An Aikidoka on the Way of Disgrace

Carsten M�llering wrote: What do you define or understand "kata"? How can aikido be learned without using kata?

Saotome is more flexible about what goes on in the interaction (that has both benefits and drawbacks), but there are definitely kata. Or there were, maybe things have changed since the 80's.

Best,

Chris

Tohei's eight basics can definitely be considered a kata. There is an ideal form for both nage and uke to strive towards, but as in all kata, an infinite variety of issues for each person to address or work on as the training deepens.

Janet Rosen wrote: Tohei's eight basics ...

Could please help me and explain to me: What are those eight basics?

(I am sorry but there is no aikido following Tohei sensei round here and google doesn't help.)

Carsten Möllering wrote: Could please help me and explain to me: What are those eight basics? (I am sorry but there is no aikido following Tohei sensei round here and google doesn't help.)

No need to apologize!
Katatori ikkyo
Katatori nikkyo
Yokomenuchi shihonage
Shomenuchi kokyunage (what Aikikai calls long or ura version of iriminage)
Tsuki kotegaishe
Ushiro kubishime sankyo
Ushiro kokyunage (forward throw from bear hug) then we generally tack on
Kokyu dosa

Carsten Möllering wrote: What do you define or understand "kata"? How can aikido be learned without using kata?

I suppose in this instance I am referring to a more strictly formal series of movements and sensations.

I would not call ikkyo or shihonage kata - they are waza. In my experience Aikido trains waza in a more fluid and dynamic context than Daito ryu during regular training.

And at the end of the day Daito ryu actually calls them kata too.

Isn't this the aim of every "good" technique? (That it is tori who decides what happens. Not uke.)

Exactly - which is why I don't find it to be much of a revelation from Gaurin Sensei that studying Daito ryu can help you understand Ueshiba's Aikido, because in Daito ryu techniques are done so that "no ukemi can be taken."

A careful textual analysis of this interview prevents false meanings being read into Gaurin Sensei's words and also helps to clarify what he means. In this discussion of the interview certain inferences are being drawn that don't seem to be supported by his words, other reasonable interpretations are ignored, and terms are not defined. For example, the word Aiki is used in the interview and it is used in this discussion of the interview, but there are clearly different notions of Aiki at play. Also, if anyone thinks that Saotome Sensei and Ikeda Sensei are only connecting somewhat, that is that they don't completely suck but apparently are taken to be somewhat deficient nonetheless, then the definition of connecting is also problematic, because they have no difficulty connecting. Saotome Sensei is able to connect and blend on a very advanced level.

Some things that are important to recognize from the interview:

Gaurin Sensei does not support the idea that Doshu watered down Aikido or took Daito Ru out. He says that O Sensei did this.

He does not claim that Doshu was lacking in his abilities as many have stated in previous discussions. He praises Doshu for his ability.

He argues that Aikido is really just the most advanced level of Daito Ru, what he calls Nagare, "the dynamic utilization of the aggressor's intentions" (consistent with how I have defined Aiki previously).

He states that Yamaguchi Sensei was demonstrating Nagare as well.

Though Nagare is the highest level and thus the ideal to strive for, Gaurin Sensei seems to be saying that some Aikido practice does not provide students with a fall back plan when Nagere fails for whatever reason. For him this fall back is the techniques and application of Daito Ru because it works when Uke's momentum stops. [I find this a perfectly reasonable argument. Take Muso Aiki and Oyo Henka are better backup plans. Strikes, sweeps, breaking balance internally, and other responses are also possible]. He is not saying that Nagare should be abandoned as an ideal or that it can't work. It's the highest level.

He believes that the one real innovation in Aikido was the mercy of allowing Uke to take Ukemi. This and his arguments about Aiki working on someone who is not moving are where I think he is confusing things, though this may be largely at the level of language. The Aiki of Aikido is always about blending. Blending does not always mean tenkan. There can be blending in Irimi. If someone has really stopped they have stopped attacking and Nage can disengage. If Uke is holding on but doing nothing more then Uke is very vulnerable and foolish and at any rate is not hurting Nage. In every other situation Uke is attempting to do something to Nage. Nage can use that energy. That is Aikido. The mercy in Aikido that Gaurin Sensei points too is more than kindness. It is part and parcel of what set's Aikido apart from Daito Ru. Aikido is non-impossitional. It is not non-violent in the sense that an attacker may be injured. I have no doubt that Nagare is found in high level Daito Ru, but it is confined by the destructive aims of the art. O Sensei set Nagare free and found the power in this harmony.

Nagare may be the highest level for that school, but not for others, i.e. Iwama, where nagare is intermediate level.

Ken McGrew wrote: Gaurin Sensei does not support the idea that Doshu watered down Aikido or took Daito Ru out. He says that O Sensei did this.

I have no issue with the idea that Morihei took an active part in the blurring of the historic record - I don't think that I recall anyone here doing so either.

He does, however, quite clearly implicate Kisshomaru as well:

Later, when O Sensei died, an issue concerning the stabilisation and transmission of Aikido as an autonomous art came up. One way to ensure this was to cut the historical ties with Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu.

And:

Nagare, "the dynamic utilisation of the aggressor's intentions" is the typical form of Aikido that developed after the death of the founder; this is the particularity of what we call modern Aikido.

Ken McGrew wrote: He does not claim that Doshu was lacking in his abilities as many have stated in previous discussions. He praises Doshu for his ability.

Personally, I always thought that people often underestimated Kisshomaru's abilities - probably in contrast to his father. I felt him quite a few times, and he felt plenty good to me at the time.

And BTW, it's still not "Taku Muso Aiki".

Best,

Chris

For the record, I am in no way agreeing or conceding that O Sensei or Doshu blurred or distorted the historical record. A photo was altered for reasons that we can only speculate about.

I am not endorsing the views of this Sensei in the interview. I am merely clarifying what he said.

The quotes below about the changes only happening after O Sensei died should be read in conjunction with other statements in the interview, including the direct rejection of the idea that Doshu was responsible for any split and the acknowledgement that O Sensei and Takeda had a falling out. This falling out happened before O Sensei or Takeda Sensei died.

I could easily point to various posts by certain people in which they did accuse Doshu of taking the art in a direction that the founder did not approve of or otherwise was unaware of. Thus Ledyard Sensei's long post rejecting the statements that I am referring to. In the meantime I believe that reading the interview in it's entirety demonstrates that Gauren Sensei recognizes that Aikido changed before O Sensei died. He claims that O Sensei continued to have more Daito Ru in him than those who followed but does not deny that O Sensei changed the art.

Christopher Li wrote: I have no issue with the idea that Morihei took an active part in the blurring of the historic record - I don't think that I recall anyone here doing so either. He does, however, quite clearly implicate Kisshomaru as well: Later, when O Sensei died, an issue concerning the stabilisation and transmission of Aikido as an autonomous art came up. One way to ensure this was to cut the historical ties with Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu. And: Nagare, "the dynamic utilisation of the aggressor's intentions" is the typical form of Aikido that developed after the death of the founder; this is the particularity of what we call modern Aikido. Personally, I always thought that people often underestimated Kisshomaru's abilities - probably in contrast to his father. I felt him quite a few times, and he felt plenty good to me at the time. And BTW, it's still not "Taku Muso Aiki". Best, Chris

Ken McGrew wrote: The quotes below about the changes only happening after O Sensei died should be read in conjunction with other statements in the interview, including the direct rejection of the idea that Doshu was responsible for any split and the acknowledgement that O Sensei and Takeda had a falling out. This falling out happened before O Sensei or Takeda Sensei died.

Well, of course they did, nobody, not anybody, has ever said differently. Nobody here, there, or anywhere is saying that Kisshomaru was responsible for the disagreement between Takeda and Morihei.

Ken McGrew wrote: I could easily point to various posts by certain people in which they did accuse Doshu of taking the art in a direction that the founder did not approve of or otherwise was unaware of. Thus Ledyard Sensei's long post rejecting the statements that I am referring to. In the meantime I believe that reading the interview in it's entirety demonstrates that Gauren Sensei recognizes that Aikido changed before O Sensei died. He claims that O Sensei continued to have more Daito Ru in him than those who followed but does not deny that O Sensei changed the art.

You mean that he didn't say Nagare, "the dynamic utilisation of the aggressor's intentions" is the typical form of Aikido that developed after the death of the founder; this is the particularity of what we call modern Aikido.? Maybe you're reading between too many lines for me.

Best,

Chris

Carsten Möllering wrote: @ all: It's just a side issue: In our aikido we distinguish between moving with or from the hara and moving with or from the (lower) tanden. Is this common or don't you make this dinstinction in your exercises or waza?

Hi Carsten,

how do you make the distinction between the two in your practice? Is it possible to convey in text or is it one of those IHTBF things?

For me, all exercises/waza are just interesting vehicles for practicing the same thing - that everything is initiated in the mind/centre, the body is the physical manifestation of that initiated internal movement. Of course, every part of the body must be connected to the centre. Which for the majority of those practicing aikido, it usually isn't. But that is what we should all be working towards.

regards,

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: how do you make the distinction between the two in your practice?

I will try to outline how I learned it:
We se hara as bigger region ~ between pelvis and diaphragm: The belly. The tanden is a certain part of it which is located inside the hara.

The hara is more or less directly connected to the hips, the pelvis and chest. So they move "together": Hara, koshi, hips, pelvsis is one unit so to speak. You can move the hara by moving the hips, koshi, pelvis and maybe the legs. The tanden is freely moving inside the hara. So it can rotate. And it's movement is independent from pelvis, hips, koshi.
Little bit Like a coconat swimming in a fishbowl …

In our practice the outer movements of the body relate to the hara: Direction of the hips, stance, legs, moving forward, … The hara relates to the movements you can see.
The "inner movements" like guiding the kimochi, sending "strength" or "impulse" through the body without outer movement relate to the tanden.

Did this help (even if you don't agree with this distinction)?
I think most people are speaking of hara and tanden as synonym. That's why I asked for it.

Carsten Möllering wrote: I will try to outline how I learned it: We se hara as bigger region ~ between pelvis and diaphragm: The belly. The tanden is a certain part of it which is located inside the hara. The hara is more or less directly connected to the hips, the pelvis and chest. So they move "together": Hara, koshi, hips, pelvsis is one unit so to speak. You can move the hara by moving the hips, koshi, pelvis and maybe the legs. The tanden is freely moving inside the hara. So it can rotate. And it's movement is independent from pelvis, hips, koshi. Little bit Like a coconat swimming in a fishbowl … In our practice the outer movements of the body relate to the hara: Direction of the hips, stance, legs, moving forward, … The hara relates to the movements you can see. The "inner movements" like guiding the kimochi, sending "strength" or "impulse" through the body without outer movement relate to the tanden. Did this help (even if you don't agree with this distinction)? I think most people are speaking of hara and tanden as synonym. That's why I asked for it.

Hi Carsten,

thank you for your explanation, I understand the distinctions you make, even though they are a bit different from my own understanding/practice.

So much of our differences must be influenced by the terms our teachers use, when we first discover aikido, and their ability to get the concepts across and to their own ability to demonstrate exactly what they are talking about.

As my teacher studied with Tohei (amongst others), we have used the term 'one point' as reference to the centre. I'm not sure that this is the most helpful term for what it describes. For many years for me, it was a vauge area in the centre of the body a bit below the navel. This is what I learned, but my experience of it now is a bit more sophisticated. I used to think that with a connected body, the feet/legs/hips move the centre, which in turn, moves the hands (no shoulder/arm strength of course). For me now, the intent moves the centre, which in turn, moves the hands and feet to the place they need to be, as they can't be anywhere else.

I like your analogy of the coconut, as I agree that the tanden (dantien?) can rotate independently of the body. For me this is where the mental/energetic side of the practice really starts to get interesting. If I place my hands on the (mental) external surface of the dantien (I choose to experience my dantien as large enough to be outside of my hips/pelvis etc -), I can rest them there, without effort, if I choose to mentally expand, or contract my dantien, then my hands will naturally take up a new place in space, without any physical effort. If I mentally rotate my dantien, then my hands follow the circumference of the circle. Much fun can be had with this.

I find that the less I am interested in what my uke is trying to do to my body, and the more I am focussed on being completely whole and in myself and my own centre, the more effect I have on the uke, for less effort.

So I see the distinctions you are using and maybe we would both agree the subjective feeling in paired practice, just some differences in terminology.

I am finding all of my interest in aikido now, is related to the mind/intent and to the centre (whatever name we give it) and how we move it, how it moves, how it affects others, how we move their mind and centre. The body allows us to access this amazing playground, but only when we learn to use it in the right way - relaxation, posture, breathing, no shoulders etc. Although the various waza we do are taught as a body of techniques and exercises, they are nothing without the being driven by the centre. I think you'll agree?

regards,

Mark
p.s. sorry about the thread drift guys

Come on guys. Just because the two of you don't make a constructive discussion right now you shouldn't ruin the thread to irritate the rest of us. Just cut it out, will you?

Hanna Björk wrote: (snip) Come on guys. Just because the two of you don't make a constructive discussion right now you shouldn't ruin the thread to irritate the rest of us. Just cut it out, will you?

Thank you Hanna.