AikiWeb Aikido Forums - View Single Post - Japanese Aikido Teachers

DH · 07-12-2009, 10:16 AM

On Mikes comments and misquotes

I'll state it flatly and complete.
"Aikido IS NOT Daito ryu." It's Ueshiba's school-and it is a different model from DR so continuing to misquote that does little good. I admire what Ueshiba did with his change in direction.
But,
"Aikido's aiki...IS...Daito ryu aiki." Something which most know little about, but more and more aikido teachers are catching on to.
I initially dismissed Mike's view when he came on the scene because he simply could not address how and where the two arts differed in his past offerings here as he went through his many phases; from denial, grudging agreement, to apology and eventual (albeit limited) agreement that there even were internal components in DR. The internal training aspects of DR directly correlate to usage in Aikido's movement and approach to create aiki in defined ways and for specific reasons in applicable use. George was sharp enough to have seen it, so was Gleason and an increasing number of other Aikido teachers. It generally speaks for itself and requires no defense for experienced teachers in aikido. I'm not sure anyone elses opinion matters. Teachers will do what they think is best.
We could say
"Enough already!!"...
Lets say it again
"Enough already!!"...

And I would agree, except that the discussion here and there goes to "Where do we find what Ueshiba had?" And that leads back to the history.

History
Many have enjoyed and benefitted from the contention, and information in the debates here regarding the history and origin of Aikido's aiki; with me stating "Aikido's aiki is Daito ryu aiki" Against Mike's "Aikido's aiki is Ueshiba's research into some (undefined, no school, little known and undisclosed source of "generalized internal training Mike theory" that Ueshiba sprung from.
When I compared the "ideas" as a model, in the end I find one inescapable truth:
The nebulous, undefined "catch all" Asian training model that Ueshiba supposedly trained in produced no one else, (in that generation ) of any significant notability for anyone to consider to stand next to Ueshiba, Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, and Hisa.
Takeda, on the other hand made each of them. All budo giants in a classification of aiki usage that was unique at the time.
So,I find Mike's "unified asian arts theory" on the history and origins of Ueshiba's power to have little credibility worth further consideration.

Current training
A better discussion today is whether it is better for aikido people to try and find what is generally (but not completely) agreed is missing from the art from just anywhere…or anyone at all who has got something internal; Karate, Taiji, Bagua, Yoga, the kitchen sink, whatever. Or, whether it is probably smarter-as George points out -to go to a school from which the art, and the man, sprang, as it will more directly relate; not only in building the internal componants but also a) what is worked on and why, but b) what is or isn't stressed and why c) what is unrelated but could be brought in and how it can be expressed in motion that directly relates to Aikido.

I could agree that continuing to talk about DR as a source for Aikido's aiki can be a distraction, except that I have experience with training with students and teachers alike from both arts -with decades of experience- who, not surprisingly completely disagree with Mike as to what, where, and how, the Aiki of those arts ARE connected.

George
I think it is good to continue to point out there is not only technical differences but spiritual ones as well. But....you also need to begin to discuss a separation of aiki itself from technique. This is a deeper discussion that I believe you would benefit from. Aiki is not waza. It is not small circle VS big circle or anything of the like. As some might tell you the training they do with me is affecting ...them...spiritually and emotionally. So I find it difficult to see you place the spiritual componant as a dividing issue when I wonder if it is something we might come closer to agreement on with further discussion. No, not that they are the same, I'm not saying that at all, just that you can separate internal training and Aiki and what it does to you out from both arts DR and Aikido and or make them inexorable componants of the arts.
Aiki is not about just about your quote that "Aikido missing out on some of Ueshiba's "martial" aspects" It is deeper than that.
Sadly we can all probably continue to "read into" Ueshiba's comments and find what we want to hear one way or another. What is interesting is that we continue to do so all these years later. Isn't that interesting in itself?
You continue to point to some interesting dilemmas in training and raise good questions.
With teachers, I wonder how much the problem is in
1. lack of translation
2. lack of ability to teach details-it is a fairly common problem with Japanese teachers
3. lack of correct information in the first place
4. lack of real intent to teach everyone the same in the first place (holding back)
In other words a translator isn't going to help you much if the correct words were never there to begin with. I think several have pointed this out on different forums with their own teachers.
I will agree that going around and experiencing different arts is a good thing, but going around and trying to pick up pieces here and there of this or that art does what?
Has it occurred to anyone that each source they went to (that impressed them) contained men who NEVER went around piecing together things in the first place? That these sources dug-in and burned individual methods to arrive at a point that they had something that was impressive in the first place? What part was dogged repetition and insight from years-in and what part was a true gem in the art to have. In other words are some methods really after all just so, so methods, but the impressive guy burned it into genius? Compared to other arts that have jewels of more complete information available that many squander and never dig in to get? What part is consistent what part is perseverance?
In the end, what if all these "researchers" end up just screwing up and doing even more stuff in the same half hearted way they do their art now, or where they see some real jewel and successfully incorporate it into their being.
It's a tough task that can be a monumental waste of time. And who's opinion do we want to consider for what we should bring into our individual art or methods, Or who can say this is the best for us and don't pursue that other as it is a contradiction.
Or when we find out this or that actually IS the best thing we ever did what to do.... with that!
Interesting questions as always George.
Good luck in your training
Cheers
Dan

07-12-2009, 10:16 AM	#35
DH Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,394 Offline	Re: Japanese Aikido Teachers - Translation On Mikes comments and misquotes I'll state it flatly and complete. "Aikido IS NOT Daito ryu." It's Ueshiba's school-and it is a different model from DR so continuing to misquote that does little good. I admire what Ueshiba did with his change in direction. But, "Aikido's aiki...IS...Daito ryu aiki." Something which most know little about, but more and more aikido teachers are catching on to. I initially dismissed Mike's view when he came on the scene because he simply could not address how and where the two arts differed in his past offerings here as he went through his many phases; from denial, grudging agreement, to apology and eventual (albeit limited) agreement that there even were internal components in DR. The internal training aspects of DR directly correlate to usage in Aikido's movement and approach to create aiki in defined ways and for specific reasons in applicable use. George was sharp enough to have seen it, so was Gleason and an increasing number of other Aikido teachers. It generally speaks for itself and requires no defense for experienced teachers in aikido. I'm not sure anyone elses opinion matters. Teachers will do what they think is best. We could say "Enough already!!"... Lets say it again "Enough already!!"... And I would agree, except that the discussion here and there goes to "Where do we find what Ueshiba had?" And that leads back to the history. History Many have enjoyed and benefitted from the contention, and information in the debates here regarding the history and origin of Aikido's aiki; with me stating "Aikido's aiki is Daito ryu aiki" Against Mike's "Aikido's aiki is Ueshiba's research into some (undefined, no school, little known and undisclosed source of "generalized internal training Mike theory" that Ueshiba sprung from. When I compared the "ideas" as a model, in the end I find one inescapable truth: The nebulous, undefined "catch all" Asian training model that Ueshiba supposedly trained in produced no one else, (in that generation ) of any significant notability for anyone to consider to stand next to Ueshiba, Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, and Hisa. Takeda, on the other hand made each of them. All budo giants in a classification of aiki usage that was unique at the time. So,I find Mike's "unified asian arts theory" on the history and origins of Ueshiba's power to have little credibility worth further consideration. Current training A better discussion today is whether it is better for aikido people to try and find what is generally (but not completely) agreed is missing from the art from just anywhere…or anyone at all who has got something internal; Karate, Taiji, Bagua, Yoga, the kitchen sink, whatever. Or, whether it is probably smarter-as George points out -to go to a school from which the art, and the man, sprang, as it will more directly relate; not only in building the internal componants but also a) what is worked on and why, but b) what is or isn't stressed and why c) what is unrelated but could be brought in and how it can be expressed in motion that directly relates to Aikido. I could agree that continuing to talk about DR as a source for Aikido's aiki can be a distraction, except that I have experience with training with students and teachers alike from both arts -with decades of experience- who, not surprisingly completely disagree with Mike as to what, where, and how, the Aiki of those arts ARE connected. George I think it is good to continue to point out there is not only technical differences but spiritual ones as well. But....you also need to begin to discuss a separation of aiki itself from technique. This is a deeper discussion that I believe you would benefit from. Aiki is not waza. It is not small circle VS big circle or anything of the like. As some might tell you the training they do with me is affecting ...them...spiritually and emotionally. So I find it difficult to see you place the spiritual componant as a dividing issue when I wonder if it is something we might come closer to agreement on with further discussion. No, not that they are the same, I'm not saying that at all, just that you can separate internal training and Aiki and what it does to you out from both arts DR and Aikido and or make them inexorable componants of the arts. Aiki is not about just about your quote that "Aikido missing out on some of Ueshiba's "martial" aspects" It is deeper than that. Sadly we can all probably continue to "read into" Ueshiba's comments and find what we want to hear one way or another. What is interesting is that we continue to do so all these years later. Isn't that interesting in itself? You continue to point to some interesting dilemmas in training and raise good questions. With teachers, I wonder how much the problem is in 1. lack of translation 2. lack of ability to teach details-it is a fairly common problem with Japanese teachers 3. lack of correct information in the first place 4. lack of real intent to teach everyone the same in the first place (holding back) In other words a translator isn't going to help you much if the correct words were never there to begin with. I think several have pointed this out on different forums with their own teachers. I will agree that going around and experiencing different arts is a good thing, but going around and trying to pick up pieces here and there of this or that art does what? Has it occurred to anyone that each source they went to (that impressed them) contained men who NEVER went around piecing together things in the first place? That these sources dug-in and burned individual methods to arrive at a point that they had something that was impressive in the first place? What part was dogged repetition and insight from years-in and what part was a true gem in the art to have. In other words are some methods really after all just so, so methods, but the impressive guy burned it into genius? Compared to other arts that have jewels of more complete information available that many squander and never dig in to get? What part is consistent what part is perseverance? In the end, what if all these "researchers" end up just screwing up and doing even more stuff in the same half hearted way they do their art now, or where they see some real jewel and successfully incorporate it into their being. It's a tough task that can be a monumental waste of time. And who's opinion do we want to consider for what we should bring into our individual art or methods, Or who can say this is the best for us and don't pursue that other as it is a contradiction. Or when we find out this or that actually IS the best thing we ever did what to do.... with that! Interesting questions as always George. Good luck in your training Cheers Dan Last edited by DH : 07-12-2009 at 10:30 AM.
DH Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,394 Offline