. I'm not trying to say that Dan is holding anything back. I am also not saying that Dan doesn't understand his own stuff.

What I'm saying is, how do you know that? What logical evidence, beyond Dan himself, can do some impressive things- tells you that you are going to be able to do what Dan can do by studying with him.

This is one of the major problems with the "IHTBF" argument when we look at it as an example of a teaching model. If you played football with a top notch NFL running back, and he told you he could make you as good as he is- how do you know he can? If the answer is a simple, "because I played with him and he's really good", you must understand there is far more to teaching/learning/coaching then having a teacher, who is himself, very good.

[DH]

Dan,
Look it's simple. I'm asking you a single question- do you teach your own system, or do you teach someone else's system? You can replace the word "system" with "approach" or whatever word you choose to describe what it is you are teaching. Or do you teach another system, like Daito ryu, or Aikido, or something that's main points come from someone else.

For example, I teach Aikido. I have lot's of things that I do differently then other Aikido teachers, but most of what I teach is what you would find in many other Aikido schools. I teach someone else's system.

Living in both worlds can be done, but you need to be clear with people about what you are doing. So do you teach your own system or do you teach someone else's?
Hi Chris
No it is NOT this simple. You have jumped around to so many points (all of them with seriously negative connotations) that we cannot seem to follow any line of discussion to a conclusion. I say its you, you say its me.
I respect a lot of what you are trying to do with your Aikido, even if I disagree with some of your approaches and conclusions, I still respect the experimentation and search. I have said this about you when you were not in the room and I am saying it here,
Lets part here in peace.

Dan

[Howard Popkin]

Dan,
Look it's simple. I'm asking you a single question- do you teach your own system, or do you teach someone else's system? You can replace the word "system" with "approach" or whatever word you choose to describe what it is you are teaching. Or do you teach another system, like Daito ryu, or Aikido, or something that's main points come from someone else.

For example, I teach Aikido. I have lot's of things that I do differently then other Aikido teachers, but most of what I teach is what you would find in many other Aikido schools. I teach someone else's system.

Living in both worlds can be done, but you need to be clear with people about what you are doing. So do you teach your own system or do you teach someone else's?

Hey Chris,

I think I can explain this. Is Saotome doing Aikido ? Is Yamada doing Aikido ? Is Chiba doing Aikido ?

I believe that most people would say yes to all three, but would clarify it by saying they each have special areas that they focused on because Aikido is such a broad system that it is difficult to focus on all aspects. (Especially if you throw in Endo or Nishio)

Being one of the few people on this continent ( I believe there are 15 or so) that are certified to teach Daitoryu I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the core of what Dan is teaching comes from Daitoryu.

In my very humble opinion, What Dan has done is whittled out the "waza" and focused only on specific body skills that stem from Daitoryu. Those body skills are the core of the art. Their development creates Daitoryu "AIKI". If does not create the type of blending that you showed on your football video. Nor does it create the "AI" Kanji that O'Sensei described as love.

What it creates is power, stability(stationary and in motion), instant balance breaking, and crazy striking power.

Does that mean Dan is teaching the whole system of Daitoryu ? No, he isn't and doesn't care too. Why ? Because he has such control of his body that I have yet to meet anyone, Shihan or otherwise, including myself that can effect Dan's balance in any way.

Dan is teaching the very core of Daitoryu. Again, he is not teaching the whole Daitoryu system, but from my perspective, If you told me you had the worlds greatest wristlock or armbar, I wouldn't get up from my seat to look. If you told me that you could nullify anyone's ability to effect you, while making yourself more solid, yet free footed and centered, well then I might just go have a look.

What we have here is an argument about nonsense. Where did the word "aiki" come from ? Obviously the 60's - peace, love, harmony and energy....wasn't that from the 60's :)

Seriously, I'm training Jujutsu since 1979 with serious people and Daitoryu since 1986 under some of the worlds best and I'm telling you flat out that I wouldn't let any of them carry Dan's bags because they would have to get through me to do so.

I hope that helps.

Happy New Year !

Howard

[ChrisHein]

Thanks Howard, I think that did help.

So Dan is teaching Daito ryu without the waza. That seems pretty simple to me.

[Howard Popkin]

And because there is no waza, it can be used anywhere.
And because there is no waza, any waza, used against it is useless.
And because there is no waza, his stability and power are through the roof.

Do I need to keep going? :-)

[ChrisHein]

You are impressed by Dan, point taken.

[Dave de Vos]

So Dan is teaching Daito ryu without the waza. That seems pretty simple to me.

Dan may have found it in daitoryu, but I don't think it's daitoryu specific.
I think that just like a daitoryu practisioner would describe it as daitoryu without techniques, a taichi practicioner would describe it as taichi without techniques (or forms).

[ChrisHein]

Dan may have found it in daitoryu, but I don't think it's daitoryu specific.
I think that just like a daitoryu practisioner would describe it as daitoryu without techniques, a taichi practicioner would describe it as taichi without techniques (or forms).

So it's Dan's own unique system/approach. It's a Dan Harden method?

[sorokod]

Is it possible that this thread converges with this one: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22135 ?

[Dave de Vos]

So it's Dan's own unique system/approach. It's a Dan Harden method?

I wouldn't call it a system. We might call it "stuff". I've heard Dan call it "this stuff", but never "his stuff". When I train with my training buddies we might call it "Dan's stuff", but Dan makes it very clear that he didn't invent it. It was taught to him. And he is teaching us.

I don't think Dan is the only one really teaching "this stuff". Other teachers, like Akuzawa Minoru and Mike Sigman, are also explicitly teaching "this stuff". I have no direct experience with Akuzawa Minoru or Mike Sigman, only with some of their students. From what I've heard there are differences in teaching methods. But even though the end result might differ to some degree, I think it's essentially about the same "stuff".

So I think Dan has teaching methods that are specific to him (but I guess that can be said about any teacher)), but "this stuff" is not his invention or discovery. I mean, if I'm a physics teacher with great didactical qualities, would you say I'm teaching Dave's system rather than physics?

[ChrisHein]

I mean, if I'm a physics teacher with great didactical qualities, would you say I'm teaching Dave's system rather than physics?

This is a good point, and one that seems clear to me, but I don't think I'm making myself clear to others.

I'll use myself as an example. I teach Aikido, in the Aikido I teach, we spar and wrestle a lot. We do lot's of hard physical exercise. We beat on each other with weapons. These are all things that are very different than you would find in most Aikido schools. However, I say that I still teach Aikido, because the vast majority of what we do is Aikido. When my students encounter other Aikido folks, they share a very similar martial cultural background.

There are subtle distinctions, maybe eventually what I teach will be so different that my student's wouldn't understand what Aikido folk are talking about. At that point I would quit calling what I do Aikido. So I guess Dan is the only one who can answer this- Is what he teaches, so different that it is a unique thing, or is it that the majority of what Dan teaches is Daito ryu (or whatever system may be applicable) so that his students could pretty easily fit in at another Daito ryu school, or visa versa.

With your example of physics, if you teach formulas, and ways of doing math and understanding the physical universe that other students of physics couldn't understand/didnt' know I would say you're not teaching physics. If you just offer some innovative ideas, but the majority of what you are doing is understood by the physics community at large, then you are probably just doing physics.

[JW]

So I guess Dan is the only one who can answer this- Is what he teaches, so different that it is a unique thing, or is it that the majority of what Dan teaches is Daito ryu (or whatever system may be applicable) so that his students could pretty easily fit in at another Daito ryu school, or visa versa.


He may very well want to respond to that again, but he kind of did already:


How is it that teachers from Aikido, and Daito ryu as well as Taiji and Win chun tell me I am addressing the heart of their budo?
How can that even be possible.

From this quote: what he teaches is not a specialized "Dan thing," it is generic to these various arts.
From personal experience: the material once worked on will give you some familiarity with a new martial art. But, being generic rather than specialized, the material still leaves some art-specific learning to be done (like waza), so it wouldn't be considered a complete course in (for instance) Daito ryu.

So the material can be the core of many arts, while not being the entirety of any one art.

Ellis Amdur in HIPS likened the material to the liquid that fills many differently-shaped bottles.

[sakumeikan]

And because there is no waza, it can be used anywhere.
And because there is no waza, any waza, used against it is useless.
And because there is no waza, his stability and power are through the roof.

Do I need to keep going? :-)

Dear Howard,
I feel these statements are [especially the second one ] quite frankly tosh.Are you really saying that a kick or a punch by Kanazawa or Mike Tyson would have no effect here ?How would a choke techinique fail to work? Answers please in plain english if you will,Cheers, Joe.

[phitruong]

You are impressed by Dan, point taken.

i am quite impressed by Howie, and wouldn't hesitate to learn from him any day of the week and twice on sunday. ok, maybe not on sunday, i got to party too. :)

but i believed dan mentioned somewhere or many where, that he isn't the only source of IP/IS. there are other folks. human body is a funny thing (ya, some of you looked more funny than other, except for moi). there are only so many ways to do thing. the core/foundation isn't that many things.

[thisisnotreal]

..and crazy striking power.
I'm just going to quote this part alone because i think this gets glossed over in every one of these conversations.

1. the shocking striking power
2. the amount of power (and stability, etc) that this method has infused into a human body.

..That there is even the *possibility* of building up a human being's power to these levels (that have been demoed) is at once exciting, humbling and terrifying. The power is actually somewhat terrifying.
Imagine..What vantage point does that give you?

[ChrisHein]

See we're creeping away from the issue at hand again. We are starting to get in to the romantic views of what's going on, and not the actual learning process. This keeps happening.

For me, how hard someone can hit, isn't really of interest. I've been around some very hard hitters, and I can hit hard myself. If hitting really super hard is your main point of interest there are lot's of avenues of study available to you. So to me this is uninteresting, but a thread drift that keeps happening over and over.

To me it looks something like this"

Me: Can you explain the structure of your teaching format?
Other: It involves ways to make power.
Me: How is the way you make power different then other systems?
Other: It's a unique method that makes you VERY powerful.
Me: Could you compare this method to something else?
Other: If you felt how amazing this power is, you wouldn't ask such a question, it's very amazing.
Me: How is it unlike anything else?
Other: You simply can't understand, it's ground shaking....

This kind of drift happens a lot, and keeps threads from going anywhere. All I wanted to know was, is Dan teaching his own thing, or is he teaching a known system. That question gets skirted, and next thing you know we're talking about how amazing Dan's power is.

I guarantee, that if I felt something amazing from Dan, I would actually be asking more questions, and not less. Feeling something amazing, for me, means that I want to investigate it more fully, and not simply bask in the feeling that happened.

I'm sorry if this gets frustrating for you guys, but for me it's VERY frustrating. I asked what I thought was a simple question, and it gets pushed around, but never answered.

[Howard Popkin]

Thanks Howard, I think that did help.

So Dan is teaching Daito ryu without the waza. That seems pretty simple to me.

Chris,

I have taken three Aikido classes, but I have played with hundreds if not thousands of Aikidoka on the tatami from ASU, USAF, Birenkai, and many other groups.

While I would consider myself an avid spectator, I make no assumptions that I know Aikido. I don't even know what I don't know about Aikido.

I would put out there this very strange statement. Thanks Howard, I think that did help.

So Dan is teaching Daito ryu without the waza. That seems pretty simple to me.

You don't have any idea what Dan can do. You don't even know where to begin when discussing his abilities. Please don't misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect.

The things that Dan (and many of his students) can do are not common place. Most martial artists would hear about them and call BS. They wouldn't think those things are possible. Then you put your hands on him(or them).

My suggestion is this (if you care to take it): you mentioned you had a famous teacher of internal arts, and you also mentioned you have a rough and tumble Aikido class.

Ask your teacher to perform these tasks. If he can do any of them well, he is a good place to start.

1) Ask him to stand neutral, feet even. Place your hand on his chest. Then push him as hard as you physically can. If he moves, and not you, leave. I mean no movement, he should be able to stand there and smile at you :)

2) If he is successful in absorbing your power, as him to do this, but bend him backwards first so he is leaning at least 45 degrees backwards and then perform the same test. If he moves at all, thank him for his time and leave.

3) Then ask him to perform this on his heels, or toes, yes still in a natural stance(shizen tai)

4) Ask him to place his hand on your chest and with no recoil and no hip twist(yes I said no hips), hit you as hard as he can. IF you are still there and your sternum isn't broken, once again we are talking about different skills.

5) You try this one, face a mirror in a forward stance - advance at least 10 steps forward with out your head moving 1 centimeter off the center line.

These are a handful of the basic skills that Dan teaches.

Imagine if you had this level of body control ? How would that affect your martial ability?

Do you think your Aikido would change ? Do you think you would need tenkan to dissipate power or were the circles or spirals happening in your body ?

If internal power wasn't a big deal to O'Sensei, explain the Jo trick ?

While not a swordsman, I have had bokuto locked with Dan tip to tip and I was immobilized. Stuck to the floor.

Again, not being disrespectful, I'm trying to explain that those are INTRODUCTORY skills that Dan offers. Most people wouldn't believe the high level skills that Dan has to offer.

I believe I have said all I can.

Yes, I am impressed with Dan AND his students, because I measure a teacher based on his students abilities. Dan has students training for three years that possess GREAT internal power.

I consider it an honor to train with Dan and his people.

Best wishes,

Howard

[Howard Popkin]

Dear Howard,
I feel these statements are [especially the second one ] quite frankly tosh.Are you really saying that a kick or a punch by Kanazawa or Mike Tyson would have no effect here ?How would a choke techinique fail to work? Answers please in plain english if you will,Cheers, Joe.

Joe,

I am not saying that Dan is superman. I am saying that Dan is so well trained that these things would be VERY difficult to accomplish.

Ask some other people who have tried :)

[ChrisHein]

Howard,
Thanks for your time. I can tell you're very impressed with Dan. But I didn't ask about how powerful Dan is. I asked if he teaches his own system, or if he teaches someone else's system.

Thanks.

[Howard Popkin]

Howard,
Thanks for your time. I can tell you're very impressed with Dan. But I didn't ask about how powerful Dan is. I asked if he teaches his own system, or if he teaches someone else's system.

Thanks.

I was explaining what Dan teaches. The core comes from Daitoryu. Dan took the skills and used them in Judo, Jujitsu, and lots of MMA, grappling, etc.

As for what the name of the system is, it probably has some terrible Boston accent, so I wouldn't even try to type it :)

[Howard Popkin]

Chris,

Are any of those skills part of your system ? If so, what do you call them and what methods did you use to develop them.

Thanks !

Howard

[Gary David]

Howard,
............ But I didn't ask about how powerful Dan is. I asked if he teaches his own system, or if he teaches someone else's system.

Thanks.

Chris
I still wonder at why you ask this same question over and over.....why is it so relevant to you when it seems a side issue to me? As to effectiveness or comparing it to something else...the best way to do that is to go to one of his workshops and see for yourself.......though that possibility may have gone down the road already.

Just a note here....to my knowledge none of Dan's students actually post here.....those posting here are just individuals who have attended one or more of Dan's work shops, including myself.

I am interested in your answers to Howard's questions....the questions do provide a small opening to what is a starting point, but only a hint at what is possible.

Gary

[Chris Li]

Just a note here....to my knowledge none of Dan's students actually post here.....those posting here are just individuals who have attended one or more of Dan's work shops, including myself.


Andy posted a couple of times, but I think he got tired of it :D

Best,

Chris

[ChrisHein]

Chris,

Are any of those skills part of your system ? If so, what do you call them and what methods did you use to develop them.

Thanks !

Howard

I would call the kinds of things you are describing "Kokyu". We use stability drills to train this sort of thing. Lot's of having a person stand still while we push on them. I do this quite a bit with my kids class, it's really good for them. I've noticed that I don't teach/practice it so much with the adults anymore. I believe this is because if they are training the forms correctly, and asking the right questions of themselves, they will naturally figure these things out. I do however use these kinds of practices when I have a student who is naturally unable to develop this kind of power.

[ChrisHein]

Chris
I still wonder at why you ask this same question over and over.....why is it so relevant to you when it seems a side issue to me? As to effectiveness or comparing it to something else...the best way to do that is to go to one of his workshops and see for yourself.......though that possibility may have gone down the road already.

Just a note here....to my knowledge none of Dan's students actually post here.....those posting here are just individuals who have attended one or more of Dan's work shops, including myself.

I am interested in your answers to Howard's questions....the questions do provide a small opening to what is a starting point, but only a hint at what is possible.

Gary

I ask questions to develop my understanding of where someone is coming from. This one got made a much bigger deal of then I meant for it to. Seemed like a simple question to me. In order to understand something, I feel the need personally to figure out where someone is going with a thing, what they feel that thing is or is not. As I start to get more clear positive and negative answers for my questions I can start to understand how I should be thinking about the problem, how the person I'm talking to really thinks about the situation .

I find often I can let questions go, maybe I asked the wrong one, or could find a better question to ask. However I feel that often here on Aikiweb, if I let my questions go, next thing you know there are ten posts about how amazing something felt. That sort of thing doesn't give me any information. So I find it bothersome. Sometimes I feel like I need to stubbornly ask the same question, because if I don't I'll never get any answers to any questions.

[Mert Gambito]

Thanks Howard, I think that did help.

So Dan is teaching Daito ryu without the waza. That seems pretty simple to me.

What Dan has done is whittled out the "waza" and focused only on specific body skills that stem from Daitoryu.

Chris, I restated what Howard wrote because there is a difference vs. your above summary.

Dan has continued to refine his approach to teaching these body skills through the years -- but, as has been stated many times, the skills (e.g. six directions and spiraling) are not unique to a given art or era, though it's clear there are different flavors depending on the source. Dan's source/flavor happens to be Daito-ryu, and he's loyal to maintaining those discreet qualities, given their compatibility with other Japanese budo/bujutsu -- while ensuring his method is applicable across the gamut of internal martial arts.

So, it really is best to just accept the non-denominational slant Dan puts on his method. In Hawaii, for example, a couple days a week, you'll find several folks with long-time tenures in Aikido, various other gendai budo, and ICMA's (e.g. taiji, I-Liq-Chuan, bagua) training together to make each person a more skilled and powerful internal martial artist. Most of the time, there's no kamiza, no uniforms, no ryuha-specific dogma: just a bunch of folks in T-shirts, shorts and sandals training at the beach in a palm tree grove with a common worthwhile goal. While training together, we seek and explore IP/IS commonalities among what Dan teaches, what we've learned and are diving deeper into within our respective arts, and what we've gathered from others, such as Mike Sigman, who've been kind enough to share their knowledge with us.

What I'm saying is, how do you know that? What logical evidence, beyond Dan himself, can do some impressive things- tells you that you are going to be able to do what Dan can do by studying with him.

This is one of the major problems with the "IHTBF" argument when we look at it as an example of a teaching model. If you played football with a top notch NFL running back, and he told you he could make you as good as he is- how do you know he can? If the answer is a simple, "because I played with him and he's really good", you must understand there is far more to teaching/learning/coaching then having a teacher, who is himself, very good.

First off, the training models offered by Dan, Mike, Ark and Sam Chin, for example, are highly systematic: do X to achieve Y in order to produce Z results. OK, for the sake of playing Devil's advocate, let's say that the folks I've met who are purportedly Dan's students and can demonstrate varying degrees of IP/IS are, in reality, shills who got IP/IS through some other manner. What's not refutable to me are the results achieved by every regular member of the Hawaii IP/IS study group. Familiarity breeds group-think and conditioned response? Well, when I was in L.A. visiting friends and family last month, a martial artist who I hadn't trained with in three years pushed on me to see what all the IP/IS fuss is about. I'm really slow on the uptake re: martial skills in general, so I'm no poster child for IP/IS; but I'll never forget the spontaneous puzzled, bemused reaction I received. Then: "You're under me, but you didn't move". I'd tried to describe "this stuff" to this person during the past couple years from time to time, and it usually devolved into an exercise in talking past one another (albeit politely). So yeah: IHT-definitely-BF.

Caveat: the above-described interchange occurred with a long-time past training partner who has well-honed ukemi skills, and so this person was ideal for noticing subtle differences in my particular ability after three years of being physically out of touch.

As for more experienced IP/IS exponents: Bill Gleason, who met Dan a few years before anyone in Hawaii did, is coming to Honolulu in March. Let's see if the anecdotes about him match the man's actual ability (to my knowledge, no one's cried "bullshido" re: Bill yet). As for Joe's concerns about what someone with high-level skills (i.e. multiple decades of experience and vetted by multiple sources) can and can't do in a non-cooperative environment . . .

I feel these statements are [especially the second one ] quite frankly tosh.Are you really saying that a kick or a punch by Kanazawa or Mike Tyson would have no effect here ?How would a choke techinique fail to work? Answers please in plain english if you will

. . . just standing there taking a punch or a choke isn't what IP/IS is about (as Dan says, you still have to know how to fight with it). In any case, here are experiences re: Yukioshi Sagawa of Daito-ryu made simple and plain by one of his students, in the event an interested reader hasn't come across this piece before: http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/09/10/yukiyoshi-sagawa-daito-ryu-master-by-kiyokazu-maebayashi/. An excerpt:

The amazing thing is that his students (including myself) truly attack him all out. Sensei is 87 years old. This is unthinkable in other martial arts or sports. . . . In this art, which is generally considered to be the least practical fighting method, Sensei can always execute techniques on anyone who genuinely attacks him or seriously resists him.

The seniors who make these all out attacks on Sensei have been practicing the art for between 10 and 30 years and many of them hold high ranks in other martial arts as well. . . . What I am trying to say here is that although Sagawa Sensei can handle all these senior members as easily as one can twist a baby's arm, they are all men of an overwhelming ability rarely seen in other martial arts.

Sagawa Sensei can control these vigorous men with perfect ease 100 percent of the time.

Clarification: Sagawa had over 70 years of aiki-jujutsu training under his belt at the time the above was written. In light of that, I think it's reasonable that Dan paints himself as being within a continuum of experience and ability re: IP/IS, despite the pedestals often offered him here as one of the gold standards -- a status he's rightfully earned -- among IP/IS experts accessible to members of this community.

Personally, I don't care if Dan's skills are the same as what Sagawa had or are the aiki in Aikido as done by Morihei Ueshiba. Nonetheless, I recently commented about solo training in Hakkoryu bearing undeniable similarities to what Dan teaches and to what has been taught in Sagawa's dojo. If Ryuho Okuyama was a lesser light in Daito-ryu than, say Sagawa and Ueshiba (based, if nothing else, on degree of celebrity throughout the martial arts community), then who am I to think that Ueshiba would've gotten anything less from Takeda? And, to the main point of this thread, what would the opportunity to learn a proven method that develops ability a la what was described above re: Sagawa, that would've reasonably also been possessed by Ueshiba, be worth?

[ChrisHein]

It's hard to not sound like a jerk when I say what I'm about to say. But stories are stories. I'm not saying that anyone is lying, or trying to trick anyone, but you can't tell much from stories. Since all this stuff started, I have received dozens of emails from people telling me about Dan. I have gotten glowing reviews, and I have heard some pretty ugly things, I take them all with a grain of salt. We can't really judge things by the story. Would I like to "touch Dan" yes I would. If Dan would give me that opportunity, I would take it. If not, I understand that too.

So, touching is out of the question here on the internet, and stories are stories. So what are we left with. There is an amazing inability to say what is happening. We still don't know how anyone is using words like "dantien" or "duel opposing spirals". And there seems to be a real desire not to share what people think these words mean. That makes me suspicious.

There are also lot's of rhetoric filled posts, that seem to me to be dodging the questions asked. Even simple questions can't have a straight answer. This makes me suspicious.

There is a group/pack like mentality in the way the people surrounding Dan talk. They get very angry very quickly, and are sure that everything is an attack. This makes me suspicious.

Dan won't let me, or anyone I've trained with come to his seminars. I always welcome my detractors to come train with me, I don't understand why he wouldn't do the same. This makes me suspicious.

Looking at it from the things I can see, here on Aikiweb can't you see why I keep asking questions?

[Chris Li]

So, touching is out of the question here on the internet, and stories are stories. So what are we left with. There is an amazing inability to say what is happening. We still don't know how anyone is using words like "dantien" or "duel opposing spirals". And there seems to be a real desire not to share what people think these words mean. That makes me suspicious.

No desire not to share at all - I'll push this on anyone who'll stand around listening, but this really isn't the medium for it.

"We still don't know" isn't quite accurate - quite a few people know, I would say. I'm sorry that your past history with Dan has seemed to leave him without the desire to meet you, but that seems to be the way it is, you'll have to work it out with him - and I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it.

It seems to me that you've had lots of answers - you just don't like them.

Best,

Chris

[ChrisHein]

What I'm left with is, do you want to share or don't you?

If you don't want to share, if you want to keep things limited to a very select group, then cool, but why talk publicly at all then.

If you want to share why is getting a straight answer so difficult?

It doesn't seem like you want to share, except in your own very controlled way, but that's not possible if you want to talk openly.

[Howard Popkin]

Hey, you don't need anyone to share, you already said you do all those things in your kids class. , good luck with your training :-)

[Mert Gambito]

Chris,

Here's the dope as straight as I can make it:

Can you explain the structure of [Dan's] teaching format?

Dan explains and demonstrates the theory and intent-driven processes applicable to a specific internal skill, e.g. six directions, then students practice them solo and in pairs going forward.

How is the way [Dan] make[s] power different then other systems?

The training model, and the discreet exercises and drills within it, are specific to making physiological changes in the body* necessary for achieving a given set of internal skills -- vs. being technique or form oriented.

Could you compare this method to something else?

For those more comfortable thinking within the context of formalized martial systems: I-Liq-Chuan, and to a lesser degree, Yiquan, for example, are systems largely comprised of sets of solo and paired exercises specifically aimed at developing nei-jing (IP/IS). (The latter, in my experience, makes relatively fewer explicit connections between the training and the physiological changes sought in the body). From solo and paired training specifically designed to develop IP/IS, these Chinese systems move to cooperative resistive training (e.g. push hands) then to free-form fighting. Dan's approach does not, to my knowledge, include a prescribed, codified approach to applying IP/IS to resistive training: rather, he encourages folks to take this on for themselves, and provides jumping-off points for doing this through semi-resistive paired drills that are universal to standing grappling (e.g. would work in budo randori, or push hands).

How is it unlike anything else?

Dan's approach is apparently unique in that it is distilled from Daito-ryu, yet is informed by and evolved to be increasingly universal by other IP/IS pedagogy that Dan feels brings value to his approach. But, it is not "unlike anything else" in the sense that the above arts, not to mention the Aunkai, Mike Sigman and others, provide sets of solo and paired training designed to develop IP/IS without dependence on techniques and forms.

Dantien is the mid-section of the body bordered above by the diaphragm and below by the pelvis.

* Dual opposing spirals? Here's an illustration from Anatomy Trains served on another site presenting a sampling. Feel free to buy the book to see and read about the full gamut. Simply put, Dan's and others' methodologies develop these features, which include connective tissues in addition to discreet muscles, and the ability to use them in concert -- for example, in opposition (since they're often in mirrored pairs) to produce extraordinary power expressed on one side of the body while balanced across the body (since both sides of the pair are in play), in addition to the ability to negate incoming force from another person. (Someone posted a link to a research study conducted on a taiji practitioner that couldn't resolve how these things happen from a western empirical point of view, so no use in asking here how this works.)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4U71z2TIfRU/TS16akXBSXI/AAAAAAAAAsg/5DQ6FewHYKI/s1600/AnatomyTrains.png

Now sure how much more plain I can make this -- and I believe everything above has been laid out before -- beyond trying to describe specific exercises in writing, which isn't going to happen for obvious common sense, if not legal reasons regarding honoring people's proprietary information.

Man, I've tried explaining how great an In-N-Out Burger Double-Double to an East Coaster who hasn't tried one. "Yeah, so my burger has secret sauce and everything you mentioned." As a Californian, you likely know my frustration! IHTBTasted.

I sincerely hope the (re-)clarifications I provided above were helpful.

[ChrisHein]

Hey, you don't need anyone to share, you already said you do all those things in your kids class. , good luck with your training :-)

I wasn't being weird when I said that. I was trying to answer your question.

[ChrisHein]

So the "duel opposing spirals" are muscular connections inside of the body, and Dans method, is a way of using these muscular groups.

See that sounds simple to me. And I've never seen anyone else lay that out. At least not in a discussion with me.

Cool. Thanks, we can now start to work with this.

[Gary David]

So the "duel opposing spirals" are muscular connections inside of the body, and Dans method, is a way of using these muscular groups.

See that sounds simple to me. And I've never seen anyone else lay that out. At least not in a discussion with me.

Cool. Thanks, we can now start to work with this.

Chris
I should just let you go off on your own.......but I will say two things.....1) Mert gave you some touches, but if you work them based on what you do now, how you process information now...it is likely any results you get will be disappointing and have little value as the model you will be using to train is not the model needed to actually achieve the expected results, 2) To really get your questions answered you will have to figure a way to get remove whatever is standing between you and Dan to get into one of the workshops....... I agree with Chris Li that the approach you have taken here may not be the best way to go about that.

Gary

[DH]

Hey, you don't need anyone to share, you already said you do all those things in your kids class. , good luck with your training :-)
1. Chris teaches the skills that made Ueshiba a legend....to his kids!!!!!!!
2. Chris learned internals from an internal "expert"....in a year!!!!!!!
3. Chris said "This stuff is easy and it is already taught in good Aikido."
4. Chris keeps asking what a dantian...is?
5. Chris says....I....sound suspicious.

Dan

[Howard Popkin]

1. Chris teaches the skills that made Ueshiba a legend....to his kids!!!!!!!
2. Chris learned internals from an internal "expert"....in a year!!!!!!!
3. Chris said "This stuff is easy and it is already taught in good Aikido."
4. Chris keeps asking what a dantian...is?
5. Chris says....I....sound suspicious.

Dan

Yep, its all you :) :D :D :D

[HL1978]

Dear Howard,
I feel these statements are [especially the second one ] quite frankly tosh.Are you really saying that a kick or a punch by Kanazawa or Mike Tyson would have no effect here ?How would a choke techinique fail to work? Answers please in plain english if you will,Cheers, Joe.

No, no effect, less of an effect than if you punched some random person off the street. This is because if you punch someone who has built up their body this way, and you haven't its like punching a brick wall. The impact of the punch will hurt you, because the energy of the punch is returned back into you.

Thats not to say if you are the punchee you won't feel any pain.

As for a choke, its not that the IS guy is granted super powers and gains extra lung capacity. Its more like, you have a larger window to escape a choke, and can generate power from unusual positions that most others can't.

[patrick de block]

Chris,

I do not understand all this questioning.

In a class a technique is introduced and then you walk around. I walk over to someone, explain again, show it again, do it with them. They listen attentively (most of the time) and then do it. Nothing has changed while they are sincerely trying to do what you've told them. I've seen this happening time and time again with every teacher. Then you have a choice, you say yes and walk away, you rephrase, you try to come up with an image, ... at a certain point you have to stop since you only succeed in making them nervous and tense. It took me a lot of training to realise this was what was happening with me. Why is he always commenting, I'm doing it. Well ... You go to a seminar and the next lesson there's a talk about it, and someone tells you: ... and you think: hell, I've told you a hundred times. And you shut up, the important thing is that it has been learned. And I guess my teachers thought the same when I told them I made a discovery.
All people need talking, showing and feeling in various degrees to become proficient.

You wrote: 'So the 'dual opposing spirals' are muscular connections inside of the body, and Dan's method, is a way of using these muscular groups.'

The abbreviated original post ran like this:



Dan explains and demonstrates the theory and intent-driven processes applicable to a specific internal skill, e.g. six directions, then students practice them solo and in pairs going forward.

The training model, and the discreet exercises and drills within it, are specific to making physiological changes in the body* necessary for achieving a given set of internal skills -- vs. being technique or form oriented.

Dantien is the mid-section of the body bordered above by the diaphragm and below by the pelvis.

* Dual opposing spirals? Simply put, Dan's and others' methodologies develop these features, which include connective tissues in addition to discreet muscles, and the ability to use them in concert -- for example, in opposition (since they're often in mirrored pairs) to produce extraordinary power expressed on one side of the body while balanced across the body (since both sides of the pair are in play), in addition to the ability to negate incoming force from another person.

Even if you were only summarizing the last paragraph, your summary isn't entirely correct as it leaves out essential information. I think you need the whole quote to get an idea of dual opposing spirals, at least, I don't know what to drop from it.

[Dave de Vos]

I mean, if I'm a physics teacher with great didactical qualities, would you say I'm teaching Dave's system rather than physics?

This is a good point, and one that seems clear to me, but I don't think I'm making myself clear to others.

I'll use myself as an example. I teach Aikido, in the Aikido I teach, we spar and wrestle a lot. We do lot's of hard physical exercise. We beat on each other with weapons. These are all things that are very different than you would find in most Aikido schools. However, I say that I still teach Aikido, because the vast majority of what we do is Aikido. When my students encounter other Aikido folks, they share a very similar martial cultural background.

There are subtle distinctions, maybe eventually what I teach will be so different that my student's wouldn't understand what Aikido folk are talking about. At that point I would quit calling what I do Aikido. So I guess Dan is the only one who can answer this- Is what he teaches, so different that it is a unique thing, or is it that the majority of what Dan teaches is Daito ryu (or whatever system may be applicable) so that his students could pretty easily fit in at another Daito ryu school, or visa versa.

With your example of physics, if you teach formulas, and ways of doing math and understanding the physical universe that other students of physics couldn't understand/didnt' know I would say you're not teaching physics. If you just offer some innovative ideas, but the majority of what you are doing is understood by the physics community at large, then you are probably just doing physics.

Well if you want a label for "this stuff", I think by the measure you describe here, daitoryu would be a mislabel: I went to four of Dan's seminars but if I'd go to a daitoryu class, I don't expect it would help to fit more easily on a technical level.

Dan calls it "Internal Power / Aiki", but you were aware of that ofcourse.

[ChrisHein]

Even if you were only summarizing the last paragraph, your summary isn't entirely correct as it leaves out essential information. I think you need the whole quote to get an idea of dual opposing spirals, at least, I don't know what to drop from it.

Hey Patrick,

I think I understand what you mean. And I don't disagree with it. But we have to start somewhere. I'm not saying that this is all there is to it, but we have to get an initial idea of what is meant by the the term.

Saying that they are muscle groups, is a very general place to start, we can begin to flush out as we go. The problem I see with these discussions, is the lack of desire to get to a beginning place and go from there. This isn't the end of the conversation, it's only the very very beginning. If we can start with something simple, like "The duel opposing spirals are muscular pairs in the body, that can be used to great effect", we have something simple to start from. If we have a huge paragraph, we'll just confuse ourselves as we get further into it.

If "The duel opposing spirals are muscular pairs in the body, that can be used to great effect" is not correct, then we should fix that now, and find something that everyone can agree is the basic building block of our conversation. If we can't find something that everyone agrees on, then we're probably not all talking about the same thing.

[ChrisHein]

1. Chris teaches the skills that made Ueshiba a legend....to his kids!!!!!!!
2. Chris learned internals from an internal "expert"....in a year!!!!!!!
3. Chris said "This stuff is easy and it is already taught in good Aikido."
4. Chris keeps asking what a dantian...is?
5. Chris says....I....sound suspicious.

Dan

1- Every Aikido school on earth (that has a kids class) teaches Ueshiba's skills to kids. That doesn't mean they are making kids into Ueshiba, it simply means they teach those things to kids.

2- I never said I mastered internal martial arts. I never said I'm the most fantastical super guy, I simply said I got the general idea of internal in a couple of years. I'm still working on those things, I didn't "become and expert" in a year.

3- The stuff that I think is important is available in most all Aikido schools (at least the ones I've been to). I don't know why this is a strange thing to say, that is what Aikido schools are trying to do, offer Aikido.

4- I have yet to hear how anyone means that more power comes from your dantien than from anywhere else in your body. Seems to be a key part of many IP peoples theory of use, yet I'm still not sure what they mean by it. I don't understand so I ask.

5- I'm suspicious of lots of things, don't take it personally.

[Michael Douglas]

...
1) Ask him to stand neutral, feet even. Place your hand on his chest. Then push him as hard as you physically can. If he moves, and not you, leave. I mean no movement, he should be able to stand there and smile at you :)
...
If I experienced this I'd be a convert too!

I find it very hard to imagine.

I've not seen video of anyone actually doing this without a stooge. I'd like to feel it. Genuinely.
Not £100 of I'd like to feel it ... but I'd certainly be willing to spend money afterwards.

[Mert Gambito]

What I'm saying is, how do you know that? What logical evidence, beyond Dan himself, can do some impressive things- tells you that you are going to be able to do what Dan can do by studying with him.

It's hard to not sound like a jerk when I say what I'm about to say. But stories are stories. I'm not saying that anyone is lying, or trying to trick anyone, but you can't tell much from stories.

The personal experiences I related --- as an individual testing IP/IS against a control (i.e. an uke unfamiliar with the IP/IS training who had plenty of past experience training with me to establish a baseline reference prior to pushing on me last month), and as someone who is having increasing difficulty using straight muscle power or IP to induce kuzushi in all those I regularly train with in Hawaii -- are completely valid for the purposes of logical evidence: for me and for the person serving as the control.

You'll simply have to go gather your own evidence to satisfy your own curiosity and skepticism, as I and many others have done in the past.*

So the "duel opposing spirals" are muscular connections inside of the body, and Dans method, is a way of using these muscular groups.

See that sounds simple to me. And I've never seen anyone else lay that out. At least not in a discussion with me.

If "The duel opposing spirals are muscular pairs in the body, that can be used to great effect" is not correct, then we should fix that now

To fix it, please go back to what I originally wrote. As Gary and David have cautioned, you have oversimplified the simplified explanation -- in fact, changed it -- to the point your summary is fundamentally inaccurate.

This is one of several AikiWeb threads discussing the trains as spirals and what they anatomically contain; and there are many posts throughout AikiWeb in which Dan and others discuss how developing these trains/spirals across the body is vital to developing IP/IS:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20239 (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20239).

Dual opposing spirals in motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6UaEay5Lg (I don't know if a link to this particular video has been posted on AikiWeb before, but others demonstrating spiraling movement / expression have been).

Cool. Thanks, we can now start to work with this.

Truly, this is the precipice where further online discussion will just generate further errors in interpretation; and that would be a dis-service to you, and others on the fence who feel they're getting the gist.

It's really this simple and sobering: modern Aikido and modern karate, for example, are more similar to one another than the IP/IS-dedicated training methodologies (as a group of systems) are to modern Aikido (despite Dan's approach's extreme compatibility with Aikido due to the Daito-ryu connection). I would never recommend a karateka, of any level of experience, try to learn Aikido from online forums and video clips, nor vice versa. If, say, a Shotokan karateka I know who lives in Fresno wanted to learn Aikido, would I be better off referring him/her to AikiWeb and YouTube, then encouraging them to start practicing tobi ukemi -- or would it be infinitely preferable to refer this person to you after he/she had done online research?

* So, if you want to finish connecting the dots re: IP/IS, go learn from an appropriate teacher. Notice, I didn't say go kicking tires for a few minutes or a couple hours: my specific recommendation to you is to attend an entire ILC seminar with Sam Chin. He'll likely spend most of the first half of the first day of an introductory seminar going over ILC's IP/IS theory (which should dovetail to a comfortable degree with your ICMA knowledge), then have attendees systematically apply that theory via solo and paired training. Along the way, you'll have plenty of opportunities for hands-on time with him, and he is extremely patient with newbies. He also explains how his system is applicable to different "faces"/"masks"/systems of the martial arts, including Aikido. ILC is so elegantly systematic, and Sam is such a fine communicator (despite English not being his first language), that I feel you, and anyone else looking for a well-packaged end-to-end (i.e. theory to self development to free-form application) intro to dedicated IP/IS training, would be best served going this route.

[ChrisHein]

I can understand if I made an incorrect statement. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.

I'm just asking for a simple place to start. I'll look at the material you've provided.

[patrick de block]

Chris,

A simple question: have you read 'Hidden in Plain Sight' by Ellis Amdur?

[Demetrio Cereijo]

But has it also occurred to you that there are more than just one individual with such skills, and who openly teach them?
A fair number of them, but maybe not teaching openly.

Let's step out of the kingdom of the one-eyed fellow, and into the forest where trees fall but there is no-one there to hear them. Just because these other individuals do not post on AikiWeb, does it mean they don't exist?

Yes, they exist.

[ChrisHein]

Chris,

A simple question: have you read 'Hidden in Plain Sight' by Ellis Amdur?

Yes.

[Gary David]

..................

I'm just asking for a simple place to start. .............

Chris
At this point....with everything that has been said........all things considered.....I agree that your best place to start would be a weekend with Sam Chin. You would have an opportunity to feel what is being talked about from the I Liq Chuan perspective, which dovetails into the areas that the IP/IS folks talk to on here.....You need to go get hands on, to figure out the areas that dovetail......otherwise your model will never adapt and no amount of information you get here will be of any help.

Gary

[Mert Gambito]

. . .Gary and David . . .

Sorry folks: should've typed "Gary and Patrick" above, re: the clarifications provided to Chris H. pertaining to the simplified definition of dual opposing spirals.

I can understand if I made an incorrect statement. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.

Fair enough, Chris. I realize that a lot of information gets packed into these threads, and in individual posts sometimes, time is limited to review and process the information, and key details can get blurred or missed along the way (my correction above in this post being a case in point).

OK, first off, the details re: IP/IS training over which people are being nit-picky above truly do matter that much. If the interpretations, and with it the understandings of a pair of standalone statements of fact can change as much as they did earlier in this thread -- in just one iteration/layer of communication online -- then it's clear it makes no sense to delve any deeper through this or any other written medium regarding anything more technical or detailed (e.g. step-by-step how-to's) because of the virtual certainty of leading one's self and others astray. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that unknowingly leading one's self astray when new to a given subject matter is a natural, inevitable part of the learning process -- even when there's capable face-to-face instruction available: whether that instruction is in IP/IS, Aikido kokyu-dosa, ballroom dance, chiropractic medicine, or any other endeavor that requires intensive yet subtle mental and physical self development required to create profound physical and mental interactions with another human being (any IP/IS practitioner who isn't nodding is for sure full of it).

I'm just asking for a simple place to start. I'll look at the material you've provided.

Thank you for taking the time to earnestly and carefully consider these recommendations.

When you get a copy of Anatomy Trains, pay attention to the pages toward the back of the book that map the meridians of the body utilized in traditional Asian medicine (TAM) to their corresponding anatomy trains. ILC utilizes the TAM meridians, including the traditional grouping of the meridians into "yin" and "yang" categories, to describe which parts of the body are utilized in which particular manners during a given exercise/drill. (Note: references to the meridians, while fundamental to the theory and practice in ILC, are not utilized in all IP/IS training methodologies, including Dan's. Those of us who've been formally exposed to both methodologies by Sam and Dan can reconcile this, but it makes no sense to slice and dice the reasons why via the internet for the reason stated above.)

You would have an opportunity to feel what is being talked about from the I Liq Chuan perspective, which dovetails into the areas that the IP/IS folks talk to on here . . .

To further clarify and recap, reviewing Anatomy Trains and attending an ILC seminar with Sam makes sense for those with a technical western bent because there's a logical progression from:
conventional martial movement that can be described in terms of the long-standing traditional western anatomical and physiological model (i.e. muscles, bones, etc. as separate entities performing their respective work functions within the body) to . . .
anatomy trains (i.e. groupings of integrated motivating and connecting tissues that span, interconnect and motivate large portions of the body from head to toe) . . .
which can be mapped to the meridians that provide a roadmap to the body in traditional Asian medicine, via a publicly available reference (i.e. Anatomy Trains) . . .
which are a key part of the nomeclature utilized in ILC: a proven method for achieving IP/IS (note that Sam Chin will discuss "yin muscle" vs. "yang muscle", but he refers to these in terms of portions of the body [i.e. meridians or groups of meridians], vs. as discreet muscles or groupings of muscles in the western sense) . . .
the results of which can be experienced first hand during the seminar to clarify how the practice translates into power out, negation of power in, and other nuances of application.

Straightforward. Logical. Accessible. Proven. (= S.L.A.P. :D ) -- and therefore, returning to the original thrust of this thread: absolutely worth the investment in time and money.

[sorokod]

* Dual opposing spirals? Here's an illustration from Anatomy Trains served on another site presenting a sampling. Feel free to buy the book to see and read about the full gamut. Simply put, Dan's and others' methodologies develop these features, which include connective tissues in addition to discreet muscles, and the ability to use them in concert -- for example, in opposition (since they're often in mirrored pairs) to produce extraordinary power expressed on one side of the body while balanced across the body (since both sides of the pair are in play), in addition to the ability to negate incoming force from another person. (Someone posted a link to a research study conducted on a taiji practitioner that couldn't resolve how these things happen from a western empirical point of view, so no use in asking here how this works.)
....


The "Anatomy Trains" reference sounded familiar - I managed to dig this up http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297904&postcount=11.

See also:

"Compared to the power of muscle contraction, fascia power barely even registers."

-- http://saveyourself.ca/articles/does-fascia-matter.php