David Orange wrote:
What is the right way?
IN AIKIDO, THE OPPONENT IS KILLED AT A SINGLE BLOW!
Are you aware that it was Ueshiba who said "In aikido, the opponent is killed at a single blow!"?
And this was after he'd had two major enlightenment experiences, including the one in the garden, when he drank from the well and saw the golden lights, etc.
He was talking about actual application, not what's normally shown at demos. In this case, he felt compelled to show the real, inner truth because he was showing it to the Emperor: the God of Japan.
So that was the inner truth.
Later, he had another great enlightenment experience and he said, ""The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood. It is not a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek to compete and better one another are making a terrible mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love.""
He placed his emphasis, then, on protection, but do you think his technique lost its deadly edge? Did his sword or his spear become dulled or soft (like Nerf foam)?
Budo must always be deadly in essence or it cannot function as effective protection.
That's the paradoxical nature of budo. It works for peace, but its method is always in handling physical violence.
No David I wasn't aware of that particular statement or the context you gave it in. Being in bold letters it appeared you were 'shouting' it at me. My mistake.
Are you aware I say the same thing in that respect? I have said as such in threads to do with fighting trying to show the difference between martial art and fighting. Ie: Enter, finish, (or lose, or die) that's real battle field, not rolling around putting on locks or holds or cage fighting. Big difference.
On budo is love and his application thereafter, no it did not lose it's effectiveness but where we differ in view may be on wording or reality. I say it remained potentially
deadly and that actually it became much more powerful and effective yet 'undeadly' ie: not harmful. A subtle difference which to me makes all the difference.