Thread: Ueshiba's Aiki
View Single Post
Old 11-11-2011, 10:52 PM   #191
Chris Li
 
Chris Li's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Sangenkai
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,313
United_States
Offline
Re: Ueshiba's Aiki

Quote:
Ken McGrew wrote: View Post
Are you denying that the available English translations of Take Musi Aiki are essentially accurate?
Wrong again, it's not "Take Musi Aiki", just as it wasn't "Take Muso Aiki", it's "Take Musu Aiki".

Basically, there are no complete English translations, accurate or otherwise. Sonoko Tanaka did a bit of the early sections for AikiNews (now Aikido Journal) and John Stevens published a highly abridged version that he himself called "Take Musu Aiki Lite" - there's nothing wrong with that, he published it for popular consumption. I talked to him about it before it came out, he lives down the street from me.

Quote:
Ken McGrew wrote: View Post
Because they describe O'Sensei moving outside of this plain to the bridge between heaven and earth in order to perform Aikido techniques. You also admit his referring to having been inspired or possessed by a deity. This deity was related to how he believed he discovered the secrets of Aikido. So,you seem to concede the point. Even the interviews I posted, I believe, make some reference to his spiritual beliefs and Aikido. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, Saotome Sensei has written and taught about the spiritual aspects of O'Sensei's Budo. I discussed this with him in November. He wrote out for me what OSensei saw as the relationship between the physical body, Ki body, and astral body. As a direct student he should know. If I recall correctly Tohei Sensei also discussed this. Religious traditions are found in dojos and practice in Aikido even if people don't know their origins. All of this goes to refute the claim that Aikido was not religios for O'Sensei. Dan and others deny the religious aspects in order to deny the importance of Ki (see the interviews I provided) and in order to argue that it was not Ai Ki Do but rather Aiki Do. This was the spiritual issue.
I think that there's rather more technical information contained in Take Musu Aiki than is generally thought, although there's plenty of the other stuff too. Again, nobody ever argued that Ueshiba wasn't religious. As to religion as a source of technical power - see my response below.

Quote:
Ken McGrew wrote: View Post
The argument that Aikido was not a new art but only Daito-ryu is likewise contradicted by what O'Sensei wrote and said (see the interviews I provided) as well as what direct students like Saotome Sensei wrote and said. You are free to argue that he was wrong Etc. but you are not free to put words in his mouth that contradict what he really taught. I am not denying the lineage to Diato-ryu. But given what O'Sensei said and what Saotome said and wrote, I am arguing that O'Sensei claimed it was a new art. Saotome has a section on the differences between them in Harmony of nature and also discusses the differences in his videos. In particular i am arguing that the cooperative training approach was new and highly significant. This was the origins issue.
Daito-ryu training is no less cooperative than modern Aikido training is. Cooperative training is hardly a revolution in Japanese martial arts, which are mostly kata based.

Nobody ever said the Ueshiba's art as a whole was not different from Daito-ryu. What we're talking about is the technical part, the engine that drives the technique.

Show an example of technical prowess that Ueshiba was capable of or demonstrated that was not present in Daito-ryu. If you can do that then there may be a basis to argue for a separate technical source.

Saying it's different/revolutionary/new isn't unusual in Japan - that's how the beginning of many classical ryuha came about, handed down from the gods or the tengu.

Quote:
Ken McGrew wrote: View Post
In both cases you have based your arguments largely on new translations you've done. The words that you would change don't seem to amount to much so far as changing the meaning of whole passages, assuming your translations are beyond debate which I do not accept (for example, was it Ki, power, or Ki power). That other things may be mistranslated doesn't prove that they are mistranslated. The translation you provide here, assuming its correct, doesn't dispense with the bulk of evidence to the other side. It becomes an outlier. Even O'Sensei could say things differently than he intended to on occasion. I thing he was trying to say something about universal religion verses sectarian understandings of it. Why not look to the interviews in Japanese? Any translation errors there will be easy to spot given they are spoken and written modern Japanese. This was the translation issue.
Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing translation issues on any detailed level unless you can speak and read Japanese. It's just pointless. I'm not selling anything, really, take the information or not, it's up to you.

Best,

Chris