Mike Sigman wrote:
Incidentally, just as a side-note, Aikido would not qualify as one of the "neijia", the "internal arts family". They have a specific way of "hitting with the dantien" that is a variation of the jin/kokyu powers not found in Aikido.
Thank you, Mike, for confirming the distinction I have made. In which case -- Tell me again why are we having this conversation??
I learn a lot from taking down the arguments presented on the evidence given, which is my vocation otherwise and and my practice in aiki in these settings. So please, by all means, let us keep this up.
But why do you keep talking like any of that really has anything to do with aikido, which you are willing to admit?
Ledyard Sensei is criticizing a tendency toward muscular resistive approaches in aikido, which is destructive of its fundamentals. What he is concerned is being lost, is not the same thing as what you are saying is missing.
THESE ideas you are saying are "missing" are not in any way an improvement on that. Nei-jia (nor the employment of nei-jin/jing, per se) are not meant to be "non-destructive," which is the purpose of Aikido. They are just more subtley destructive.
內 家 have no moral or principled advantage over 外家, they are just less obvious in operation. They simply compress the same resistant mind and body into a much smaller arc. Which your overall responses to my points and questions only confirms me in believing.
Similarly, Jin/Jing 勁 has no principled advantage over Li 力.
Li 理 "internal principle or structure" however, does have a distinct advantage over both of them, and it is this latter mode or principle in which Aiki properly operates and exploits.
That is what I perceive Ledyard Sensei is getting at in what is "missing," in "whole body movement" and what I have taken from his discussions here and in seminar of Ushiro and Kuroda Sensei's thoughts on these matters, and in Saotome Shihan's expression of the art, and in whose lineage I presently practice. I am sure Ledyard Sensei will qualify or or severely correct my impressions if I have strayed.
Aikido is simple, not easy (which I think he said at the last seminar). What you are proposing is neither simple nor easy.
Mike Sigman wrote:
How can what Tohei does be called Aikido if what he shows is "resistive"? Now do you see how silly your comment is?
I asked you a precise question in order to pull you away from your general assertions. Heck, I'll even open it up some... tell me how neijin skills differ from the ki skills shown by Ueshiba,Tohei, and others.
Wherein you point out the precise question that eventually divided Tohei from Aikikai. Way above my paygrade. As I pointed out earlier, however, kokyu tanden is not really distinct from much of nei jin in principle; it is the application that distinguishes it, and the application in which you present it does not use those skills to aid the aiki of the interaction.
Tohei's redirection of force is a skill he demonstrated for training in redirection of force as a kihon waza. That skill, in and of itself, IS NOT AIKIDO, and does not necessarily lead to aiki in technique. It may be employed toward that end but they are not the same thing at all.
Mike Sigman wrote:
Your comment about neijin being "resistive" is exactly as ill-informed as it would be to look at a picture of Tohei demonstrating jin/kokyu/ki by letting an Uke push on his forearm and saying "Aha! Aikido is 'resistive'!" What you said is exactly like that.
Since we are in an ad hominem mode -- unlike you, I have nothing I am trying to sell in seminars across the country, and thus, I have no vested interest to be offended. I simply want to teach, explain and bring the benefit of aikido to students who wish to learn it. That is all.
Neo-Confucianism was my particular study, so I don't need lecturing on my Chinese philosophical concepts, thank you. I am happy to meet you there at whatever level you wish.
猪头 有的是 豬油 嗎.
You do not point to error, but only attempt to exploit presumed ambiguity of reference between three tongues. Your approach fails Occam's Razor in terms of any explanatory power to a modern audience. That suggests it is not meant to explain anything.
Which is my point. I do not care to go in my training hall and make myself the world's most formidable warrior. I got over that when I was about seventeen. A bullet or a bomb will take care of that (or me) at need, quite handily.
I gain nothing material from this. Discussions looking at various strains of thought or training aid in that endeavor, and which I am thankful people like David, Ron and others can discuss in an engaged manner, even when they address or even advocate some of the same points you do.
You seem to enjoy obscuring matters with dark secrets, whispered only to worthy candidates behind closed doors. You even brag on teachers who would not teach the unworthy bai gui. The fact that those who have trained with you seem to take some benefit of your skill, does not excuse it. It is the definition of esotericism. It is not worthy of the open spirit of Aikido.
You may have much useful to tell me, but you should just do it, instead of -- all this ...
I just call 'em like I see 'em. I like the exercise, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't much care about my "reputation" or anyone's approval in these regards, as it just gets in the way of learning something.