Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
It's my hope that this thread will be a place for those who have read Ueshiba Kisshomaru's "Aikido no Kokoro" or the English translation, "Spirit of Aikido." In particular, I would love for those fortunate (or is that obstinate?) enough to have read OSensei's "Takemusu Aiki" to offer some opinion as to how well you feel that his son was able to represent his ideas and wishes. My Japanese is not good enough for me to be considered literate, so I'm still limited to translations and all of the errors and biases that introduces. I really appreciate texts like the recently released book on Katori Shinto Ryu offered by Koryu Books that included the full original text in Japanese next to the translated text. A properly motivated student can easily find what words were used by the author. I'm sure for a lot of us, there are many terms that we simply don't bother translating into our native language, as we have been able to appreciate some of the complexity of meaning that comes with these words such to the extent that they simply exist as words in ‘our' language. I do not hear "maai" and think "spacial timing distance interaction" for example, I simply think, "maai." I would particularly appreciate the comments of those people in a position to offer a more scholarly opinion (Ellis Amdur, Peter Goldsbury, Chris Li, many others I'm forgetting…) I'm not particularly interested in ‘your' Aikido, or ‘your teacher's' Aikido. There are plenty of venues for that discussion.
First some background. I must admit something of a bias against Kisshomaru Ueshiba. My first Aikido school was founded by one of the last uchideshi to OSensei who left the Aikikai with Tohei. However, shortly after that, he decided that founding his own small school was the best way to fulfill his duty to OSensei. My teachers (his direct students) did not have a very high opinion of the Aikikai or Kisshomaru (referred to hereafter as Doshu(2)), and he was generally portrayed as someone who was a good administrator but who simply didn't get what his father was doing. So while I certainly don't hold with much of anything from that dojo, I cannot deny that some of their attitudes affected my approach to the art. Further, and at the risk of offending, I have simply never seen any footage of Doshu(2) that impressed me in the slightest. I'm sure this stood to reinforce my early teachers' opinion despite the fact that I have been estranged from them for over a decade. What brought me around to this text was actually the thread on aikiweb based on the poll about aikido being possible without any physical component. Chris Li repeatedly brought up the untranslated text, "Takemusu Aiki" and frustrated with my inability to access the text in any way I started digging through my library. Someone gave me "Spirit of Aikido" years ago, I don't honestly remember who or when. It went straight onto the budo bookshelf and was not read until recently. I came away genuinely impressed with the clarity that Doshu(2) was able to impart to just what it was that made Aikido different and what it actually was the OSensei changed to make Aikido truly different from those arts that spawned it. I have struggled for years with what exactly it was that made Aikido different, having found much (if not all) of what most professed to be unique about it in other arts, frequently at higher levels of refinement. I have also railed against many of the common teaching paradigms and methodologies found in Aikido. If in fact this book is an accurate representation of what it was that OSensei taught and thought, I feel that I have a much better understanding of how these issues came about. Actually, since it could be argued that Doshu(2) had as much (or more) to do with the defining of Aikido philosophy and waza as his father, that even if it is not a correct paraphrasing of his father's teachings, it could be considered the definitive word on what exactly Aikido is and how it should be practiced. With apologies for such a long introduction, let me state what I took away from the text (please keep in mind that I'm merely trying to paraphrase the text, not convince anyone of these positions): 1) What made the "aiki" of OSensei unique was his conceptual splitting of the term. As has been pointed out, the idea of "aiki" exists in many older arts, but as a relatively specific and understandable concept. One might define "aiki" as taking optimum advantage of the maai of a combative encounter, such that the desired result feels nearly effortless. OSensei took "aiki" and formed "ai" and "Ki". Putting it another way, while one could pseudo-translate "aikijujutsu" as "jujutsu done with aiki", Aikido would need to be translated as "the way of harmonizing with Ki." There is a fundamental shift here. The traditional usage of aiki is non-religious and can exist without any assumptions beyond the specifics of the combative interaction. OSensei elevated Ki (in keeping with his religious convictions) to a unifying life force that creates and binds the universe together (to paraphrase Yoda…), and the goal of Aikido, to join intentionally with that life force. To my thinking this pre-supposes a certain religious/spiritual Truth. 2) The genius of OSensei's teaching was that one did not need to study technique in order to be a great martial artist/human but simply needed to learn how to perceive and unify the self with the Ki-flow of the universe, (thus all of the "I am the Universe!" quotes…). He was not teaching a martial art, but rather was offering an environment where his students could hope to find the same underlying sense of connectedness as he had found. Ki was the key (sorry, couldn't help myself…) to everything: happiness, health, mental focus, martial competence… It was therefore useless to offer specific physical corrections/teachings since once the student was truly aware of Ki, everything would become clear. Those are what I consider to be the most important assertions/distinctions of the text. I'm sure many of you are thinking, "Well duh…" but frankly, I've never heard these points made in such a clear and distinct manner. If one looks at many of the "What is Aikido?" FAQs on dojo websites or Wikipedia entries, many focus specifically on the old meaning of aiki that, at least according to my reading of "Spirit of Aikido," is specifically what is DIFFERENT about OSensei's art. Some excerpts from the Wikipedia entry for example: "Aikido (合気道 aikidō?), translated as "the way of harmonious spirit", is a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Ueshiba's goal was to create an art practitioners could use to defend themselves without injuring their attacker. Aikido emphasizes joining with an attack and redirecting the attacker's energy, as opposed to meeting force with force, and consists primarily of body throws and joint-locking techniques. In addition to physical fitness and technique, mental training, controlled relaxation, and development of "spirit" (ki) are emphasized in aikido training." Later, from the same article, "Aiki is a martial arts principle or tactic. It describes an idea of joining together in the midst of combat." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido) This distinction is pointed out in the aikiweb wiki article on Aikido: "One interpretation of the word "Aikido" is that the word is made up of three Japanese characters: Ai 合 - harmony; Ki 気 - spirit, mind, or universal energy; Do 道 - the Way. Thus aikido has been called "the Way of Harmony with Universal Energy." Some do not agree with this interpretation as the character for "ai" 合 itself does not connote "harmony" in Japanese but rather "to fit or to match." As such, "Aiki" 合気 may also be interpreted as "accommodation to circumstances"; this interpretation avoids certain metaphysical commitments and is an attempt to describe both the physical and psychological facets of aikido in everyday language." Looking at "The Encyclopedia of Aikido" (hyperlink to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=18) from AikidoJournl.com, there is no reference whatsoever to what Doshu(2) presents as the uniquely defining aspects of Aikido: "A modern Japanese martial art developed by Morihei UESHIBA incorporating joint-lock and throwing techniques applied in self-defense with the intent of not injuring or causing only minimal damage to the attacker. The techniques of aikido derive mainly from the DAITO-RYU AIKIJUJUTSU of Sokaku TAKEDA. Philosophically, Ueshiba was greatly influenced by the views of Onisaburo DEGUCHI, leader of the OMOTO RELIGION. The art evolved gradually during the late 1920s and 30s under various names. Its modern name was officially adopted in 1942 as a result of the reorganization of Japanese martial arts by the DAI NIHON BUTOKUKAI. Its emergence as a major martial art and its spread outside of Japan took place after World War II." So, my question to you is how well do you feel that the English translation represents the concepts presented in the original Japanese, and further, how well do you feel these views are representative of OSensei's own thoughts and teachings? I would encourage posters to avoid posting *their own* views of what Aikido is/should be or critiquing these concepts. I would like to get there eventually, but please attempt to limit the discussion in THIS thread to the text in question. Thank you all in advance. |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
"The Spirit of Aikido" was one of the first books I read about aikido. It was recommended to me by my sempai Michael Veltri sensei. I like the book.
That's all I know.:D |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
For another side of the "administrator" image I'd recommend "Aikido Ichiro" - only in Japanese, but fairly readable nonetheless. Best, Chris |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
A very lovely book, which surprised me considering how small it is. I especially like the parts about aikido being a global budo, non-sport, and for male and female, things which can never be emphasized enough.
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
Very nice presentation of what I think is a complex question. I had the good fortune to meet, talk with, and take ukemi from the Nidai Doshu. I have read everything in English he either wrote himself or someone wrote about him but it is not a vast body of work that's available so it's not saying much. In my opinion, the reason that Aikido exists world wide, with an estimated 1 million people training, is due entirely to Kisshomaru. His father may have created the art, but what he created was largely not well understood by his own students and was too arcane to spread widely amongst modern Japanese, much less overseas. If you want to see what Aikido would have been without Kisshomaru, just look at Inoue Sensei and his art Shinei Taido (formerly Aiki Budo). It is generally agreed that Inoue (O-Sensei's nephew and main student in the early years) looked more like O-Sensei than any of his other students. Further, he was a life long follower of the Omotokyo Faith and therefore was aligned much more on a spiritual level with O-Sensei's own beliefs. So you have a guy who was, arguably, the closest thing to Morihei Ueshiba you could find, and yet his art is practiced in Japan by only a small number of folks and world wide, if there are any, I haven't heard about them. I certainly do not know of any in the States. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't any but it shows, I think, what Aikido would have been like if the art had simply been presided over by O-Sensei throughout the post war years. At a recent Rocky Mountain Summer Camp I sat with Stan Pranin and Saotome Sensei talking about post war Aikido. I asked them who they thought had tried the hardest to understand Aikido the way O-Sensei understood it. They agreed that Sunadomari, Hikitsuchi, and Abe Senseis were the three. I think it is revealing that, although I hadn't actually specified as such, both Saotome Sensei and Stan Pranin pretty much assumed I meant from a "spiritual" standpoint. The fact that no one even thought to make a distinction between the spiritual / philosophical side and the martial / technical side is a direct result of the fact that what distinguished O-Sensei in the post war years, especially, was his almost total concern with matters spiritual. So Kisshomaru, the Nidai Doshu, is in the front line position to preside over the growth of Aikido in the post war years. Daito Ryu was barely known, even in Japan. It's later growth was actually sparked by the enormous popularity of Aikido (they sort of slipped streamed along behind Aikido) and the efforts made by Stan Pranin to familiarize both the Japanese themselves and the foreign public about Aikido's parent art. So here's the Nidai Doshu presiding over an art which has no popular and well known antecedent, whose Founder was a Shinto mystic. Various folks maintain that he didn't understand his father, either from a martial technique standpoint, or from a spiritual standpoint. I absolutely disagree with that assumption. I think he understood quite well. But he was tasked with taking the art to the world. He had to decide what aspects of O-Sensei's art would be beneficial to modern, post war folks. He decided, correctly I think, that the Shinto, overtly religious aspect of O-Sensei's Aikido, would not be understood at all by the typical modern Japanese citizen nor would it "travel well" outside Japan to other cultures. I believe that O-Sensei in the post war years had already de-emphasized the martial aspect of the art in favor of developing a movement style designed to foster an understanding of various energetic and spiritual principles. The Budo aspect was important to him but not as "fighting" external enemies, but as a battle with the baser aspects of our own selves. So I think that one should look at Aikido as O-Sensei envisioned it, as a body art designed to reprogram the practitioner both physically and mentally to understand , on some level, the essential unity of the universe and what ones place in the whole should be. I think that Kisshomaru simply continued that idea and refined what the goals of the training would be. He opted for a lass mystical, more ethical, behavioral model. Not out of keeping with the Founder's Aikido at all, but certainly less complex. It was an Aikido designed to make people's lives better. It was an art designed to create "gentlemen" in the most positive sense of the word (and, oh yes, women could do it too). Kisshomaru manifested that aspect in his own life to the utmost. He was a real gentleman, a class act. He embodied the aspects of the art that he, and the other post war students of the Founder (like Arikawa and Osawa, amongst others) had felt were the aspects of O-Sensei's Aikido that would be of the greatest benefit to the typical modern citizen, both Japanese and foreign. Aikido became, starting with O-sensei and continued by the Nidai Doshu, a transformative art, rather than a fighting art. It's very difficult for anyone today to discuss Aikido and the differences between O-sensei's view of the art and his son's. There are hardly any folks left who directly experienced the Founder's art when it wasn't highly influenced by his students. Tohei changed how the modern post war generation perceived the art, Kisshomaru was central to defining what the whole post war generation even thought the art was. Most folks doing Aikido today can not even tell you what "aiki" is. Yes, there is a distinct difference in nuance between "harmony" and "joining" but regardless of which of these definitions people prefer, the vast majority could not really tell you what it means in terms of the physical practice. Whether I am "harmonizing" or "joining" with a partner or opponent, the fact remains that most Aikido folks couldn't tell you, in anything other than the most rudimentary fashion, what either of those terms means. Oh yes, Aikido is the art where you "harmonize" with your partner's energy. Or perhaps you "join" with him… My own opinion on O-Sensei's great shift in redefining the term "aiki" would be that he took the term from it's traditional usage, which I believe was much closer to "joining" than "harmonizing", and made it into a state of being i.e. "already joined". With that fundamental shift in orientation, one then comes back to "Harmony". Harmony describes the balance of the infinite elements within the whole. So, technically, harmony is descriptive of what O-Sensei meant when he talked about "aiki" (as in Take Musu Aiki" etc.) The essential problem for the post war generation of Aikido, especially the folks who didn't speak Japanese, was that the term "harmony" is a term loaded with associations. It connotes everybody getting along, it connotes, elements in the system all tooling along happily. So the folks reading Kisshomaru's writings start understanding Aikido as meaning the "Way of Harmony" and Aikido starts to morph into an art which, at least generally, has no conflict i.e. ineffective attacks, complaint ukes, etc. People start to think that this is fine because they are creating "harmony". This of course is an imposition of various outside world views onto a term which probably wasn't best translated that way in the first place. Certainly, the Japanese desire for consensus and group cohesion informs this transformation. So do the Western emotional associations with the term harmony as having a connotation of lack of conflict. So we have people seriously maintaining that Aikido is about "conflict resolution" but from whose practice any actual conflict has been removed. Harmony becomes hanging out at a dojo with a bunch of like minded folks who share the same basic interests. The aspect of "harmony" having to do with the overall balance of the System, not with the fact that the components of the system are constantly changing, colliding, combining, falling apart, coming back together, gets lost in this pursuit of lack of conflict. Folks blame Kisshomaru for this, undeservedly in my mind. If one takes the view that Aiki can be translated "accommodation to circumstances" as you point out, things make a lot more sense. It acknowledges that circumstances are changing and that or task is to learn how to deal with that. It puts "conflict resolution" largely where it belongs, as a personal endeavor with oneself. And it has direct relationship with practice n the mat. "Accommodation to circumstances" then becomes a physical and mental practice in which one learns to approach change in a non-resistant fashion. So one can then see the progression from koryu usages as describing "aiki" as a set of perceptual and psychological, techniques used to control an opponent, accurately translated as "joining", to O-Sensei's usage of the term "aiki" as a state of being in which is "connected" with the flavor in translation of "already joined". Then one can see that, for post war teachers like Kissomaru, trying to figure out how the art should be presented to the world in a way that does the most justice to the Founder's goals, the mystical connotations of the term "aiki" when understood as "already joined" presuppose some level of spiritual development that wouldn't generally be present in the "market" to which Aikido is going to be presented. So that use of the term, while the truest to how the Founder himself probably understood it, wasn't going to be beneficial to the large numbers of folks who would be exposed to the art going forward. So what are left are largely the moral and ethical aspects of how someone with that deep level of understanding would comport himself, or herself, in his everyday life of constantly changing circumstances. Aikido becomes a body based system, still a form of Budo in my opinion, which attempts to impart a set of values, much reduced from the full scope of the spiritually based philosophy of the Founder. Whether it is performing as conceived is open to debate. Whether it was necessary to pare so much of O-Sensei himself from the art to make it palatable to modern minds and non-Japanese practitioners is also an active debate. I would maintain that too much of O-Sensei was dispensed with in forming the modern presentation of the art. But I do not believe that Kisshomaru and company were wrong about reinterpreting the principles of Aikido from O-Sensei's conceptual paradigm to one better suited for mass consumption. If hey hadn't done so, the vast majority of us wouldn't actually be doing Aikido. The message that was presented as O-Sensei's, although edited heavily, obviously has spoken to people world wide and continues to do so. |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Chris:
My teacher, like yours also left with Tohei. Imaizumi Sensei (as written in the Aikido Journal interviews) noted that Doshu-2 made it a point to attempt to rewrite history and essentially attempt to not appropriately note the contributions that Tohei Sensei made, particularly as it related to the spread of Aikido to the United States in the revisions of the books. This pattern simply spoke for itself. I think that O'Sensei's writings and the writings and words of those who studied directly with him, leave a powerful legacy to which we continually have to work to live up to in our practice and teaching of Aikido. Marc Abrams |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Ledyard Sensei,
I much appreciated your thoughtful response. I have sent you a private message concerning one point you made in your post here in this thread. Warmest regards, Shaun Ravens in NY . |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Hello Christian,
I prepared a comment similar to that made by George L, but decided not to post it (as I often do). I plan to disuss the issues you raised quite extensively in the columns I am writing. A few random comments: You should also look at Aikido Shintei, a large-format, lavishly illustrated book published in 1986. An English translation appeared in 2004, entitled The Art of Aikido. Unfortunately, the illustrations are monochrome, probably for reasons of cost, but the book presents a clearer picture of Kisshomaru Ueshiba's ideas about postwar aikido than Aikido no Kokoro. The English translation of this earlier book presents a very superficial picture of overseas aikido. I mean by this that the mindset, for want of a better word, of non-Japanese who train very seriously in a martial art like aikido, is rarely understood by Japanese. I note that the three persons mentioned by George in his post all became 'independent' to varying degrees. One person who did not, and who started almost from the very beginning, was Rinjiro Shirata. There are issues here that I am trying to explain in my columns. Shirata decided to support the Aikikai and so he accepted the iemoto system for what it was. In other words, he decided against independence and so, for example, his technical explorations of aikido have never been published. The 'invention of tradition' (E J Hobsbawm) is a major issue in aikido, especially as this is understood by non-Japanese. Thus, we believe that the suppression or distortion of what we see as the truth is unethical. I have often been struck that Kisshomaru Ueshiba (and I have occasionally talked to him about this) did not see things in this way. Best wishes, |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
I am not competent to deal with the critical literary aspects of Second Doshu's writing and its validity in translation. But I can address some aspect of the "concept" question.
The points you illustrate from Second Doshu's approach to the art track concepts I have been studying since my undergraduate days. The Neo-Confucianism of Wang Yang Ming (Oyomei) has been recognized in martial arts circles as to its role in the Tokugawa ryu. But those have seemed to limit it to a role as Japanese cover for Chinese Taoism proper. This diminishes the original contributions and independent significance of Neo-Confucian thought in both China AND Japan. It had a definitive influence on the modern understanding of Shinto, particularly. There are demonstrable parallels to what is being considered here. I will illustrate some of those parallels from both Chris's and Ledyard Sensei's points below. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What you have summarized most plainly makes the connection between Second Doshu's summary of his father's teaching to Neo-Confucian thought. It is a framework more generally accessible to Japanese and Westerners, but not divorced from his fathers thought at all. The Neo-Confucian rubric applied quite well to OSensei's Shinto mythological conceptualization --, which itself was originally rendered accessible through a Neo-Confucian lens, a point that is not widely understood in the West. This approach does not appear to be an accident on the part of Second Doshu. It is in a sense, returning to the source. O Sensei's use of Kojiki depended on the critical interpretative commentary by Motoori Norinaga, who made that 8th century text accessible to modern readers (it is is akin to Beowulf to modern English readers). Part of Norinaga's purpose was to illustrate -- in Neo-Confucian terms prevailing as official Tokugawa ideology -- that the Japanese were uniquely suited to understand and express Oyomei's doctrine of "innate knowing" of principle BECAUSE OF their native closeness to the kami -- whose works and natures are described in the Kojiki he interpreted and commented extensively upon. O Sensei refers to this sensibility in Budo Renshu when he speaks of "yamato-damashii" -- the Japanese spirit. This term is often mistakenly read in Budo Renshu in the same way as the jingoistic uses of the imperialists of the same period. In fact they took it over and perverted a much deeper and more salutary doctrine. That term is Norinaga's conception in his work on the kokugaku (national studies) to which his Commentaries were a large contribution. He was reading Kojiki in the explicitly Neo-Confucian perspective of Oyomei-gaku. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oyomei: Quote:
O Sensei's thought on the spontaneous generation of technique (takemusu aiki) also tracks an aspect of the critical relationship between Oyomei's "innate knowing" and the "unity of knowledge and action." O Sensei: Quote:
Quote:
O Sensei : Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
First, thanks to those who took the time to post. I very much look forward to your further columns Peter, if your previous ones are any indication, they will be worth the wait! A few comments/responses:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm curious if anyone cares to comment on the second of my assertions, that one of the defining features of OSensei's aiKido was the use of Ki as a primary teaching tool over technique, and how that relates to the current mode of transmission? If this was one of THE defining features of what made aiKido unique, what do we have when that very insight is de-emphasized to the level that we (often) see now? I should point out that I ask these questions as a curious observer, not a zealot who wishes to return the Truth of OSensei's original teaching system. In the interest of full disclosure, I have personally found next to no use for the two main distinctions that I presented in my own training, but rather found the older definitions of aiki and teaching methodologies that do not rely on Ki to be more in keeping with my own world view and teaching models. |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
I'm not sure why it has to be either/or - millions of people around the world play and enjoy golf, but there's no shortage of high level players. In fact, I would argue that it is the large golfing community that provides an environment that makes professional golfers possible. Mathematics used to be a closely held "secret" art in many societies, but now that everybody does it to some degree the art itself has progressed greatly over those historical periods. Quote:
Quote:
Best, Chris |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
I was talking to a Hombu shidoin a few weeks back and I happened to mention to him what I knew of Kisshomaru from The Spirit of Aikido: that aikido was supposed to envelop/neutralize an attack by using circular movements. I raised this in the course of drawing a comparison with other high ranking teachers who preferred at times to go straight at uke--or "masu," in Japanese. The shidoin raised his eyebrows: "Kisshomaru at times would also go straight at uke." Just goes to show; you cant believe everything you read.
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Just a note on the translation. Larry Bieri told me that Kisshomaru U. had the first draft of the translation translated back into Japanese to check it and was unhappy with how "Buddhist" it read. Larry Bieri (and others?) then worked on the text to get it more in line with the original. This makes me think that it is likely to accurately reflect the Doshu's thinking.
Another thought, I think it is clear that a major aim of the Doshu/Aikikai was to clearly define Aikido in the "marketplace" of Japanese martial arts. "How is aikido different from karate, judo, kendo,etc?" I think this was a much greater influence on various decisions made than "What is/was Morihei Ueshiba'sAikido?" Charles |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
Quote:
For those of us who have devoted our entire adult lives to training and trying to get to what we see as the "goodies" it is apparent that our standard for judging what we do is simply too high for the general training populace who are, as my friend John Messores calls them, "hobbyists". The average student isn't there to attain "mastery", they have no real desire to make that much of a commitment. But is the point of the art to attain "mastery", whatever that is? O-Sensei certainly saw his art as something that had the power to change the world on some level... That certainly isn't going to happen with just a small number of devoted students who focus on trying to get to the highest levels in their training. Perhaps the benefits to society and beyond simply derive from folks who train and set up communities of like minded people who also train. Folks get exercise, they share common practice, they focus on something "larger" and they enjoy doing it. Maybe that creates enough good Karma to make things better... You know where I fall in this whole thing... I am fairly uninterested in anything apart from "mastery" of the art. I am not interested in Aikido-lite at all. But this fact probably has a lot to do with the fact that I have a rather small dojo membership-wise. My local is populated with high achieving folks with very demanding careers and families. It is difficult for them to train with me because my take on the art requires a consistent level of commitment to feel like one is making progress. Folks around here look at a BIG outside commitment as twice a week. They don't want the art to occupy more than a small part of their lives. Yet the ones who do train with me seem to get something out of it... something about the art speaks to them. But only two or three are going to end up at Shihan level, at most. But if there are literally millions of folks out there like that, maybe that is the point... It's not my way, but my way is entirely unlikely to change much about the world at all. |
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
All good points George, thanks.
|
Re: Evaluation of "Spirit of Aikido"
I like the book very much and I carry a copy of it around in my gi bag. I have two copies the second doshu was kind enough to sign for me. I was fortunate enough to take ukme from him and I had the opportunity to present him with a small memento on behalf of the organization and found him to be a most pleasant and a true gentleman. The book although small holds a great deal of information which seems to deepen with meaning each time I read it. I think it is required reading along with a hand full of other Aikido books. Frankly I don’t know if the book is a reflection of his father or a reflection of himself. It doesn’t matter to me because I believe it stands by its self and I would appreciate it regardless.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.