View Single Post
Old 05-22-2005, 10:07 PM   #72
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Basic elements of Aikido

Quote:
Ignatius Teo wrote:
For argument's sake, let's suppose he did, or he observed something whilst he was there, that opened a window for him? We must then also assume that the basic information was already available to him, via Daito-ryu. Perhaps our fellow Daito-ryu practitioners here can pitch in? Are there specific exercises in Daito that focus specifically on ki and kokyu development?
Isn't that like asking most Aikido practitioners the specifics of the inner-core ki and kokyu exercises? The vast majority of practitioners are unaware that there is any such thing, would probably insist that they know all there is, etc. and might get irritated with you bringing up the topic which obliquely infers that they don't know everything about their art. I.e., asking an open question like this probably won't yield any substantive results of a pro or con nature.
Quote:
How does this explain Shioda's abilities? Shioda must have been shown the same, if not similar, things.
I don't know. I've been trying to puzzle that out for a while and I simply don't have enough information to put my chips on any solid bet. If I had to guess, Shioda's training was not complete in the classical sense, but he was a smart man and he knew a lot and gave a very good analysis of what he knew. For all practical purposes, in my personal opinion, he knew more than enough to wind up with some of the best Aikido in the full sense of the term Aikido. Whether he was able or willing to transmit all he knew is a question I don't have the answer to, but I think it would be interesting to know. Note that it appears that Ueshiba did not transmit everything he knew to his students, either, except for possibly one or two (this comment reflects an opinion and is not meant to be "fact").
Quote:
Out of curiousity, how much of the imagery used in the dokas is easily attributable to Omoto-kyo cosmology?
Well some of it must be, but certainly not all... not unless Omoto-kyo also taught martial arts. It appears that Ueshiba was combining his martial arts, his ki and kokyu knowledge (including the classical stuff), and his religion... all 3 of them... eclectically into his new martial art, Aikido.

It also appears that the fairly clever uchi-deshi focused on the martial art and the ki/kokyu things and didn't get too involved in the religious part (some state this avoidance of religion publicly in interviews, so it's a pretty safe statement to make). I would personally tend to go this route also and to glean the martial and ki aspects out separately.

My other personal tendency would be to do sort of what Tohei does in respect to assigning rank in Aikido and also rank in "ki development". I.e., by doing this, Tohei is pointing out that ki/kokyu development is not necessarily chained to Aikido or any other art. However, Tohei's approach is to teach ki within Aikido and I tend to suggest that you don't need any particular martial art to learn the skills (which is what a number of qigongs also do, BTW).

In other words, going back to your question, I think Ueshiba's imagery was composed of religion, martial art/tactics/strategy, and ki development (in the martial sense). So I wouldn't attribute all of his imagery to Omoto-kyo, personally.

My opinion, FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote