Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Spiritual

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-26-2011, 03:29 PM   #126
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
I think the two are somewhat unavoidable...and even inseperable to a degree. Even the least thoughtful/philosophical person I know has "a" philosophy. They just don't think about it much or know how to articulate it in fancy language like people like me tend to like. They still have a "world view" though, and they exercise it all the time.
So to my mind it's not a matter of this or that, but both...and I think it's best to take each one as it comes. On the mat people probably shouldn't generally analyze Locke or St. Thomas Aquinas, but we can chat about this or that while folding hakama, or over beers afterward. Here, online, we can't practice what to do against a punch, but we can consider training methodology and certainly can cover a lot of philosophical ground.
I agree. I would say it's the sensible thing to do and would go further by saying the philosophy is senior in importance to the action or thing. Those who follow only image are thus not too sensible.

Just think of politics, do you follow the image? In fact think of anything. If your not doing both then you cannot learn but can only copy.

Thus I say they are interdependent.

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 03:57 PM   #127
Abasan
Dojo: Aiki Shoshinkan, Aiki Kenkyukai
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 813
Malaysia
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

For anyone to take someones propensity towards harmony, I think you have to be first a tiger who chooses not to kill. Rather than a toothless chicken spouting words of non violence...although in hindsight fighting cocks are kinda deadly too.

Behind Osensei's endeavor to achieve world harmony was a person quite able to put on a lot of hurt. This will now lead to a lot of aikido badass masters patting themselves on the back on how deadly they are with their arsenal of irimi and tenkan.

Draw strength from stillness. Learn to act without acting. And never underestimate a samurai cat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 06:20 PM   #128
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Do chikens have teeth? Do they spout harmony? Do you have to be a lion to do harmoniously?

Thinking you have to be like a lion in order to have choice has a certain logic until you find it really has nothing to do with harmony.

G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 06:52 PM   #129
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
Would you elaborate, Mark?
Hi Matthew,
Sorry, been busy. Yes, I will but can't right now. Give me a day or so.

Thanks,
Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 07:38 PM   #130
jonreading
 
jonreading's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido South (formerly Emory Aikikai)
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 893
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Niall Matthews wrote: View Post
Thanks Jon. I wasn't talking about the means or the result. I was talking about the philosophy. My original comment about killing techniques being the antithesis of aikido was about learning atemi designed to kill - not that could kill. I think that is a fundamental difference. In aikido you learn how not to kill.

But break it down to a simple level. If a ten or eleven year old child attacked you with a knife you wouldn't use a technique that could maim or kill. You take the knife away.

There is no philosophical difference if it is a 100 kg man attacking you with a knife. The only point is if your level is high enough to do it or not.
Thanks for the clarification. I figured on what you were getting at but I have heard too may opinions on this subject are are poorly constructed, mostly by taking similar comments to what you said and confusing the argument.

Quote:
Graham Christian wrote: View Post
A technique applied correctly would therefore be a complete harmonious action and therefore couldn't cause harm. So one that does doesn't exist.
In 1941, O'Sensei performed a demonstration before members of the royal family (the Emperor I believe was absent) during which he seriously injured his uke, Tsutomu Yukawa. I believe O'Sensei broke Mr. Yukawa's arm. Under Graham's contention, since O'Sensei's technique injured his partner O'Sensei was not correctly performing technique because it resulted in injury to uke.

I think my comments may also need clarification. Means and ends are terms used in the philosophical argumentation, "means to an end." The terms "means" and "ends" in this argument are not themselves empirical categories.

What I was getting at was that [study of] aikido is not about the end, that is, the culmination of a technique or throw. I believe aikido is about the interaction. At a recent seminar I heard an instructor whom I respect say, "aikido is not about doing something to your opponent, it is about doing something to protect yourself." Acting to preserve life... I've heard that somewhere...

IF the end is to preserve life, THEN taking life can be an acceptable means. IF the means is to preserve life, THEN it is unacceptable to take life [in the end]. These are not congruent statements. I believe the the philosophy of aikido guides us to preserve life, the art of aikido allows us the means to defend that preservation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 07:55 PM   #131
Abasan
Dojo: Aiki Shoshinkan, Aiki Kenkyukai
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 813
Malaysia
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Graham,

I think you're getting to the point of being a paranoid victim that everyone in the school yard is bullying and anything anyone says sets off an automatic retort. My last post wasn't directed to you and not meant to be taken literally. But of course there will be some who do.

As far as harmony goes, don't take it to far. I believe that Aikido is misunderstood. To me its a 'natural' way, not some man prescribed definition of harmony. Thus a tiger has teeth and kills to eat, and chickens don't...but they still kill to eat too.

Non one is going to say, hey you aikido, peace man, you shouldn't eat animals or kill dangerous things. It is natural that someone kills it's prey and it's enemies. However as humans we have more avenues thus our natural path has evolved with time. In lawless times, perhaps it was natural for you to achieve justice with your own hands. Now that we live in a society and is bound by their laws, it is natural that we serve those laws.

A warrior, is one who protects. That is the philosophy of budo. An aikido is one who harmonizes with the universe and other stuff. I bet you know the stages of harmonisation, since we've talked about it before. Anyway, that's the aikido philosophy.

I don't know what's the big racket is all about. But every path should have it's own philosophy. Karate, judo etc... Nothing special about aikido that it can be called a philosophical martial art. Different philosophy yes because on the outset it establishes that it disdains violence against the natural way. From the way the technique is applied, to how you deal with attackers, to how you establish your intent and how you project your spirit.

Context wise though, everyone comes to art with differing objectives and perspective. Some of the people here are closely involved in the military and enforcement. So their context is different. Their natural laws are different. It would have been better for you to understand that instead of calling your path the one true way. Osensei's may have said that no one seems to have followed him. Perhaps that is true, but everybody is different. Some are trying their best to follow him, but only to the level of their understanding.

It's great that everyone here tries to share their views so that as a collective you gain more understanding. But some quarters are trying to establish their own rule book instead of actually comparing notes. Deviate and lose membership. That's the nature of men. If it deviates from aikido's original intention, then it just establishes that not everyone's heart is meant for aikido.

Draw strength from stillness. Learn to act without acting. And never underestimate a samurai cat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 04:29 AM   #132
ryback
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 198
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post

He was a man of budo. He stated his art was formless. Ueshiba stated one must become the Universe, be an avatar of the kami, etc and not that one must use techniques to reach some peaceful philosophy. Pre-war students practiced joint locks as a body developing method and not as techniques. Only after Kisshomaru came along did joint locks become techniques. Only after Kisshomaru came along did aikido change to become a complete vision of spiritual peace and harmony by practicing techniques.

And how do you reconcile the fact that Ueshiba could stand or sit and have people push on him and he didn't have to move to neutralize the "attack"? He didn't have to "get out of the way" to make his aikido work.

Ueshiba said that whatever religion you chose, aiki would make it better. Not that you could develop spiritually through practicing aikido. There is a big difference there. Kisshomaru's Modern Aikido changed and added that one could develop spiritually through practicing aikido.

And what of Morihei Ueshiba, who chopped his teacher's art to pieces to reduce the number of techniques taught? Is he then not practicing aikido? Remember, Takeda called his art aikijujutsu, the precursor to aikido and Ueshiba only agreed to the name aikido -- he never named it himself.

If we look at Daito ryu as a martial system that taught people the ability to capture center on contact, bring them in, down, and then deliver a blow to hurt/maim/kill, then we can look to Ueshiba adding one more option ... instead of in and down to the feet for harming the attacker, Ueshiba allowed for the possibility to take the attack and allow it to be redirected away.

But, Ueshiba never removed atemi from his aikido. The question is whether or not he thought of the atemi as a "killing blow" or just one that maimed/injured.
I totally agree that he was a man of Budo, i never said the opposite, but of course it's obvious in his films that o'sensei was practicing every technique that we practice today, including joint manipulations such as kote gaeshi without them being body development methods. They are clearly martial techniques i've seen that in his videos, my eyes cannot be historically inaccurate.

Exercises such as the ones in which o'sensei was sitting or standing neutralizing his students' push without moving out of the way are tests of kokyu control and grounding the ki of the attacker and not techniques of direct resistance. They are not meant to be martial, just exercises for ki development, we also practice them.

The word "spirituality" in the east has not the same meaning as it has in the west. I think is clear in my post that when i say "spirituality" i don't connect it with religion as people do in the west, i'm talking about ki awarness and development, and the non-resisting, peaceful way of aikido. For religion i couldn't care less...

I don't think that o'sensei's creation of aikido has anything to do with "chopping" daito-ryu, he just made a modern way of practicing for the days of the classic samurai were over, yet their values remained...

I completely agree that o'sensei added one more option of redirecting the attack without harming the attacker but of course he never ignored the other options. That's why he never removed the atemi, which whether or not should be a "killing blow" depends on the situation, i believe.

Although we had our...disagreements, i see that generelly you have done your research and i really like that.I wish you the best!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 04:49 AM   #133
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Ahmad Abas wrote: View Post
Graham,

I think you're getting to the point of being a paranoid victim that everyone in the school yard is bullying and anything anyone says sets off an automatic retort. My last post wasn't directed to you and not meant to be taken literally. But of course there will be some who do.

As far as harmony goes, don't take it to far. I believe that Aikido is misunderstood. To me its a 'natural' way, not some man prescribed definition of harmony. Thus a tiger has teeth and kills to eat, and chickens don't...but they still kill to eat too.

Non one is going to say, hey you aikido, peace man, you shouldn't eat animals or kill dangerous things. It is natural that someone kills it's prey and it's enemies. However as humans we have more avenues thus our natural path has evolved with time. In lawless times, perhaps it was natural for you to achieve justice with your own hands. Now that we live in a society and is bound by their laws, it is natural that we serve those laws.

A warrior, is one who protects. That is the philosophy of budo. An aikido is one who harmonizes with the universe and other stuff. I bet you know the stages of harmonisation, since we've talked about it before. Anyway, that's the aikido philosophy.

I don't know what's the big racket is all about. But every path should have it's own philosophy. Karate, judo etc... Nothing special about aikido that it can be called a philosophical martial art. Different philosophy yes because on the outset it establishes that it disdains violence against the natural way. From the way the technique is applied, to how you deal with attackers, to how you establish your intent and how you project your spirit.

Context wise though, everyone comes to art with differing objectives and perspective. Some of the people here are closely involved in the military and enforcement. So their context is different. Their natural laws are different. It would have been better for you to understand that instead of calling your path the one true way. Osensei's may have said that no one seems to have followed him. Perhaps that is true, but everybody is different. Some are trying their best to follow him, but only to the level of their understanding.

It's great that everyone here tries to share their views so that as a collective you gain more understanding. But some quarters are trying to establish their own rule book instead of actually comparing notes. Deviate and lose membership. That's the nature of men. If it deviates from aikido's original intention, then it just establishes that not everyone's heart is meant for aikido.
Ahmad.
Come on now, paranoid victim in a school yard? A certain same group of people. I play with them. I bear no grudges.

You must admit your comment about toothless chickens spouting harmony was funny and actually not of your usual style.

It did cross my mind if you were having a dig at me, yes, as it was written after my post, but more important to me it seemed a bit different to how you usually contribute. I actually laughed and thought you must be a bit tired or have had a hard day. So I thought I'd find out.

Your response is back on track, smooth and clear as usual.

Actually I get more embarrassed if someone comes on trying to 'defend' me as I don't want to set others against others but I don't mind people having a go at me personally.

Now, in the spirit of your prior post where you mention that due to what you said you could see some patting themselves on their back I'll finish in the same way.

Now I know how Ueshiba felt when trying to teach his Aikido.

( I can see now others rearing up and sharpening their pencils) Ha, ha.

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 05:15 AM   #134
ryback
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 198
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Jon Reading wrote: View Post
In 1941, O'Sensei performed a demonstration before members of the royal family (the Emperor I believe was absent) during which he seriously injured his uke, Tsutomu Yukawa. I believe O'Sensei broke Mr. Yukawa's arm. Under Graham's contention, since O'Sensei's technique injured his partner O'Sensei was not correctly performing technique because it resulted in injury to uke.
Hi Jon! I believe that in this case o'sensei had actually a "bad moment" in the sense that he trully made a mistake. It's wrong to injure your uke during practice or demonstration, but in a real confrontation one might have to do it. Aikido is based on oneness, it is based on peace and harmony but it's still a martial art.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 08:21 AM   #135
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Hi Jon.
Thanks for the clarification. The teacher who said about preserving life I found interesting as I haven't heard it put in that way. I like what he says from a solo or self point of view.

As always these things can be taken to mean different things by different students depending on their level.

The means to an end concept is used broadly by most I would say but just personally it's never been enough for me for I need to know the desired end also and actually teach it's more important. But that's me.

As far as O'Sensei damaging a student goes well I don't disagree that it happened and probably happened more than once. That doesn't detract from my earlier opinion though. Yes it does mean he at that time with that one person had a lapse.

Now some I have seen hold this incident up like a trophy to prove something but such is not worthy of consideration by me. It doesn't even lead me to say 'well it shows he wasn't perfect' for that to me is also a saying of little worth. All it shows me is how difficult it is to do perfectly harmless techniques continuously and in dangerous or even life threatening situations.

Personally I'd rather suffer trying than justify harming the other for whatever reason. But that's my view and my way which I equate with his and thus Aikido to me.

Bottom line, if you are improving and happy doing a certain way then there is no need for change so if my views are different doesn't mean I am saying another is wrong or should change. (unless they arrive on my doorstep and want to learn ha, ha.)

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 12:40 PM   #136
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 833
Germany
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Yannis Mousoulis wrote: View Post
I believe that in this case o'sensei had actually a "bad moment" in the sense that he trully made a mistake. It's wrong to injure your uke during practice or demonstration, ....
Well, as far as I know there where more cases than this one. I heard of some more incidents then this only one?

I was even told, that one of his uke died because of injuries he suffered during a demonstration with a living blade.
I can't verify that and don't really know whether it really happened. But I trust the person who told it to me.

But: If it ist true, does it change anything?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 02:59 PM   #137
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
Would you elaborate, Mark? This strikes me as a bit odd. So Anita basically says, "why must people suggest we can only be either philosophical or martially effective?" You seem to reply that O Sensei suggested it's either you're philosophical or you're martially effective; or that he completely seperated his philosophy/spirituality and budo practice.

Except that it was O Sensei who also
...as part of his budo class.
Couldn't it be that he simply had different notions of what constituted harmony, than what most people today think?
How do you reconcile the times he spoke of the homonym "love" as being relevant to Aikido practice? You seem to be saying on one hand that no one was interested in his spiritual philosophy so O Sensei didn't connect his budo with his philosophy. Then on the other hand you seem to say Nidai Doshu tweaked the philosophy, so O Sensei didn't include philosophy in his budo. So I'm left still wondering why it's unreasonable to consider the practice of Aikido as being both.
I also wonder why anyone who doesn't practice the exact philosophy of O Sensei can't be described as doing both authentically. And while I know O Sensei was a close member of Omotokyo, that still doesn't tell me what his exact views were. I've known many spiritual people who adhered closely to some philosophy/sect or another, but who also had and allowed for differences of opinion here and there. Did O Sensei not look to learning from other spiritual practices? Wouldn't that be one example of how we might hit a pit-fall if we assume Omotokyo represents the entirety of his personal spiritual views?
Concordance with nature seems to be a part of O Sensei's philosphy, at the very least. As it relates to what I've learned of Jinja Shinto, Harmony and Peace are important works and not to be confused with "hippie-talk" (for lack of a better description). We harmonize with nature to attain peace...which includes a state of being consisting of restless and infinite movements...rather like a hurricane that can generate its own "eye."
...which I just included because it's not what most "hippies" (lack of a better description) consider harmony-induced, or peaceful, but I do.
Morihei Ueshiba.

A: Studied Daito ryu under Sokaku Takeda and learned the secret of aiki. Aiki which is a training methodology to change the body. It is not a technique. This is the primary and very important fact. Aiki is not a technique. Nor is aiki the motion of using timing and blending to complete a technique. Aiki changes the body such that it operates completely differently than normal. Techniques are all the same, are not the focus, and are not meant to be a primary goal.

B: Studied Oomoto kyo under Deguchi. Spent years fine tuning his spiritual ideology.

Then Morihei Ueshiba took "A" and infused it with "B". He spoke in terms of common internal martial principles of "A" by using "B". He took A and B and combined them such that he built "C" which allowed him to offer other options in a martial world supported by a spiritual ideology.

Okay, so along comes Kisshomaru and Tohei. Tohei learns from the Tempukai to build some internal skills. Tohei attempts to learn from Ueshiba but doesn't get all of aiki (then again, no one did). Kisshomaru is affected by WW II and the burden of his father. No one understands him, no one can do what he does martially. It's war time and no one is really around. Then it's after the war and no one is around, Tokyo is devastated, Ueshiba is in Iwama, and there's people living in the dojo. Kisshomaru does the best that he can and changes things with Tohei's help. They are the two main teachers who created Modern Aikido.

A-1: The full body changing skills of aiki are not to be found. Students are now focused on techniques. Techniques are practiced over and over again. A syllabus is created so that techniques can be trained and rank can be given. Ranks are inflated so that teachers can be sent out into the world.

C: By training techniques with peace, love, and harmony, one can achieve a spiritual philosophy. Aikido techniques and training are the basis for creating a change within someone for peace, love, and harmony.

Now, instead of a dualistic nature of Ueshiba's "A" and "B" creating the end result of love and harmony of "C", we have Kisshomaru's changes where Aikido training replaces Ueshiba's "C". The entirety of a separate spiritual/religious/philosophical knowledge base (Ueshiba's "B") has completely been replaced by the end product of "C".

Instead of A+B=C, you have A-1+C=C and that isn't even getting into the fact that Ueshiba's "A" is not the same as Kisshomaru's "A-1". Look at all the definitions of aikido in modern times. They all state that aikido training will allow one to be a better person, allow one to be in harmony, etc, etc. It all is defined by aikido practice. Morihei Ueshiba defined it by his very involved study *outside aikido and Daito ryu* of Oomoto kyo. His point of reference was external. Modern Aikido's point of reference is itself.

Ueshiba used the very martial aiki as the basis for his homonym usage. He had years of study to gain a spiritual ideology for aiki as love. He combined them. Modern Aikido does not do this. Modern Aikido promotes itself as the end result. By training aikido, one learns how to be peaceful, harmonize, and love your attacker. Modern Aikido is its own spiritual ideology through training techniques. Modern Aikido is very different than Morihei Ueshiba's aikido.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 06:54 PM   #138
jonreading
 
jonreading's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido South (formerly Emory Aikikai)
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 893
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Thanks Graham, I thought you might like that explanation. It was a new one for me too.

I pointed out the incident during the demonstration mostly to illustrate that our philosophies should hold to logic and fact. Stronger philosophies are generally more flexible and withstand scrutiny better than weaker philosophies. I do not assert one is better than the other, only that we need to understand the limits of our philosophies.
According to Shioda Sensei, the incident during the demonstration was uke's fault for improperly attacking O'Sensei. I am sure Mr. Yukawa's accident was one of more during O'Sensei's lifetime. However, my concern is that such a philosophy that can be accidentally broken cannot withstand scrutiny.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 07:32 PM   #139
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Point taken Jon.
What I have learned is not to worry about what others think but rather to follow whichever path sincerely and observe the results for yourself and those concerned.

There will always be criticism and there will always be mistakes but thats no reason to doubt or give up or even be concerned.

In fact the only criticism worthwhile is from someone who can do the same, the rest can only be based on assumption really and thus usually well off the mark.(of course there are a few exceptions but only from sincere people but then those would be helpful rather than judgemental)

I have also applied this here on this forum although sometimes I get sucked in and lose center so to speak. But seriously, if someone cannot do what I describe then I play with their criticism or ignore it. The same goes for videos, I accept criticism from those who post some themselves for only they would have the same reality and thus ask or share from that view. (once again with some exceptions)

I suppose I'm saying the fear of being wrong or looking stupid or opening yourself up to criticism merely serves to keep you down or stop you progressing in my view.

Let whoever criticise or tear apart your way or philosophy for in my philosophy that all makes sense.

As budo is love then you have the answer to why some take pleasure in criticising and complaining etc. It's very simple really it's because they love it! Ha, ha.

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 05:09 AM   #140
Anita Dacanay
Dojo: Cleveland Aikikai, Cleveland, Ohio
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 80
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Morihei Ueshiba.

A: Studied Daito ryu under Sokaku Takeda and learned the secret of aiki. Aiki which is a training methodology to change the body. It is not a technique. This is the primary and very important fact. Aiki is not a technique. Nor is aiki the motion of using timing and blending to complete a technique. Aiki changes the body such that it operates completely differently than normal. Techniques are all the same, are not the focus, and are not meant to be a primary goal.

B: Studied Oomoto kyo under Deguchi. Spent years fine tuning his spiritual ideology.

Then Morihei Ueshiba took "A" and infused it with "B". He spoke in terms of common internal martial principles of "A" by using "B". He took A and B and combined them such that he built "C" which allowed him to offer other options in a martial world supported by a spiritual ideology.

Okay, so along comes Kisshomaru and Tohei. Tohei learns from the Tempukai to build some internal skills. Tohei attempts to learn from Ueshiba but doesn't get all of aiki (then again, no one did). Kisshomaru is affected by WW II and the burden of his father. No one understands him, no one can do what he does martially. It's war time and no one is really around. Then it's after the war and no one is around, Tokyo is devastated, Ueshiba is in Iwama, and there's people living in the dojo. Kisshomaru does the best that he can and changes things with Tohei's help. They are the two main teachers who created Modern Aikido.

A-1: The full body changing skills of aiki are not to be found. Students are now focused on techniques. Techniques are practiced over and over again. A syllabus is created so that techniques can be trained and rank can be given. Ranks are inflated so that teachers can be sent out into the world.

C: By training techniques with peace, love, and harmony, one can achieve a spiritual philosophy. Aikido techniques and training are the basis for creating a change within someone for peace, love, and harmony.

Now, instead of a dualistic nature of Ueshiba's "A" and "B" creating the end result of love and harmony of "C", we have Kisshomaru's changes where Aikido training replaces Ueshiba's "C". The entirety of a separate spiritual/religious/philosophical knowledge base (Ueshiba's "B") has completely been replaced by the end product of "C".

Instead of A+B=C, you have A-1+C=C and that isn't even getting into the fact that Ueshiba's "A" is not the same as Kisshomaru's "A-1". Look at all the definitions of aikido in modern times. They all state that aikido training will allow one to be a better person, allow one to be in harmony, etc, etc. It all is defined by aikido practice. Morihei Ueshiba defined it by his very involved study *outside aikido and Daito ryu* of Oomoto kyo. His point of reference was external. Modern Aikido's point of reference is itself.

Ueshiba used the very martial aiki as the basis for his homonym usage. He had years of study to gain a spiritual ideology for aiki as love. He combined them. Modern Aikido does not do this. Modern Aikido promotes itself as the end result. By training aikido, one learns how to be peaceful, harmonize, and love your attacker. Modern Aikido is its own spiritual ideology through training techniques. Modern Aikido is very different than Morihei Ueshiba's aikido.
I appreciate your clarifications, Mark. What you say is interesting, but I am not sure that I "get" the practical application of your conclusions for any of us who want to learn Aikido in the modern age. What you say seems to imply that unless we study Daito Ryu and Omoto Kyo, we will never be able to understand O Sensei's Aikido, so we may as well not even bother.

I am sure that Kisshomaru did his best to try and a fashion a way to teach the art his father had developed. Certainly, each of us can only do his or her best to try and understand what our teachers have to offer. Certainly later in his life, O Sensei's desire was to share Aikido with the world. He knew that he would not live forever, and that he had to pass the torch.

Personally, I have to believe that O Sensei was not completely unsuccessful in his goals. In my personal training, I think the best that I can do is to seek out and listen to the teachers whom I trust.

Also, referring back to the original post, upon reflection I think that the best answer to the question is indeed, "Yes" - as others have pointed out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 08:34 AM   #141
gates
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Jon Reading wrote: View Post
In 1941, O'Sensei performed a demonstration before members of the royal family (the Emperor I believe was absent) during which he seriously injured his uke, Tsutomu Yukawa. I believe O'Sensei broke Mr. Yukawa's arm. Under Graham's contention, since O'Sensei's technique injured his partner O'Sensei was not correctly performing technique because it resulted in injury to uke.
Just like to chime in and add the fact that according to the interview with Shioda Sensei conducted by Stan Pranin:

For the 10 days prior O'Sensei was suffering from jaundice, and in fact had been vomiting constantly and had hardly eaten at all. Yukawa compensated knowing how ill O'sensei was and attacked weakly, he was slammed into the mat and his arm was injured, this was 15 seconds into the performance,

Enjoy the journey
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 11:45 AM   #142
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Keith Gates wrote: View Post
Just like to chime in and add the fact that according to the interview with Shioda Sensei conducted by Stan Pranin:

For the 10 days prior O'Sensei was suffering from jaundice, and in fact had been vomiting constantly and had hardly eaten at all. Yukawa compensated knowing how ill O'sensei was and attacked weakly, he was slammed into the mat and his arm was injured, this was 15 seconds into the performance,
I think it comes under the category of mistakes. One mistake was by the uke also. So we have two mistakes at the same time.

On the other hand, taking into account the man himself, it was probably a lesson.

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 12:30 PM   #143
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 833
Germany
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Graham Christian wrote: View Post
I think it comes under the category of mistakes. ...
Just as I did in my post # 136 I'd like to ask whether it is to believed that this incident was the only one.
And whether it changes anything if not.

If you think it is unseemly to ask this question and don't want to discuss this, I will be quiet.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 12:34 PM   #144
Abasan
Dojo: Aiki Shoshinkan, Aiki Kenkyukai
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 813
Malaysia
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Keith Gates wrote: View Post
Just like to chime in and add the fact that according to the interview with Shioda Sensei conducted by Stan Pranin:

For the 10 days prior O'Sensei was suffering from jaundice, and in fact had been vomiting constantly and had hardly eaten at all. Yukawa compensated knowing how ill O'sensei was and attacked weakly, he was slammed into the mat and his arm was injured, this was 15 seconds into the performance,
It might be due to the nature of aiki, that an uke who doesn't commit his ki and spirit into the attack might well be get thoroughly owned by someone of high calibre. In taking his ukemi he would try to choreograph it instead of acting it fully. As opposed to someone who attacks in earnest and subsequently accepts the inevitable fall.

The harder you try to control your fall from a real aiki throw, the higher your probability of injury. Cnsequently the only way to be safe is to put your trust in your nage and fly away letting the ukemi come naturally from your body.

Another fun trivia, for Ushiro Sensei, a person he throws with ki, never gets injured apparently. Even if someone else falls on the guy. Apparently his ki projection is enough of a protection from penetrators attacks.

Draw strength from stillness. Learn to act without acting. And never underestimate a samurai cat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 03:35 PM   #145
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Carsten Möllering wrote: View Post
Just as I did in my post # 136 I'd like to ask whether it is to believed that this incident was the only one.
And whether it changes anything if not.

If you think it is unseemly to ask this question and don't want to discuss this, I will be quiet.
I don't know if it was the only one. What could it change?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 04:16 PM   #146
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

The harder you try to control your fall from a real aiki throw, the higher your probability of injury. Cnsequently the only way to be safe is to put your trust in your nage and fly away letting the ukemi come naturally from your body.[quote]

Carsten.
I agree with the quote above by Ahmad.

The most pertinent point though to do with the described incident is the date if you really want to make some kind of significance out of it.

1941. That should tell you something. O'Sensei said himself that before the war he trained and taught to kill, that to kill was the purpose of the training. Not until after the war and his changing the purpose due to his realizations did he thus differenciate Aikido as new and different.

With the prior post explaining what happened it is pointed out also that he was very sick that week. Seems he overcompensated with Ki maybe.

All conjecture and opinion of course except for the fact of time and type of thing he was practicing at the time.

Still don't know what point you're trying to make though or if this is relevent to it.

Regards.G.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2011, 10:06 PM   #147
mathewjgano
 
mathewjgano's Avatar
Dojo: Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja Aikidojo; Himeji Shodokan Dojo
Location: Renton
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,113
United_States
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Just wanted to say a quick thanks to Mark for taking the time to answer me in such detail. I have a few more questions, but not much time to frame them well, so I'll try to formulate them offline and see if I can manage enough organization to add to the discussion properly.

Quote:
Graham wrote:
I would say it's the sensible thing to do and would go further by saying the philosophy is senior in importance to the action or thing. Those who follow only image are thus not too sensible.

Just think of politics, do you follow the image? In fact think of anything. If your not doing both then you cannot learn but can only copy.

Thus I say they are interdependent.
Hi Graham, for the bulk of my short life so far I would've agreed hands down with the idea that philosophy is of higher importance than action. Now I see the two as two sides of the same mindfulness coin and am beginning to lean more in favor of action...but I've been a thinker and not much of a doer for a long time now, so I'm definately finding my bias swinging in the opposite direction from where it started. I think more to the point, I agree they are interdependant, and one without the other is asking for trouble.
Take care,
Matt

Gambarimashyo!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 12:03 AM   #148
ryback
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 198
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Carsten Möllering wrote: View Post
Well, as far as I know there where more cases than this one. I heard of some more incidents then this only one?

I was even told, that one of his uke died because of injuries he suffered during a demonstration with a living blade.
I can't verify that and don't really know whether it really happened. But I trust the person who told it to me.

But: If it ist true, does it change anything?
The specific incident that you mentioned at your previous post i'm familiar with, but to be honest i've never heard of any other, such as the one with the live blade. If it changes anything? In my mind it certainly doesn't. He was a man, men make mistakes...
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 01:29 AM   #149
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 833
Germany
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Graham Christian wrote: View Post
... pointed out also that he was very sick that week. Seems he overcompensated with Ki maybe.
...
Still don't know what point you're trying to make though or if this is relevent to it.
I just wanted to know whether the picture of a Ueshiba, being someone who did sometimes hurt his uke makes a difference to what people think of him and of what he taught.

And I simply was interested whether people know only this mentionend inicident or whether there is a knowledge of more of such. But this to me is only a question of "historical" interest. I just like to know things.

For me myself it doesn't change anything. But I was never arguing that aikido is designed to not hurt an attacker or that Ueshiba didn't hurt someone.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 02:05 AM   #150
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 833
Germany
Offline
Re: philosophical or practical martial art?

Quote:
Carsten Möllering wrote: View Post
And I simply was interested whether people know only this mentionend inicident ...
And I meant: Whether at all there exist more such incidents!?
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Budo Bear Patterns - Sewing pattern for Women's (and Men's) dogi.



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Martial Ineffectiveness dps General 148 08-20-2012 09:15 AM
Aikido: more than a martial art? OwlMatt Spiritual 63 08-05-2010 05:40 PM
Baseline skillset eyrie Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 1633 05-23-2008 01:35 PM
Highest Level Martial Arts and Aikido Mike Sigman General 240 08-12-2005 06:22 PM
Something I wrote for a few friends of mine (long) drDalek General 1 11-18-2002 08:44 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate