Responsibility: Teacher's or Student's?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[akiy]

So, here's a (linguistic) thought I've been having.

The Japanese terms that we hear being used most often in aikido that refer to a "teacher" are "sensei" and "shihan."

Taking a look at these two terms linguistically, we know that "sensei" literally means "born/lives before" and "shihan" literally means "master example." Neither of these terms (as opposed to other terms in Japanese like "kyoushi" and "kyouju") contain a literal character in its terms for "teaching."

In other words, neither the term "sensei" nor "shihan" connote that the person with such a title has to "teach," per se, but just keep doing what he has been doing. In this approach, it's the student's responsibility to learn through modelling and "stealing" the teacher's teachings.

I'm surmising that this has roots in the classical "master - apprentice" system, but I really have no firm basis for this.

Any thoughts? I'm especially interested to hear from folks like Peter Goldsbury who have extensive experience in the martial arts as well as a good basis in the Japanese language...

-- Jun

[Chuck Clark]

In other words, neither the term "sensei" nor "shihan" connote that the person with such a title has to "teach," per se, but just keep doing what he has been doing. In this approach, it's the student's responsibility to learn through modelling and "stealing" the teacher's teachings.

I'm surmising that this has roots in the classical "master - apprentice" system, but I really have no firm basis for this.
Jun,

I'm certainly not in the league as Peter in the Japanese language, but here's what I have picked up over the years.

What you stated above is pretty much the heart of it. However, the best teachers that I have experienced (in Japan or elsewhere) also so some "teaching" in the relationship. It's the students responsibility to present themselves in the proper "spirit" to learn and take the practice into themselves. The teacher should almost feel like there is a force coming from the student that's a tractor beam pulling at the teacher all of the time. Eagerness, open-mind and heart, trust, etc. should be going both ways between student and teacher.

My Shinto Muso Ryu teacher, Phil Relnick-sensei continually says, "This is your practice, take responsibility for the practice."

Hope Peter (and others) can add their knowledge to this subject. I think many students do not understand the relationship between student and teacher. We all have much to learn from each other.

Regards,

[Wayne]

I do not have any background in Japanese and I've only been practicing aikido for a few months. Perhaps my ideas have some small validity though, since perception counts for a lot.

Anyway, I recently found a website that listed the Hombu Dojo requirements for being affiliated with aikikai. I don't have the link at hand but I probably found it through a URL posted on aikiweb. The site also described the requirements for recognition as shihan, shidoin, and fukushidoin (sp ?). If I remember correctly, fukushidoin status is for 2nd and 3rd dan, shidoin status for 4th and 5th dan, and shihan for 6th dan and higher.

Even before I started practicing, I assumed that senior students had a responsibility to help junior students. The ability and willingness to help also affected their rank, promotion, etc. I see this during my own practice with even 3rd kyu students frequently helping me with a technique. Carrying this a step further, I see the yudansha in the dojo helping the 3rd and 2nd kyu students as well as helping out as guest instructors during some practice sessions. Finally, I see the chief instructors leading the advanced classes.

It may be that my perception of the terms has moved outside of their linguistic roots but I see measuring improvement in technical skills as very difficult in the higher yudansha ranks. Teaching, on the other hand, is more easily recognized and can be evaluated. Certainly length of time leading seminars, quality and quantity of publications, and overall respect are plausible means of comparison.

Summing up my somewhat rambling post, I have always assumed that the definition of shihan included teacher. Even if it started from master - apprentice, perhaps it has come closer to Master Teacher.

Wayne

[akiy]

Just thought I'd revive this thread as it's still in my mind...

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

-- Jun

[Abasan]

My humble thoughts in the matter...

From what I understand of knowledge such as this (where you have to do it/ practical rather then theoretical), learning comes from experience.

The teacher is necessary in order to provide the proper experiences and guide you in understanding those experiences. But learning it, comes from the student.

Anyone who goes to class and expects the teacher to teach him good ukemi or technique or whatever, and never even bothers to practice beyond the classroom time is going to have a rude awakening.

That I think is the best part of this type of knowledge.

[guest1234]

I'm not a teacher or a linguist, but in my opinion the sensei teaches by doing, and it is up to the student to learn. With the sensei I'm currently 'stealing' from, I can learn from feeling him do the technique on me, watching him demo in class, or watching a class that he is a student in and watching him during it. He doesn't talk much, which is fine by me, words just get in the way. I want to feel what he does, or at least see it...he should just be himself, and the fun for me is in the learning.

[Peter Goldsbury]

So, here's a (linguistic) thought I've been having.

The Japanese terms that we hear being used most often in aikido that refer to a "teacher" are "sensei" and "shihan."

Taking a look at these two terms linguistically, we know that "sensei" literally means "born/lives before" and "shihan" literally means "master example." Neither of these terms (as opposed to other terms in Japanese like "kyoushi" and "kyouju") contain a literal character in its terms for "teaching."

In other words, neither the term "sensei" nor "shihan" connote that the person with such a title has to "teach," per se, but just keep doing what he has been doing. In this approach, it's the student's responsibility to learn through modelling and "stealing" the teacher's teachings.

I'm surmising that this has roots in the classical "master - apprentice" system, but I really have no firm basis for this.

Any thoughts? I'm especially interested to hear from folks like Peter Goldsbury who have extensive experience in the martial arts as well as a good basis in the Japanese language...

-- Jun
Hello Jun,

I have not forgotten the question. In fact, I am not sure you are right. I think "Shihan" (certainly) and "Sensei" (probably) do have a very close connection with teaching and I doubt whether the structure of the words (the putative original meaning of the characters) has such a strong influence on what they mean in contemporary Japanese.

I realise that evidence is needed and I am producing it in the form of a general article which deals with Japanese terms for teaching and learning. I have almost finished it and you will have it as soon as it is ready.

Best regards,

[opherdonchin]

In my view, roles are things that we 'buy into' or 'project onto' others. They are not really Real in any deeper sense. So, if I decide someone is my teacher and learn great things from them, it doesn't matter if they are not trying to teach or thinking of themselves as teaching or taking responsibility. Similarly, when I decide that I enjoy teaching or that I learn from it, I do this primarily for myself. Whether or not anyone (except me) actually learns anything is almost beside the point. I may learn quite a bit by deciding that I am a teacher and taking lots of responsibility for the progress of a whole bunch of people, and if I did then that's important whether or not those people even knew that I was 'teaching' them.

The really interesting thing happens when people approach these roles with expectations. This can happen on both sides: teachers who feel their students are not living up to responsibilities and students who feel their teacher should be offering more. The reason this is interesting is that it creates a 'situation of conflict' that is somewhere between being 'in the dojo' and being 'out in real life.' It is a real opportunity to harmonize and learn to find creative ways of approaching the situation, without giving up what you see as your own needs.

One of my teachers was very niggardly with feedback and, at the same time, reticent about discussing his own aikido. I often felt at sea. One thing I learned was how to deal better with my own curiosity and need to know. Another thing I learned was how to find the right questions that would provoke the answers I felt I needed. Both of these were valuable lessons, although the first threw the responsibility back on me as the student and the second was about finding a way to get him to perform the role I felt he should.

[Edward]

I think aikido is the martial art where you find so much theory, and so much less practical applications. I have been to classes where teachers (usually non-Japanese) spend half of the class explaining the mechanics and the physics behind a particular movement, contradicting themselves almost in every sentence.

I think the traditional Japanese got it better. Most of the Japanese teachers (not the ones teaching abroad) do not teach anything really, they just perform. And it is the student's responsibility to steal the teacher's technique, or what they consider to be the teacher's technique. This is considered to be the Path or the Way of the student to realise himself and his own understanding of the style through this process. This is at least how I understand it.

I can see the difference at our own dojo where the Thai teachers will come and insist on the placement of one foot or hand, or even the direction of one toe, whereas the Japanese just walk around nodding in approval, even if the students are not following exactly their instructions, as long as the technique seems to work for them. And their interference would be limited to demonstrating on the student himself the correct way of doing the technique without getting into lengthy theoretical explanations.

[Jim ashby]

I go back to a quote that came from my Sensei when he was asked "can you teach me Aikido". He replied "no, but I might let you learn".

Have fun.

[Ghost Fox]

It (Sensei) is like a finger pointing its way to the moon. Don't look at the moon or you'll miss all the heavenly glory.

Bruce Lee, Enter the Dragon

Yeah...yeah, I know this is taken from Buddhist Doctrines, but it sounds cooler wihen Bruce says it.

Peace and Blessings

[akiy]

Hi Peter,

Welcome back! I hope your trip Europe went well.
I have not forgotten the question. In fact, I am not sure you are right. I think "Shihan" (certainly) and "Sensei" (probably) do have a very close connection with teaching and I doubt whether the structure of the words (the putative original meaning of the characters) has such a strong influence on what they mean in contemporary Japanese.

I realise that evidence is needed and I am producing it in the form of a general article which deals with Japanese terms for teaching and learning. I have almost finished it and you will have it as soon as it is ready.
I've be very interested to read what you find about this, as my "hypothesis" is pretty much only that -- just some thoughts I've had without real etymological nor social research. I'd appreciate any insight into this matter!

Regards,

-- Jun

[jimvance]

I think "Shihan" (certainly) and "Sensei" (probably) do have a very close connection with teaching and I doubt whether the structure of the words (the putative original meaning of the characters) has such a strong influence on what they mean in contemporary Japanese.I think that the contemporary view of the word "teach" also differs from its Old English origination. The word "teach" is overused and has lost much of its purity, as have the words "teacher" and "teaching" (noun). My own personal view on this subject is that most of what we call "teach" is actually "instruct", and that "teach" is a much more subtle and powerful force than what is relegated to the general process of social education.

The commonality between Japan and the West in terms of its educational patterns would have to be the feudal "master - apprentice" system Jun alluded to. It is there that we should identify the motives of teaching, study, and learning as well as their methods.

And Jun, you never got back to me on the essay I sent you. I think I redid parts of it, so if you would like a new version let me know.

Jim Vance

[jimvance]

I think aikido is the martial art where you find so much theory, and so much less practical applications. I have been to classes where teachers (usually non-Japanese) spend half of the class explaining the mechanics and the physics behind a particular movement, contradicting themselves almost in every sentence.I don't know why this response infuriates me so much. Maybe it's the racial preference, or just the closed-minded attitude. I believe that explanation of what one does shows control not only of the body, but also of the intent, what one means to do. I understand that there are those instructors "out there" who contradict in action what they are saying. To ascribe that as a problem to those "usually non-Japanese" or to those who "spend half the class explaining" raises my hackles.I think the traditional Japanese got it better. Most of the Japanese teachers (not the ones teaching abroad) do not teach anything really, they just perform. And it is the student's responsibility to steal the teacher's technique, or what they consider to be the teacher's technique. This is considered to be the Path or the Way of the student to realise himself and his own understanding of the style through this process. This is at least how I understand it.This is what, in my previous post, I attribute to the motives of a feudal society. This is not education in a pure sense, the act of educing. It is indentured servitude given sufferage under the tenets of social Darwinism. This has produced wonderful, beautiful things, that in some respects only exist because of who the Japanese were and are. But it squashes creative insight, stratifies understanding rather than unifying it, and eventually feeds upon itself.I can see the difference at our own dojo where the Thai teachers will come and insist on the placement of one foot or hand, or even the direction of one toe, whereas the Japanese just walk around nodding in approval, even if the students are not following exactly their instructions, as long as the technique seems to work for them. And their interference would be limited to demonstrating on the student himself the correct way of doing the technique without getting into lengthy theoretical explanations.You imply that the Japanese instructors think you are getting it. That is dangerous ground. The concepts of harmony within the group and individual expression are vastly different from the way most Westerners think, even if they are outwardly very cogent. I am not saying they have ulterior motives, just that what you are perceiving and what may actually be happening might not be the same thing.

I hope that my responses do not ruffle feathers unduly, but I have done my best to stick to the topic at hand without allowing my emotions to unbalance my words.

Jim Vance

[opherdonchin]

Nicely put Jim. I have a lot of sympathy with the notion of the 'silent teacher' and a real admiration for many aspects of Japanese culture, but I think that (like most things in the world) it is important to see both sides of the coin.

[Edward]

I don't know why this response infuriates me so much. Maybe it's the racial preference, or just the closed-minded attitude. I believe that explanation of what one does shows control not only of the body, but also of the intent, what one means to do. I understand that there are those instructors "out there" who contradict in action what they are saying. To ascribe that as a problem to those "usually non-Japanese" or to those who "spend half the class explaining" raises my hackles.This is what, in my previous post, I attribute to the motives of a feudal society. This is not education in a pure sense, the act of educing. It is indentured servitude given sufferage under the tenets of social Darwinism. This has produced wonderful, beautiful things, that in some respects only exist because of who the Japanese were and are. But it squashes creative insight, stratifies understanding rather than unifying it, and eventually feeds upon itself.You imply that the Japanese instructors think you are getting it. That is dangerous ground. The concepts of harmony within the group and individual expression are vastly different from the way most Westerners think, even if they are outwardly very cogent. I am not saying they have ulterior motives, just that what you are perceiving and what may actually be happening might not be the same thing.

I hope that my responses do not ruffle feathers unduly, but I have done my best to stick to the topic at hand without allowing my emotions to unbalance my words.

Jim Vance
Well, It might be that what my opinion infuriates you or you might find it as non-sense. Sorry for that. However, I do consider most of your own posts as non-sense, but they never infuriate me, because I respect your right of having an opinion, no matter how silly it might be.

So please show more respect to others silly opinions in the same way they show respect to your silly ones.

To go back to the topic, most non-Japanese teachers I have met always try to explain the techniques using scientifical terms, and want to analyse the mechanics and physics behind them, spending valuable time talking non-sense, since as you might assume, they are no PhDs in Physics or any similar field. Their technique might be great, but they spoil everything when they try to understand it and explain it rationally. I assume you belong to this group, hence your fury...

[darin]

Besides teachers, I have heard lawyers, doctors, accountants scientists and politicians addressed as "sensei". I guess its a respectful way of addressing someone in these professions, a way of showing that you recognize their status in society.

Should it be used all the time? Is it necessary to call someone "sensei" everytime you see them? Can seem like blowing sunshine up a hakama.

Actually this is very common in Japanese society. Even company presidents or heads of associations are always addressed as "president" or "chairman". Some of my Japanese friends who were presidents of their own companies didn't get into this but others really got off on it.

[mike lee]

Aikido is a skill. A sensei can't just teach you the skill (like a professor teaches history) -- he can only guide you in such a way until you learn it.

Caligraphy is not a mystical art -- it's just a way of keeping records, and a very inefficient one at that.

More words count less.

[opherdonchin]

Many professors of history would say that it is also a skill that (beyond a certain level) is more learned than taught, I suspect.

Certainly that's true in science.

I guess in anything there is a technical level and beyond that a level where things become individual expression or creative understanding.

[Chuck Clark]

Well, It might be that what my opinion infuriates you or you might find it as non-sense. Sorry for that. However, I do consider most of your own posts as non-sense, but they never infuriate me, because I respect your right of having an opinion, no matter how silly it might be.

So please show more respect to others silly opinions in the same way they show respect to your silly ones.
I can't find the words "non-sense or silly" in this exchange anywhere other than in this quote.

I suggest that you take your own advice and show some respect.

On the topic: It seems to me that it is just this simple...people have natural learning tools that are often very different. Why should everyone have to be the same? I think really good teachers provide the information in as many ways as possible so that everyone gets the message. I have experienced Japanese shihan that do this as well as non-Japanese teachers. What is the big deal? (other than that most of us like to argue about differences that do not make a difference) There is room for everybody as long as the end result is committed attacks, efficient waza with everyone taking care of their partner, and mutual respect shown to all.

[opherdonchin]

Maybe in some ways it is more about what we're looking for than what a teacher "should" be. Some like teachers who look 'at' us and focus on us -- it can give us the feeling of being supported and nurtured. Others prefer teachers who lok 'at' themselves and focus on themselves -- it can give us the feeling of being inspired and liberated.

Similarly with words versus demonstrations. Words can bring the feeling of nurturing and insight. Silent demonstrations can bring empowerment and creativity.

It's all about what you're looking for which is, in many ways, about what you think AiKiDo "is" which is, in many ways, about what you yourself are.

[Paula Lydon]

~~I believe it's got to be a blend of the two. I've had old-school teachers who thought students had to 'steal' the art, and would even teach things incorrectly here and there just to keep their secrets. Perhaps this motivated the students to find the truth for themselves, as must we all, but it was also a pain in the butt and time consuming.

~~Absolutely I believe that the student needs a 'fire in the belly' to learn, that it's not the teacher's job to cajole or motivate the student, but...encouragement at times to a regular student is beneficial.

~~I can learn alot from watching and then doing, but there are times when I need to feel my teacher's movement and have them feel mine, if I'm stuck somewhere. This just makes sense to me. As a parent I let my kids stumble around some, experiment, etc. but stepped in with a little guidance at a certain point because that's what seniors do for juniors. I would like someone to correct me before an incorrect movement becomes a bad habit.

~~My two cents...:)

[Alan Drysdale]

Paula said:

"I believe it's got to be a blend of the two. I've had old-school teachers who thought students had to 'steal' the art, and would even teach things incorrectly here and there just to keep their secrets."

Perhaps rather than being a blend, we should teach in the way we are personally most effective. Some people don't have the background to analyse the physics, some do. It is probably important to know which you are.

I'm sure all teachers have been asked which foot to put forwards and had to go through the motions to answer the question, so performance is also important. But some excellent performers just don't know how to teach. OTOH, if you don't have the information, it doesn't matter how good a teacher you are.

[mike lee]

Running a good, high-spirited dojo is a team effort. I encourage all students at 2 kyu and above to begin to observe the entire class structure and teaching techniques, and to properly assist in the instruction. When students begin to truly understand not only aikdio waza, but how classes are run and how to teach, the rate of progress and satisfaction can be multiplied for everyone, including the teacher.

Teaching is like being in the driver's seat. You have to pay a lot more attention to all sorts of details. Being a pure student is sometimes like being a passenger -- it's easy to just pay attention to your own thing, and awareness, especially after you "think you got the hang of it," tends to decrease. This is when students start to feel like they're in a rut. They're not learning any more about ikkyo because they think they know it. At that point, I have them teach it -- sometimes in front of the class. When they basically bummble through it, I tell them to start paying more attention to "how to teach ikkyo," and other basic waza, because I need them to help me teach the beginners.

This then becomes a win-win situation -- the student doesn't fall into a rut (and hopefully they stay humble), and I get more people the can help me teach quality aikido.

[Bruce Baker]

I wish I knew more about the meaning of words verses the social and historical changes of civilizations, but my interest lies in the general developement of nations historical past in relation to other nations and world events.

I could be wrong about this, but it would resemble the royalty of European history, or even the tribal societies of North America with Chiefs, Sub Chiefs, War Chiefs, compared to social structure of the Japanese government, social structure, and supporting royalty also.

Indeed we do become enamored in the identification of teacher, teachers teacher, and master of all teachers. I guess it could either a good or bad thing, depending on how human you view these teachers, and how much guidance you need to open your mind.

Let your instincts guide you, and most times they will be correct ... or corrected in practice.

As for the generality of being instructed in every detail of movement ... that is generally left to the student to explore and question over a period of training time?

[Suru]

As I've learned, Japenese for "shihan" is master instructor, and "sensei" is teacher. I do know that "Shihan" translates (at least loosely) into master teacher. While Mitsugi Saotome Shihan I consider a true "master teacher," there are some 3rd and 2nd dan "sensei" that I slso consider true masters.

Drew

[Chris Tan]

Trying to remember my elementary Chinese education....:( :)

"�� sensei" - the Chinese characters are the same as the Japanese ones. In the modern context, "sensei" is used like "Mr" in English

However, during the Chinese dynastic periods, "sensei" was meant to address respected individuals who were usually, but not always, teachers or scholars. These "sensei's" may teach in a informal sense such as the role of a advisor. An example would be the famous Zhuge Liang, who was the advisor to Liu Bei during the 3 Kingdoms period. In this case, Liu Bei would call Zhuge Liang - �� sensei.

So, although we would not use the word "sensei" to indicate a teacher in the modern context (The Chinese counterpart of the word 'Sensei' is lao-shi (˜VŽt: old teacher), the word still has a connotation of being a teacher to it. To the native Chinese speaker, they would understand the difference between these 2 meanings intuitively.

Now, although this explanation is based on a Chinese context, I'm willing to bet that the meanings are the same in a Japanese context.

I'll try to supply the meaning of shihan in my next post if I have the time to check it out.

[Bruce Baker]

After reading Mr. Peter Goldsbury article for shihan, which has tremendous depth, I am moved to believe the word 'Shihan' is no more than a slang word, a derivitive whose actual word is not the the meaning.

Changed meanings for each slang word, such as 'Bad' a formidable opponent, or 'fat' sometimes called 'phat' someone who has much of what others appreciate such as money, looks, good luck, etc ... would seem to be the vein of the word 'shihan' verses its character or rootword meaning.

Or is it merely the creation of something new from something very old?

In either case, read this fascinating article with its invaluable insight into this question.

I think we should all chip in and by the guy a day out for his efforts, but that is the way I feel about knowledge.

[Deb Fisher]

Mike Lee wrote:

"This then becomes a win-win situation -- the student doesn't fall into a rut (and hopefully they stay humble), and I get more people the can help me teach quality aikido."

This makes sense to me. I am a teaching assistant myself, and am finding that every time I get up and explain something or lead a discussion, a topic that I've been soaking in for a decade becomes brand new again. Teaching is the ultimate learning tool.

As for the How To Teach debate... I am lucky to have a very flexible sensei who seems to know (or perhaps I am lucky) when to explain and when to let someone flail, as well as when to encourage and when to leave a student alone.

I think that teachers do best when they are connected with students and give them what they need - it is on a very basic level a service. I am not talking about cheerleading or manufacturing desire for students; it's not like waiting tables. Teaching is, however, a job, not a priviledge. The teacher as some silent performer to be stolen from is rampant in my field, too, and I think it is ungenerous. For that matter, I cannot imagine how bored they must be and cannot figure out why they are wasting their precious time in the classroom by closing themselves behind a shield of largesse when they could be learning themselves.

[Juan]

I believe that Aikido can be taught. Not everyone has the ability to see something and figure it out. A student can watch a teacher and mimic them but have they learned? Do they know why a particular move is made? Aikido as I would bet any other martial art can be "STOLEN" from the teacher, but does the student REALLY understand the minute details that make it so? Mostly not I believe. I remember training with my Sensei and teaching my students, and how I sometimes mimiced the technique but did not understand why or how it worked and I see the same thing in my students. I will say after some years of training I learned to see the intricacies of the techniques as my students are now doing. So we may not TEACH the whole but we are TAUGHT to learn.

As for being a talkative teacher or being a silent one. I do both... it depends on the class and how everyone is doing. To me being a GOOD teacher is having the knowledge but more important the ability to communicate your knowledge in a variety of ways to get to the same point.

In sincere Aiki spirit,

[formerjarhead]

From what I've learned Sensei tends to mean someone who has more knowledge on a suject than you or I. That is why the word is used for doctors, politicians, and teachers. The person who has more knowledge, or comes before us, instructs us or helps us in some manner of form.

As for the silent teacher it seems that many of the original students of O'Sensei said that he would teach in this manner. He would show them a movement and then the student would try to copy it. I may be incorrect in this. My sensei also tends to teach this way unless asked. I have had the priviledge of learning some from Kai sensei of the Nippon Budoin Seibukan, Kai sensei is my sensei's sensei. He teads to teach the silent way but does gives "hands on" if needed which I like more. I think you tend to learn more by watching but you don't get a feel for it without some hands on.

Just my opinion.

Formerjarhead

[Bruce Baker]

My arena of expertise is in fixing boats and motors, so within the realm of teaching a dozen or more high school students the difference between working for the vocational education program and working for someone in the real working world, I must approach the teaching subject from this school of hard knocks.

I am not a fan of those who try to shorten the learning process, trade scholarly knowledge for experience, nor do I condone experience without the knowledge of being able to find resource of knowledge with manuals and research. So, in the sense of Aikido being a lesson of transmission through experience, I am still a proponent of having the practitioner find a balance between practice and scholarly knowledge.

As far as who is the higher degree of teacher, that is like a game of which general has the most medals and the most stars, when in fact, it is not always those who are crowned with the highest rank who can get the actual job done ... We venerate the teacher as we should our elderly who contain the lessons of many years of living, but then the actual people who get the job done are you and me.

We sometimes miss this segment of life in our American dream to rise to the top of the ladder and be recognized as being knowledgable or venerated. The most friendly, most knowledgable people I have met, not only share their knowledge, but they are quite down to earth.

My approach to teaching students to understand their place within the social system is to not only explain the technical knowledge they need to learn to excell at a job, but to give them a working knowledge of why they are working in the capacity they are working with options to change their situation.

So too, we should be a little more forthcoming in the hierarchy system so that it is understood that we all are equal in the goal of learning Aikido, and we all have different roles to perform as either teachers or students.

Sometimes, the teacher enjoys being the student more than teaching, which is the kind of teacher I, personally, get along with well.

The fact that we have roles of teaching, learning, and have set up a system that contols our roles is just the security of our roles in society to continue to carry particular areas of learning into future generations.

If you start getting a swelled head about becomeing a shihan, well.... in my opinion, it is time to return to the beginning to restart the cycle of learning again.

The basis of order is the basis of a stabil society, and if that means having ten degrees of dans is the way, then go for it.

Just don't forget ... if you really learn one technique really well, you will be able to martially protect yourself. From that one technique, the variations will flow and extend,and what difference will it make if you are shihan, or shoeshine?

I may be getting a little weird on this subject, but your goal as a student is to surpass your teacher in knowledge and performance, as least that is how I have applied teaching to what I know ... whether the student learned this lesson, or not.

It becomes like kicking the bird out of the nest to see if it can fly, only we try to give our pilots a little edge over the instinct of birds.

You gotta laugh at the old adage, if god had wanted people to learn Aikido he would have made them different from you and I?

[Richard Elliott]

I am inclined to agree with most of what Mr. Baker has written regarding to teacher/student dynamic. A good teacher is usually confident enough and has the understanding to know if and when stepping out of his/her "role" is called for or necessary for whatever reason. I've never taught Aikido. I have taught ESL classes at college and am sometime called to provide instruction at work. So my teaching experience is limited. But I have been a student,a good one and a bad one, as I guess most of us have at times.

I'm curious as to what point in training is it really necessary for an instructor to find it necessary to "go beyond" the minimum stardards of just technical instruction? I mean, is there a point where it is absolutely necessary for the teacher and student to form some bond, that is not necessarily based on voluntary friendship or loyalty, but stays within a strict boundary of Teacher and Student, for the student to continue to progress?

Maybe there isn't one. I am not asking a rhetorical question, but I am curious for any response.

[mike lee]

I mean, is there a point where it is absolutely necessary for the teacher and student to form some bond, that is not necessarily based on voluntary friendship or loyalty, but stays within a strict boundary of Teacher and Student, for the student to continue to progress?
There's an infinite amount of levels such a relationship can have, but ultimately, it seems to me, all hinges on trust and respect.

[Richard Elliott]

There's an infinite amount of levels such a relationship can have, but ultimately, it seems to me, all hinges on trust and respect.
Thanx Mr. Lee, your probably right. My question was vague. I thought to delete it shortly after I wrote it. The theme of the thread seem to me, at least partly, to do with reasonable expectation of students of the teacher: the linguistic derivation of shihan and sensei. It seems clear to me, from reading about what people consider to be a teacher, is that it is someone that is willing to share what they know in a generous way. Yes, I guess this sharing would have to be based on trust and respect.

O'Sensei did state that techniques should not be shared with evil-doers.

"Infinite"? I don't know about that?

[Rocky Izumi]

Peter,

Given your findings regarding the linguistics of the term "Shihan" where does the term "Shihan-Dai" come in, given its use to describe something like the Chief Instructor of a dojo. For those of you who haven't heard the term, it is often used to describe the head instructor of a dojo. If the Sensei of a dojo is not available, then someone else becomes the "Shihan-Dai" or, if a Sensei's Shihan comes to the dojo, then that person becomes the "Shihan-Dai." The closest English equivalent that I could come up with was "Chief Instructor," but one in which the position is temporary depending on who should be instructing at the time.

Rock