Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
What is Aikido? What are the specific goals of Aikido? Is it possible to seperate those goals from the pedagogical method, and if not, then why not? Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Frankly, I don't know anymore. No one has been able to offer me satisfactory answers to "What is Aikido." All of the things that are brought up as unique, I've found in other unrelated systems. I generally think of it as an off-shoot of Daito Ryu now. Perhaps OSensei really did transcend all that, but since none of his senior students seem to have understood what he was talking about, how are we ever going to find out? The closest group would probably be Inoue's Shin-ei Taido, but they don't consider themselves aikido either... |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
If you don't know what it is, or what the goals are, then how do you know that practice of it requires physical training methods? Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
I voted no.
Then I remembered the essay by Terry Dobson, "A Soft Answer" I asked myself, "Was the old man in the story doing Aikido?" Cheers! |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
A couple of quick thoughts here, one reread" The Art of Peace"
and see what your answers might be, also hasn't it been said time and again that Aikido is a lot like moving zen, also ask your selves this, has anyone other that O'SENSEI ever really done AIKIDO? |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Perhaps you'd like to answer your own questions and explain how aikido can be applied and learned totally removed from the physical practice of aikido? |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Thanks for replying. You are right on target with what I'm asking, actually. I understand that we may want to keep amount, type, and effectiveness out of the picture, or beyond question, but my mind is wondering on what basis shall we justify their exemption when it comes to explaining ourselves when we are saying that training in waza is vital to something qualifying as Aikido. I think if we can answer that question we are going to get one thing at the cost of the other. Specifically, I think we are only going to be able to say that these things are irrelevant to the issues at hand if we reduce Aikido training to some very mundane and superficial elements. Alternately, from the other side of the same coin, it is going to be logically impossible for Aikido to claim spiritual aspirations at the same time that it wishes to say if you do not practice waza (i.e. train the body, be of the body) you are not doing Aikido. Of course, many folks have their way out of this pickle. They say or lean toward the position that Aikido should have no spiritual aspiration or that said spiritual aspirations are not necessary for Aikido to be Aikido - but from my perspective this too is just another reduction. If we look at the Founder's practice, using it here since most folks here are more familiar with it than we are with each others' practice, we can see that he sought not to reduce the art via either of these two options, and thus that it is possible to have a different kind of Aikido that does not all open itself to either of these reductions and/or to what these reductions often try to fight against (e.g. being flaky, self-deluded, etc.). As Chris pointed out, in his main writings, Osensei never makes a reference to anything remotely close to either of these two reductions (which is why I call them reductions and not just "positions"). In fact, he is always suggesting otherwise. I'm not stating this because I'm saying "Osensei said." I'm saying this because, as I just said, it demonstrates that there is another possibility here. With that other possibility, the "obviousness" of the two reductions just isn't so obvious anymore. thanks, dmv |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
dmv |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
dmv |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Thanks, dmv |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
I know a couple of people who try to approach Aikido in a similar fashion. Few with the exact same religious perspective, but Kanshu Sunadomari comes fairly close in that respect, I think. Quote:
Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
No, but it is certainly better than sitting watching TV or doing absolutely nothing.
|
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Agreed Chris M. But somehow I still think there are exceptions, like with every rule...
Best, Ron |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
I think one of the areas of confusion here is that (as I've stated elsewhere)I believe the goal is not a defining feature of a budo. Most true budo aim to achieve the same higher goals, so therefore I consider the path (michi) to be the defining characteristic of any art. It names a road, not a town. |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Perhaps I should pose this question, (particularly to David and Chris).
How would you react if your teacher promoted someone who had never set foot into an aikido dojo, or examined the physical side of the art for a minute over you in your own dojo? Do you think that that person would be capable of preserving the art? How would you fell about that promotion? If it's possible to practice aikido without any physical component whatsoever, it should be possible to master aikido along those same lines. |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
If you're talking about instruction, I wouldn't expect somebody not trained in certain things to be instructing in those things, no matter their rank. Just as I don't like it when Aikido people not well trained in a weapon teach that weapon, regardless of their rank. Other than that it really doesn't matter much does it? Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Quote:
So in your view, Nishio, Saito and Yamaguchi all practiced different martial arts? Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
So I'll again turn the questions around to you, "What is Aikido?" Would you say that Nishio, Yamaguchi and Saito are all doing Aikido, and if so, what is the common thread that makes aikido unique and distinct from other martial practices? |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
That it hasn't solved all of the worlds problems doesn't make the ideal any less valuable, any more than violence in India negates Ghandi, or racial violence negates Martin Luthar King. Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, this text still has not been translated into English. If this is indeed the clear and rational explanation for what we've all been studying, why is it still largely unavailable to English speaking practitioners? Why wasn't this THE priority for the Aikikai and other groups. Please note, I'm not saying it isn't as central and important as you insist, but since I have no access to it, I'm at a loss to comment on it in a meaningful way. If I'm mistaken and it has been translated, point me the way, and I'll gladly order and read it. |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know but it's really the only text in which the founder speaks at length, in his own words, on the goals and purposes of Aikido, so I would consider it fairly important for anyone studying the "Japanese Martial art based on the teachings of Morihei Ueshiba". FWIW, there is another collection of essays by Morihei Ueshiba published in "Aikido Shinzui" (this one by the Aikikai), but that one hasn't been translated either. How many years was it before the Gospels or the Tripitika were translated into common languages? Best, Chris |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
Quote:
|
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
At one level, I have to agree with Chris Li - on all his points. On another level, I do get where you are coming from Christian, but perhaps your position is based in large part upon the preservation of a training paradigm and this has you asking certain questions (coming up with certain answers) that someone else whose position is based upon the achievement of a goal wouldn't ask (or answer the same). For example, if Aikido is found within the training of Ikkyo, and only there, then one is going to ask, "How can you say you are doing Aikido, if you have never done Ikkyo." The obvious answer is going to be: "You can't." But, if you understand Aikido to not be limited to things like Ikkyo, all you are going to do is wonder how anyone could be thinking that doing Ikkyo is practicing Aikido.
For me, I like to make use of Ikkyo (i.e. Aikido's training paradigm), but I do not limit myself to Ikkyo because I hold Aikido to more than Ikkyo - in the same way that Spirit is more than religion, in the same way that an arm-bar is more than Ikkyo, etc. To borrow a metaphor again, Ikkyo is the vessel; Aikido is the other shore. Some might be threatened by this, or some might feel that there is a lot at risk in such a view, particularly over the LOSS OF IKKYO. Additionally, some might think this is crazy since there is nothing beyond Ikkyo (which leads one to a very difficult time in defining and contrasting Aikido with other arts). However, for me, this is not the case. That vessel is pretty damn important, as it can get me to the other shore. I do not need it to be the only boat in the world for me to keep it important and/or for me to make use of it. So, I talk like I talk, but I do a hell of a lot of Ikkyo. dmv |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
I wrote a piece a while back about whether there was really anything we could really call Aikido. It might be relevant to the discussion on some level...
http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=259 |
Re: Poll: Would you consider aikido without a physical practice component to still be
I voted no.
Can one express the non-physical principles of Aikido without a physical practice? Of course. Can one express the particular physical mind/body coordination practice method founded by Ueshiba M. called Aikido without a physical practice? No imho. This reminds me of something I read on Judo recently. In the specific sense Judo is the method founded by Kano J. in the broader sense of principles and human development Aikido and Judo have the same goals. Kano called Aikido "true Judo" I believe. So if we are doing Aikido are we automatically doing Judo? Where do we specify the definition? I think if we become too general in our definitions in the end we define nothing. Imho. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:54 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.