Re: Ki and Remaining Grounded
Quote:
"The way of harmony with ki" is a misleading and inaccurate translation of "aikido". Alex |
Re: Ki and Remaining Grounded
Quote:
please provide the accurate translation of "aikido", thanks. regards, Mark |
Re: Ki and Remaining Grounded
Quote:
Aikido is the Way of Aiki. Aiki is a centuries-old concept used in many Japanese budo, but particularly in Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu. There is more information in the Wikipedia article on aiki, and the Daito-Ryu tradition defines several kinds of aiki, but Sokaku Takeda is recorded as summarising aiki thus: The secret of aiki is to overpower the opponent mentally at a glance and to win without fighting. Alex |
Re: Ki and Remaining Grounded
Quote:
Compare: "Woowoo-do is the way of Woowoo. Woowoo is a centuries old concept used in .. [etc.] ... [Some] tradition defines several kinds of woowoo but [a guy] summarised woowoo as : the secret of woowoo is to overpower the opponent ....[etc.]" More charitably, the term cannot presently be translated more than partly and roughyl for a given circumstance. The respective terms of reference do not map closely enough onto one another for any good translation. The concepts bundled in that term are unbundled in many different terms in English, at least, mostly. There a reason we all use "ki" and aiki." Like "Geist" in German it must be understood in the original sense of the native tongue, then it can be wholesale adopted into the other tongue without translation. That does not mean a better translation is not ever possible, it just does not exist at this time. I have my own thoughts on the matter, of a more unitary definition, but then, I like to play the heretic, so don't follow me. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
I woudl posit that "aiki" as defined by DRAJJ and the "aiki" in Aikido are different. Different intent for both the related arts. I can talk more about it later..
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
I certainly entertain the idea that the "aiki" of DRAJJ and the "aiki" of Ueshiba-ha (and Hirai-ha?) aikido are different. Leaving aside the question of whether they should be different, aikido people say they're different, Daito-ryu folk say they're different -- let's assume for the sake of argument that they are different.
From a linguistic standpoint, that they are different matters little. The "Aiki" of aikido and Daito-ryu is certainly distinct from the "aiki" in Toda-ha Buko-ryu's "Aiki no Koto", mentioned by Ellis Amdur in previous threads. What is for certain is that "aiki" is itself a single jukugo (compound), parsed separately from the "do". So in that respect, Alex is right in that as a starting point, we have to look at it as "the way of Aiki". Now, how one interprets the meaning of "aiki" is up to each individual school or style. For Daito-ryu folk the "ki" might be esoteric -- "internal" energy. For others, exoteric -- tangible energy like momentum, speed, and velocity. For still others, all at the same time. Ultimately, how one defines "aiki" is dependent on how one defines "ki". "Ki" by itself just refers to energy. The question is, what kind of energy are you working with? Internal energy? External energy? Emotional energy? One thing that is quite clear, though, is that "ai" by no means means "harmony". To even get close to "harmony", the character for "ai" needs other modifying characters, like 和 (peace). "Ai" by itself indicates a joining and/or matching. It is not at all "harmonious", indicated by it's use other phrases: kiri-ai (a swordfight), tachiai (a duel, or else the violent crashing together at the beginning of a sumo bout), iiai (an argument), oshiai-heshiai (pushing and jostling). Any kind of joined interaction of two or more entities -- harmonious, dissonant, or otherwise -- is an "ai" of some kind. IMO, the English concept closest to this idea is "meeting", and it's colloquial equivalent, "getting together". (As an aside, Ueshiba's pointed punning notwithstanding, there is no linguistic relationship between "ai" [meeting/joining] and "ai" [love]. "Ai" as love is a Chinese loanword. "Ai" as meeting is derived from the verb "au", which in Old Japanese was original "apu" -> "afu" -> "au".) In his book "Budo", Ueshiba wrote "If he comes with ki, strike with ki; if he comes with water, strike with water; if he comes with fire, strike with fire." (Translation by John Stevens). Of course, I'd like to actually see the original Japanese, but this translation by itself perfectly indicates a native, idiomatic conception of "ai". It may seem rather confrontational or paradoxical to someone used to thinking of "aiki" as blending and harmonizing, but from a Japanese language standpoint, it matches-up fine (or, as they Japanese would say, ぴったり合う). So, personally, I would translate "aikido" as "Way of Matching Energy". I like that translation because it is as universally applicable as "aikido". "Energy" is nicely vague, just like "ki", and just like compound "aiki", "Matching Energy" is semantically vague as to whether it's a transitive gerund, or a participle adjective. :D It could thus be used by Ueshiba-ha practitioners, Hira-ha practitioners, and even Daito-ryu folk. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
I spent some considerable time transcribing the text from the Japanese copy I possess, only to have the kanji appear as squiggles in the forum. And, yes, I know about the text encoding & forum options and I tried them all. To no avail. If you want to see the Japanese text of what Stevens translated, send me a PM with your e-mail address. Best wishes, |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Thanks for the comments by Erick, Joshua and Peter who all got in before I had a chance to.
I don't have enought experience of Daito Ryu (a weekend with Shogen Okabayashi, a browse through "The Hidden Roots of Aikido" and various reading on the Web) to understand in depth the Daito-Ryu interpretation of "Aiki", except an appreciation that it is discussed much more explicitly in those arts than it is an most aikido dojos. Since Joshua has supplied an excellent translation I, as a non-Japanese speaker, won't even try, but I have always understood it to mean "matching of energy". I do know that "aiki" was an important enough conception for Morihei Ueshiba to worship a kami specifically assigned to it... Alex |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
The Aiki that is so often seen in Ai..ki..do, the blending and moving yourself all around to move them? It is incorrect. But, its been that way for so long that what is correct is rarely seen or known and the low level crap is now called ...correct. Supported by thousands, performed by all and sundry..it never-the-less leads you nowhere. It's full speed... in the wrong direction. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
Some train better beginning with the motion and then grasping the stillness that they then happen upon when they are attending to critical orientation. Some train better with the stillness and the criticality of the orientation of the operative elements in themselves, and then find ways to apply it in moving themselves and others. If the training through motion does not lead to stillness then the practice is wrong -- by the same token, if training through stillness does not lead to motion it is also wrong. The truth is both, and in that, something else emerges altogether. The difference in points of view in these debates, I am coming to conclude, is largely a product of differences in natural kinesthetic perception bias in the learner. As I mentioned there are several types -- like the visual perception bias in many optical illusions. Some minds default to one image, some to the other, and only with difficulty are able to resolve the ambiguity between them that IS the complete picture of the truth as it is. A more dynamic example of these forms of perception bias and how they are both naturally defaulted in one direction or the other, and how they may be consciously manipulated, once realized, may be seen here: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...81-661,00.html |
Re: Ki and Remaining Grounded
Quote:
I hate the word ki as it sends you off at a tangent. Search for aiki, not ki. Just my 2c. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
What a great resource you multilinguals are. Thanks for taking the trouble to compose and post this, Josh. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
The term "Aiki" seems old enough in its provenance to not necessarily track the compounds ( such as with "wa") you suggest for "harmony" as are used more modernly. Is there anything that establishes that point one way or the other? In at least one Doka he does juxtapose "aiki" directly with "harmony" in Abe's translation and I seem to remember, although I do not have Stevens parelle translation handy at the moment that he used 和 "wa" specifically in that context. O Sensei was a scholar (autodidact or not) of ancient sources and in reading Kojiki, and Motoori's commentaries on it, he was unavoidably schooled in aspects of linguistic questions and their significance. His punning and stress on kotodama is a clue to his interest in the uses of language as a source of deeper meaning. However, his interest was primarily literary and mystical, not linguistic. (Too?) many have spoken to the mystical, but short shrift is given to the literary aspects. In my opinion that is where we should primarily look, to his literary usage and imagery. Given that the etymology of the decomposed character itself ( some times unreliable, but valid in this case) is basically 入 一 口"join-one-gate." There are clues of that precise imagery in the Doka to O Sensei's intended usage. Abe Sensei notes that Izanami (she who invites) cleansed herself of the filth of death upon her escape from the underworld at the "Odo" ("narrow river mouth") in Awagihara. Stevens translates that linguistically as "the small gate." Abe instead gives its literary significance as a mythological place. ("Gate" and "mouth" are also the same character 口, which composes into "Ai" as 口"join-one-gate." Abe also says that O Sensei described Aiki as being born from the thrashing of Izanagi (He who invites) in his cleansing there. At a "narrrow river mouth" whorls of water back up at the constriction, some open and become progressively still in the upstream pool, while some become tighter and tighter as they enter the nozzle and gain much speed, at the throat of the stream. These images are not accidents and they all relate. There are many more. O Sensei used the image of the joining of heaven and earth by the floating bridge, fire and water in the change of self, the sexual connotations of the mutually inviting divine couple, and also the cross figure (juji). These recurrent motifs are of the same basic trope with the different images in some respects interchangeable. Properly read, that is a powerful literary source for his intended usage on these points, for which we need not depend on more general linguistics. The imagery is of two seemingly independent components nevertheless joined at one and only one narrowly defined connection, diametrically different, and yet performing the same function in the same essential manner, reversed of one another in dynamic. Moreover, as the river image and the larger myth involving Izanagi and Izanami make clear, either one alone is condemned to death. If one dies the other must revive it, and if they conflict with one another in battling death they condemn each other to continue in death, but if they act together then they both return to life. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
I do know, however, that he was very concerned with spreading aikido as a peaceful martial art, and his father often used phrases such as 融和 and 和合, so if an English speaking student of his said, "Way of Harmony with Ki" was a good translation of "aikido", it wouldn't surprise me if Kisshomaru said, "Sounds good, go with that." My issue has never been that "Way of Harmony with Ki" "Art of Peace", etc. aren't acceptable glosses for Ueshiba-style aikido, merely that over-reliance on these glosses by non-speakers of Japanese has led to many people misinterpreting the original components. There is a xerox effect. Quote:
Second, the top radical of 合 is not 入, it is 人 (hito, person). Semantically, this makes no difference (as I explain below), but it makes a big difference when writing the character. Third, more often than not, the component characters that make up a kanji are not actually derived from the characters they seem to be! This is a big mistake made by native and non-native speakers alike. And 合 is a perfect example. It looks like it's made up of 人一口. But in fact those are just modern stylized renderings of what originally was a picture of a lid being placed over a hole. Cf. Kanjigen, a Japanese character dictionary: Quote:
"Associative compound. Made up of 'Covering symbol + opening (hole)', it indicates a lid being placed and perfectly fit over a hole." If you want to create folk-etymologies, or rely on what you perceive Ueshiba's folk-etymologies to be in order to expand your personal research of your aikido, more power to you. But those can't be pointed to as "the definition of aiki". The term "aiki" predated Ueshiba (and Takeda), and the term "aikido" was coined by Hirai Minoru and adopted by Ueshiba later. (According to an interview with Ueshiba in the back of vol. 2 of Stan Pranin's 上芝盛平と合気道, Ueshiba himself said that his art was too big to be named by he, himself, so he adopted "aikido" because it seemed good enough.) Quote:
As Professor Goldsbury did, I've kept the original kanji as far as possible, and changed the katakana to hiragana. Quote:
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
I don't know if people realize but Dan may be one the few in the world that can actually do what he is talking about.
stan |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Hi Josh,
I think I basically understand and agree with what you have written, but have a problem of how you seem to define "harmony." I think the difference between harmonious and dissonant is the intention by which two or more elements are brought together. For example, the harmony involved in bebop jazz is quite dissonant to those not familiar with yet, yet quite attractive to those that are. I believe that harmony equals "any kind of joined interaction between two entities" if the result is the one desired. Thus for me, the word harmony as a def. of ai is correct. Charles |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
Quote:
Josh, your counting coup aside, while all in good fun, the ENTIRE point of post, and that you did not address, was that literary usage is the better guide to meaning for our purposes than disconnected etymological debates. There is no evidence that O Sensei cared much about that aspect of language. Literary usage requires larger context (your last criticism of me, as I recall). There is lots of evidence of his literary interest in Kojiki and of his phonological interest in kotodama (dare I say, "musical"). The etymological points I raised were expressly in recognition of their problematic limitsand from that mainly to show a consistency of theme, more clearly seen in the usage of his literary sources. More to the point, in translation literary usage develops themes of meaning in relation and allows for the ambiguities to be washed out through several layers of context. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Just reading the above - is there any wonder no one understands ...
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
The fact that the component is written like 人 and not 入 is simply FYI. Quote:
Quote:
As I said, you're free to use whatever folk-etymologies you think will help your understanding. That's my position. I have no interest in debating their validity or lack thereof, which is why I didn't address the rest of your post. I was merely addressing your misunderstanding regarding the composition of the 合 character. You specifically said Quote:
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
I could be wrong, but just in case you are referring to the argument we had months ago about the word "aiki", I am (or, uh, was, I guess) a different Josh. We apparently have two language geek Joshes on Aikiweb who own copies of Kanjigen. You must just draw us like moths to a lightbulb. Josh (Reyer) - I went to school in Nagoya. Please tell me you aren't also going to Nanzan and studying Iwama aikido. Josh (Lerner) |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Well, I don't go to Nanzan. :D
I didn't participate in that thread because you were already making all the points that I would, and I thought that having another "Josh ____er" in the thread would just be confusing for all involved! :freaky: (Plus, having to argue that "ai" is kunyomi would have made my head explode.) Still, I believe Erick could be referring to this thread. Or perhaps our arguments over translation in the "Baseline Skillsets" thread. |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
My apologies on misattributing the prior discussion. What's another Josh? ( more or less) :)
Quote:
Your earlier point is that interpretation given may properly vary according to use. My focus is O Sensei's interpretation for this art. The thread is, after all "defining aikido" not the "defining aiki," and analytically breaking the "aiki" from O Sensei's expressed understanding is of value only to provide context, and only denotative context, at that. In the Kojiki-den, O Sensei's necessary source material for reading the Kojiki, the significance of things like "folk-etymology" to the context of O-Sensei's literary underpinnings in that text is plain. Kotodama is very much a process of the assocational and transformational aspects of sound and its meaning. Kojiki-den is a running argument about how the various kanji in the book should be read in Japanese. Even Motoori has been criticized for his "reach" in making some associations that fit his avowed political interest, and language is more subject to manipulation in view of present interest than in view of unchanging truth. Meaning disregards history when other usage and understandings (even fanciful ones) are preferred or become associated. In American English, as example, "liberal" is a very dangerous word to try to apply, from historic evidence of its semantic boundaries, that same limit to its present semantic range. O Sensei was a visionary, not a scholar, although he valued scholarship. It is more critical in understanding O Sensei's interpretation to have the concepts and relationship he COULD reasonably have associated with those meanings (scholarly-correct or not) than any far more accurate and historically sound etymology. The correspondence with his literary usage as a whole reveals the truth of it. . As disclosed in his lectures, kotodama associational riffs and mythic imagery formed his visionary process, and folk-etymologies are of a piece with that kind of use of language. They are basically capsule stories about how we mean what we mean. Lewis' Humpty Dumpty was at least half right. (See, if you get the literary allusion you know exactly what I mean, even though I didn't say it in so many words. If you don't, it is utterly opaque.) |
Re: Defining "Aikido"
I was looking back at the archive on this topic and I found this, which given O Sensei's attention to chinkon kishin is worth revisting:
Quote:
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Defining "Aikido"
http://www.aikikai.or.jp/eng/index.htm
"At the heart of Aikido is the Eastern concept ofハKi --the universal creative principle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God God (IPA: /ɡɒd/) most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monolatrist and monotheistic religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe. Makes sense to me. David |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.