View Single Post
Old 09-22-2011, 01:21 PM   #50
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: Aikido: Discussions of power

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
You cannot in fact ...be...in harmony without in yo ho residing in yourself.
This is something which your founder continually stressed, it is an old concept and....
It is a teaching -that so far- I have never heard come out of the mouth of a living Aikido teacher, nor read in an interview, nor seen laid out in theory, practice or application on film.

Ueshiba:
右手をば陽にあらわし左手は陰にかえして相手みちびけ
"Manifest yo (yang) in the right hand, change the left hand to in (yin) and guide the opponent."

This of course directly relates to Chinese arts
Hon Jun Sheng:
I realized then that Chen Xin's model of the Host hand and guest hand; where the guest hand receives and the host hand guides in perfect balance.

Ueshiba again:
<念>にもとづき『気の妙用』をはかるには、まず五体の左は武の基礎、右は宇宙の受ける気結びの現われる土台であると心得よ。この左・右の気結びがおのずから成就すれば、 あとの動きは自由自在となる。
"In order to achieve the mysterious workings of ki based upon intent, first realize the appearance of the foundation that is the ki connection (ki musubi) between the left side of the physical body grounded in the martial and the right that receives the universe. If you can achieve this connection between the left and the right then you will be able to move with complete freedom."

There are many more of these.

Of course these simple rules give way to depth and sophisticated methodology that remains consistent regardless of speed or pressures. Most people who are honest in their own practice know they cannot produce their vaunted "harmony" and control they are looking for under stress. They know they have to rely on too much cooperation. It is this deficit in understanding that is slowly redefining the art to fit this new standard or requirement. It is one that Ueshiba never had face or to consider.
It is because we fail to understand Aiki in yo ho
Which by the way is the cornerstone of Daito ryu, where he first learned its secrets.
"Takeda opened my eyes to true budo."

So from China, to Koryu to Daito ryu, to Aikido
All "Hidden In Plain Sight."
What has become incredibly clear and certain is that Ueshiba Morihei was reciting prior works and understanding that fueled his arts. Many of his Doka..were not his at all.

Dan
I agree you cannot be in harmony without a balance of yin and yang, it's self evident as the whole theory of yin and yang is to do with harmony.

So when I use the word harmony or indeed ueshiba did it is self evident he was talking about things being in balance. I don't know of many martial arts who don't use the theory to one degree or another.

I mention and teach it non-stop as did my teacher and I'm sure many other teachers do too. So you not hearing it coming out of the mouth of any living Aikido teacher I find surprising. Or do you mean your particular take on it?

There are indeed many quotes of Ueshiba and until they are given in correct context, ie: when he said it, to whom he said it, relating to what at the time and put alongside what else he said at that particular time then a false picture may be adopted.

Of course things can be traced back to other times and other arts
just like English language can be traced back to various languages but if I want to study Latin I will do so as a separate thing for a separate reason and as a secondary thing it may no doubt improve my understanding of the English language.

I don't disagree that O'Sensei studied the things you talk about prior to developing his own Aiki budo later to be called Aikido.

To me personally it was a stage on his path which he passed through and that stage was called daito ryu. He moved on from there and as he said to Hikiksuchi "I have changed everything"

Thus I see Aikido differently to you. From my view that means what it says and no more. From others or maybe you it may mean many things. It may mean I'm therefore against you.....no. It may mean all kind of significances for people tend to think in terms of for or against. Oh well, that's their problem. I don't think that way.

Regards G.
  Reply With Quote