To What Extent is Martial Effectiveness Necessary...
...to Practice Aikido?
I recently went to a 'ki aikido' class, and after being told by the guy trying to apply ikkyo to me 'Feel free to go down...' because I was still standing, and he couldn't lead me down, I said 'I'll go down when you make me.'.
There was a dan grade practicing with us, and she just completely dismissed me with a patronising and cutting tone, saying 'We don't like to hurt each other here.'.
I thought that the point of aikido was that you should be able to apply these techniques, and that you should do so with little/no pain - certainly in the case of ikkyo, anyway?
My own view is that if you can be thrown quite hard/quickly, and effectively receive, so that you aren't harmed, then you are good at aikido - i.e., you are receiving/harmonizing with a lot of energy.
So too with stuff like nikkyo, sankyo, yonkyo - doing them (viz., having them applied) quite 'strong' will open up and stretch your joints etc., and allow blood, antibodies, ki, what have you, to circulate.
Hence, if you eschew practicing this way, then you will never be as pliable, filled with ki/energy, receptive to ki/energy, etc., as you can be.
In terms of the practice of aikido as a martial art, and using it to hurt people, my own understanding is that o'sensei's conception of budo was that it is a means of preventing greater harm: it is not a means of killing others, but of protecting others; that is, you might have to restrain, or even kill somebody, for instance - but you do it for the good of society - to protect the innocent, etc.
It's all well and good not wanting to hurt people, as these 'ki aikido' people seemed to really believe in, but perhaps sometimes it is necessary, and justified.
What's your opinion on this?