Thread: Ueshiba's Aiki
View Single Post
Old 11-11-2011, 11:28 PM   #194
Ken McGrew
Dojo: Aikido at UAB
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
United_States
Offline
Re: Ueshiba's Aiki

Please give me a break on typos. It's late here. Small keyboard. Migraine.

This is not an answer regarding the religious teachings of O'Sensei and their relationship he argues they had to his Aikido. If these translations are fine:
http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/0...tanley-pranin/
Then you are conceding the spiritual basis of O'Sense's Aikido. He argued it was the source of his Aikido. The secret of Aikido in fact. See the interviews I posted earlier. See what Pranin's Sensei translated above. See What Saotome Sensei wrote based on his teachings. You haven't made the case. You are engaging in circular reasoning.

Dan has made posts against the Ukemi in Aikido. Others have made similar statements in this discussion thread inspired by their time with Dan. So which is it that you folks believe? People including Dan have argued that Aikido is just Takeda in O'Sensei, even in this discussion thread. O'Sensei said his Aikido was not technically derived. What do you mean by the technical engine? I'm not engaging inthe debate you are trying to engage me in. I'm not debating whether O'Sensei developed an art based on a different "engine.". I'm arguing that O'Sensei argued, and his direct students like Saotome Sensei argued, that his art was fundamentally different in its practice and source of power. You can argue that he was wrong. Just don't put words in his mouth. He did not agree with your position. He argued that it was Ai Ki Do. Not Aiki do. You have not made the case for your positions. You've simply repeated your claims. That's not evidence.

On to whether there are meaningful differences between the arts, aside from what O'Sensei believed, I have already responded to the claim that O'Senseis Aikido was only about breaking internal balance and body conditioning with no relationship with Uke needed (Paraphrasing Dan here). As I stated, no touch so called god techniques are different, the intent is different (to escape and resolve the conflict without revenge and with minimum injury), and the emphasis on the attackers energy as the engine is different (I know there's some of this in Diato-ryu but not like in Aikido). I don't train Diato-ryu but don't make the mistake of thinking I haven't trained with people who have. Aikido is different.

As most of your claims seem to be based on alleged translation errors, and you won't discuss them with non-Japanese readers, then no one can ever question your claims unless they can read Japanese. That's a pretty dishonest way to debate.

Quote:
Christopher Li wrote: View Post
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.

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.

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.

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