True Warfare
Before invading another country we send our spies in. They infiltrate the nerve centers without being noticed. At the time of full scale attack they cut the supply lines and destroy the electrical power stations. Caught off-guard the enemy rush to their battle stations only to be picked off one after one. Without their essential power supply they loose all their counter force and are easily overrun. Without any delay we occupy the main crossroads and key locations, hold the high ground and send our spies even further ahead, to infiltrate the very heart of resistance. Without firing even one shot we flood the enemy land with our own forces, occupying it to squeeze out any remaining opposition. In one well planned and well executed strike we manage to neutralize and overtake our opponent without much loss on either side.
|
Re: True Warfare
Not very spiritual. Not very Aikido either.
Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Quote:
Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Makes sense for 1933. As for Aikido or spiritual......nah.
Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Before openly engaging in a sensitive and non-violent physical response to an aggressive attack we penetrate and pervade him with loving kindness long before him knowing about it. We enter his soul through a spiritual insight revealing his ego strongholds. With this preemptive attitude we disarm his ability to launch effectively and we neutralize his intention to attack and channel his aggression back onto himself. Overwhelming him with a feeling of peace we control the situation.
|
Re: True Warfare
Beautifully put.
Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Ueshiba did think enough of Mochizuki that he wanted to adopt him into the family and make him his successor. In 1951 he taught Aikido in Europe with Ueshiba's blessing. His 10th dan was specifically approved by Kisshomaru Ueshiba in 1979. Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
What it's got to do with the o/p I don't know. That particular time however was not Aikido, it was Aiki jujutsu. As to how spiritual that particular incident was I suppose depends on the charachters involved and the point being made. Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
But does it make any difference (or why does it make a difference) how Ueshiba's way was called then? |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
It's important because no doubt many didn't like the changes and wanted to cling to the old ways and meanings of budo. Many even now. Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
|
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
It was called "Aikido" from 1942. Morihiro Saito stated quite repeatedly that what he was shown by Ueshiba in the 1960's was closest to what appears in the 1938 manual "Budo" - somewhat different than what Kisshomaru and Tohei were showing in Tokyo. Anyway, he didn't actually chose the name - it was chosen by committee at the Dai Nihon Butokukai, although he did choose to stick with it later. Kisshomaru always cited the key revelations behind Aikido as occurring in 1925. The old ways of Budo? Here's a quick and famous quote - "Strategies for war become strategies for peace". Can you name the year? If you can, then what does that do to your pre-war/post-war dichotomy? Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
I was quite sure 'Aikido' was given that name in 1942 (something to do with excluding it from a pro-war category, alongside other martial arts?) |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Aikido was certainly not anti-war at that time or any other. Ueshiba taught the special forces personally. He also taught wartime Prime Minister Hideki Tojo through the group at Kenkoku University (in occupied Manchuria). Even after the war and through to today, the Aikikai maintains strong (if quiet) ties to the right wing. Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
This isn't about who coined the word Aikido. Saito? What does most closely resembles mean? From what perspective? In what context? What was the subject under discussion when he mentioned such and what point was he trying to make and to whom? Kisshomaru? Cited when seen fit and yet put down when seen fit also. Now your strategy and budo sayings? No I don't know. Obviously you feel they have some significant value. Feel free to enlighten me. Maybe that's what you are connecting to the o/p. Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
|
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
I cited Saito because he probably spent the most actual time one on one with Ueshiba after the war. He said it and Stan Pranin has shown it quite clearly - the post-war changes in Aikido came mostly from Kisshomaru and Tohei. I didn't put Kisshomaru down at any point, I liked him quite a bit and enjoyed training with him. The point of the quote is that it is from the 1400's - from the founder of the oldest traditional martial arts school in Japan. Ueshiba's ideas weren't new and unique, and the "old ways and meanings of budo" weren't necessarily blood guts and destruction. You've latched on to a modern representation that was pushed by many of the postwar teachers - Kisshomaru and Tohei among them, but that viewpoint is spun quite heavily, and is not supported by the historical record. Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Oh I've latched onto have I ? Your assumption. There you go again, using Kisshomaru as a name connected with heavily spun modern blah. If you think you know what I've latched on to and why I view things as I do then it only means to me that you are arguing with yourself. Do I care or know what Kisshomaru or Tohei said on the subject of budo? Do I mention them as sources to my view on budo? No. Do I need to put them down just to support an argument? No. Budo is love. Now who said that? Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
I'd rather not ask. I don't use names to make others wrong I only use them sometimes as other sources who have said what I say now. A subtle difference. All this using what someone else said to put down what someone is saying I'll leave to those who think it means something. I think some are more interested in argument than the thread and the funny thing is they don't know it. I commented on the o/p. I commented also on the next post by the o/p. I see them as miles apart yet maybe the o/p sees them as connected and maybe Chris does too but hasn't got around to that point yet. Too busy trying to 'educate' me. Now I could see some or even many translating the o/ps second post into war scenario and coming up with the first post. Not me though. Anyway, I raise a glass to the mighty atom ha, ha. An incredible man. Regards.G. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
You made some questions about Saito and his statements regarding what the founder taught to him. Bjorn is someone who could help you solve said questions. That's all. |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think there's anything wrong in recognizing their acts as they were - they were both giants in the spread of Aikido, why should the truth be seen as putting them down? Quote:
敵人の走り来りて"つときは一足よけてすぐに切るべし "When the enemy comes running forward to strike you must take one step out of the way and cut them down." Western thinking tends to have one exclude the other. Japanese thinking tends to be less absolute - more on a case by case basis. One of my first instructors got in a fight with some folks from another dojo - after a long lecture on love by Ueshiba the founder came up to him and said "well, how many did you get?". Another direct student (one of the closest) used to rumble regularly in town - with the founder's full knowledge. We don't even have to get started on Arikawa... Ueshiba was an amazing man all on his own - no need to look at him through rose-colored glasses. Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Interesting that you chose to use this quote, as I have always found it particularly inconvenient for those proposing that aiki = IP. And it is a rather clear statement. I find that it points to aiki as being a principle of relating or interacting, in which one perceives and then responds to the other's intent and then commitment to act, which by necessity precede the act itself. Doing so allows one to still follow the opponent, so as to be appropriate, and yet does not require waiting for the physical act before responding, so as to avoid being late. It further suggests a neutral state from which you can perceive what is actually happening, not your ideas about what is happening. The "IP/IT/IS" paradigm as discussed here on AikiWeb would seem to have very little to do with the use of or defending against guns, and even less to do with artillery. Of course, it is possible that Mochizuki (and/or the translator) was unable to understand do to a lack of background information. But then how would you reconcile that with: Quote:
|
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
Best, Chris |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
On that level, I suppose I don't either. :) |
Re: True Warfare
Quote:
I bet he could no doubt. However I was just pointing out to Chris that without all the data to do with the time and place and context then just using a 'he said' to me means nothing. I'm more interested in what a person believes and can do above their knowledge of history. What's your view now, that's how people generally communicate in life unless they are specifically talking history. That's all. If someone wants to fill me in on some history then that's good too in it's own way. Regards.G. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.