For you, perhaps, but the point of my questions was to highlight that you need a justification for why this should be the basic view from which you start.
But this fact actually suggests that pain is valuable. Without pain one would be unaware that one was sawing off one's finger. If one did a lot of sawing of wood, one could, in the absence of the sensation of pain, potentially lose a lot of fingers! Pain, then, is a good thing since it tells us that something injurious is happening to us and we ought to act to prevent the injury from continuing.
In any case, you haven't yet established why pain in the application of the technique is bad. All you've done so far is explain the obvious: pain indicates that something injurious is occurring. I still don't see that when applying nikyo painfully to someone I do the lock badly. I want uke to understand as the lock is applied that "something ain't good" and that if he does not yield to the lock what "ain't good" is only going to get worse.
So, you're saying here that the pain of intense physical exercise is not a bad thing because it yields increases in muscle mass and strength? But this implies that not all pain is bad, that pain actually may signal something ultimately positive is occurring. This doesn't seem to me to help establish your view that pain in nikyo is always a bad thing...
This is rather confusing. Are you saying "Pain is resistance" is a spiritual truth? If so, how, exactly?
And why should Aikido be a spiritual endeavour? Why is this the view of those who are "taking it seriously"? My late shihan took his Aikido very seriously but I never once in the twenty-some years I knew him ever heard him speak of the spirituality of Aikido. I don't, then, see that serious Aikido must be spiritual.
But this is precisely why pain in nikyo is useful: it encourages non-resistance on the part of uke.
I'm afraid you aren't making much sense here. You say that pain is important in discovering how not to resist but this means one must receive pain in order to make such a discovery. But in the context of Aikido training this suggests that Aikido technique ought to be painful so that uke might learn non-resistance. You've said, though, that painful technique is not good technique. Why then should nage perform painful technique on uke? Doing so, in your view, is to practice bad technique. Do you see the glaring problem in this? I do.
You haven't offered any explanation for how discovering non-resistance through pain leads to the understanding that non-resistance should be practiced by both uke and nage. If non-resistance is related to experiencing pain, are you saying nage should be in pain while practicing technique? Surely not. But this is the impression your words are giving.
Your rationale above seems to be:
1. Experiencing pain leads to an understanding of non-resistance.
2. Understanding non-resistance leads to understanding that both uke and nage should practice non-resistance.
3. Therefore, nikyo should not be applied painfully.
This is a glaring non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not clearly issue from your premises.
But you haven't yet given a reasonable justification for making it a given that "non-resistance is fundamental to Aikido." All you've said is that experiencing pain leads to understanding non-resistance, not why this understanding is "fundamental to Aikido."
Well, you're entitled to your opinion - however unjustified it may be...
I would be very interested in applying my nikyo to you and seeing just how well your non-resistance voids it.
I agree. But I don't get the sense that you've thought very carefully through your views, which makes me very skeptical about your understanding of non-resistance.
Oh well, I think I have explained quite well. Contrary to the so called rules of 'argument' and 'having to' justify I prefer explanation as best I can and leave it to others to understand what I am saying the best they can for my 'justification' is what I know.
I also prefer to follow what O'Sensei said rather than lots of others views and what they said. I tend to have a good affinity for such and practice in order to make those things he said, 90% of which are spiritual by the way, more real. Therefor I am not one of the many who say they didn't or don't have a clue what he was talking about and thus remove what he said from Aikido and put it down to 'other' spiritual practice. None, or very very little of what he said was other than Aikido as far as I am concerned and non resistance being a major factor.
Shin no budo is what he practiced as do I. To bring 'kon' into prominence, thus spiritual. So through non resistance experience the oneness and flow of the universe and thus Ki. Even before he called his art Aikido, which he did in his own words as far as I know, he called his aikibudo the art of oneness.
I hope all who do Aikido will experience oneness, will experience absolute non resistance, will experience the reality of budo is love, will experience and then be able to see what he said was Aikido rather than spiritual something else.
So I have no quarrel with your views for you are on the path but will always say that even if someone is on the path there are times they are and times they are not doing shin no budo.