VoE: AWASE - The Principle of AIKI

Dan Harden wrote: Except that there can be elements of aiki in awase... and we Accept that awase can be just movement with no aiki in it at all Except when awase is born from aiki and has aiki in it. We have to accept that there are exceptions to awase having aiki in it!! If aiki were just externally moving in space and timing with an opponent, no seasoned martial artists would have crossed the street to train it. running and ducking Dan

You better watch out or people are gonna start calling you on and saying a bunch of stuff that nobody understands ... wait.

Cliff Judge wrote: If the source of his stuff is Chinese, then that would mean the source of Takeda's stuff is Chinese. But there is no proof of this, because where Takeda learned his material from is exponentially more hazy than Ueshiba. And maybe it is meant to be, but that's aside the point. Now going to Chinese internal martial arts and creating a system that you believe to be cognate to Ueshiba's personal practice is all well and good! If it helps you push on walls and stuff better, more power to you, that drywall had it coming! But you aren't practicing what Ueshiba was practicing. It is even debatable whether it is a reconstruction. Incorrectly representing what you are doing as "the true Aikido of Ueshiba" would STILL not be a huge deal as long as you didn't use that as a jusitification to argue against people who follow an actual lineage that goes to Ueshiba and have different technical ideas.

What Chris Li said in post #235

Greg Steckel wrote: What Chris Li said in post #235

Agreed!

Cliff Judge wrote: Not you.

And leaves the questions from that same post... unanswered.
Why? Because away from the internet...No one I have yet to meet in Aikido can refute what I am saying on a physical level. Which is, to my mind, a good thing. It means at least someone is being definitive!! That's always a good start.

Well, Cliff that logic misses both the forest and the trees. Since you now agree these training terms and concepts exist and he named them, discussed them, and used them to make his aikido.... The questions are 1. Why doesn't everyone? 2. Why can't they explain them? 3. Why don't they know them and where they came from and are also used? Last and most compelling is my question...still as yet unanswered (I don't think anyone really wants to answer it).... 4. Why do those who cannot explain them, do not know where they came from and do not practice them feel like everyone else, and we... who do know them, explain them and practice and use them feel like we do?

Cliff Judge wrote: Agreed!

Cliff,

Your funny!!! Thanks.

Happy Training,

ChrisW & AuntieS

Cliff Judge wrote: Greg Steckel wrote: What Chris Li said in post #235 Agreed! Agreed!

If you actually read his blogs; the points you make contradict the substance of his blogs and his post, therefore you cannot agree.
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Last and most compelling is my question...still as yet unanswered (I don't think anyone really wants to answer it).... 4. Why do those who cannot explain them, do not know where they came from and do not practice them feel like everyone else, and we... who do know them, explain them and practice and use them feel like we do?

Your question is not terribly compelling to many of those of us who have been fortunate enough to train regularly with teachers far above our own levels of experience and expertise. Saotome and Ikeda do not "feel like everyone else." Interestingly, Ikeda does not feel like Saotome. Continuing with Japanese shihan from the "Seigo Yamaguchi line", the few times I took ukemi for Endo, he did not feel like everyone else, either --- although he felt more like Ikeda then Saotome. As for the quality of these teachers' explanations of how they do what they do, I take it for granted that I will learn much more from feeling them, watching them, and attempting to emulate what I perceive, than I will from merely listening to them.

Jim

Jim Sorrentino wrote: Your question is not terribly compelling to many of those of us who have been fortunate enough to train regularly with teachers far above our own levels of experience and expertise. Saotome and Ikeda do not "feel like everyone else." Interestingly, Ikeda does not feel like Saotome. Continuing with Japanese shihan from the "Seigo Yamaguchi line", the few times I took ukemi for Endo, he did not feel like everyone else, either --- although he felt more like Ikeda then Saotome. As for the quality of these teachers' explanations of how they do what they do, I take it for granted that I will learn much more from feeling them, watching them, and attempting to emulate what I perceive, than I will from merely listening to them. Jim

I'll comment, since I've taken a fair amount of ukemi for all three of those instructors.

In my experience, all of the three, as well as virtually all of the other direct students of the Founder that I've taken ukemi for had some amount of the quality that we're talking about. Some had a little (or very little), and some had quite a bit. Most of them had some pieces here and there, but not a comprehensive expression (IMO).

All of them had, in my opinion, difficulty in either understanding what they had received through contact with the Founder, difficulty in expressing what they had received, difficulty in teaching what they had received - or some combination of the above. Enough so that, again in my opinon, the transmission of skills and the theories and methodologies behind those skills was severly hampered.

There are likely many reasons why this happened, one major one is that the teaching methodology of the Founder was somewhat opaque - but regardless, I think that the problems occurred.

Interestingly, Stan Pranin makes much the same argument for problems in transmission, but with slightly different conclusions.

In any case, now that we are three or four generations (or more) from the Founder, and can see the results of the transmission over a large sampling of people, that the problem exists is clear - at least to me.

Best,

Chris

Dan Harden wrote: And leaves the questions from that same post... unanswered. Why? Because away from the internet...No one I have yet to meet in Aikido can refute what I am saying on a physical level. Which is, to my mind, a good thing. It means at least someone is being definitive!! That's always a good start.

Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba.

Cliff Judge wrote: Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba.

One of the really really really freeing aspects of not DOING Aikido anymore, is not needing to worry about whether or not what I'm doing is Aikido. I can just train and enjoy getting better. Someone can tell me, "you're not doing Aikido!" and I can say, "Yes! You're right! Gold stars and cupcakes all around! It's pretty cool though, wanna play?"

PERSONALLY (and this is NOT from Dan, so don't claim he's saying it on or off-line) I don't think there's actually that much of OSensei in Aikido™, but agree with Stan Pranin that it's largely the legacy of Tohei and Kisshomaru. But since I no longer DO Aikido regularly, I don't need to convince anyone else of that. Aikido uses the word AIKI differently than I do, so while it may sound like we're talking about the same thing, we're not.

Cliff Judge wrote: Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba.

On the other hand, if you follow Stan's logic, just because you call it Aikido and were taught by people calling it Aikido doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Ueshiba (at least, that particular Ueshiba) either...

Physics is physics, whether I learned it from Newton or not - and if it's not physics then it isn't physics, even if I learned it directly from Newton's son.

Before anybody blows an artery - I'm not arguing that this is the case, but the logic certainly applies.

Best,

Chris

Cliff Judge wrote: Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba.

Well, why can't you do what I do? Is it because you
a. don't understand what he was talking about?
b. Can't define it in any context?
c. Can't explain it as a physical process?
d. Can't display that kind of power he did?
If not, why not?

But again, you miss the point of those questions.
The fact that we are using the same methodology he discussed, we can place it historically and contextually, and we can define it, explain it and use it...does point to us doing what he was doing.

That fact that someone can do none of the above, sort of leaves them in a tough place to having any valuable talking points in the discussion. And that is the thrust of my point. If someone can't define, or do anything we are discussing that even comes close to the founders power...where is the value of their talking points beyond just....talk?

It is the lack of ability....to do.... that caused one ICMA master class teacher to answer why he doesn't go on the internet.
"Why argue with students?"
I don't completely agree, but more and more I understand his view.

Aiki and awase
Aiki as a concept prior to awase is for building a bujutsu body. Noted by Takeda, Sagawa, Ueshiba, Kodo, Tokimune, Tohei, Shirata, And many ICMA masters as well.
The dynamic balance of forces within you creates the immovable body that is placed in a -theoretically- invincible position, which is aided *by* that immovable body in motion. This is accomplished partly through other causal effects; like lack of slack leaving no telegraphing, and neutralization of forces creating movement and cancellation of resistance in an opponent not otherwise capable of being achieved through normal motion and a normal body type... which leads to a more fully realized concept of.... awase.

I will leave the spiritual aspects to those who want to pursue them.

Mind you I am not hanging my hat on Ueshiba. On any other day I don't care as I just don't see him as quite the unique genius many others do. I see him as yet another of the greats that were produced in a long line of men using this material. The real question is why there are not tens of thousands of people who have some semblance of his power or even understand what the hell he was talking about?
Dan

Cliff Judge wrote: Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba.

What Chris and Chris said - really no need to spell anything out anymore to those that just don't want to hear it. As I said in a previous post, it appears that what we are doing is not for you and that we have a different view on what aiki is and where it came from - our Aiki...do is not your Aikido and there is no changing that for you; so be it, move on.

Greg

Jim Sorrentino wrote: Your question is not terribly compelling to many of those of us who have been fortunate enough to train regularly with teachers far above our own levels of experience and expertise. Saotome and Ikeda do not "feel like everyone else." Interestingly, Ikeda does not feel like Saotome. Continuing with Japanese shihan from the "Seigo Yamaguchi line", the few times I took ukemi for Endo, he did not feel like everyone else, either --- although he felt more like Ikeda then Saotome. As for the quality of these teachers' explanations of how they do what they do, I take it for granted that I will learn much more from feeling them, watching them, and attempting to emulate what I perceive, than I will from merely listening to them. Jim

Well no one is denying there were greats in aikido, Jim.

At some point you have to ask yourself.
1. Why aren't you as good or better than them, Jim?
2. What is the thing they do that you are doing too, but not as good?
3. What is that thing?
4. How do you train...it?
5. Do you know specific things that will change you over time, that also are in other arts?
Or is it a mystery to you, to others?
Do others know what it is and how to explain it and train it?

Was there a reason Yamaguchi DID NOT teach it at hombu?
Is there a reason Ikeda looked for it outside of Saotome?
Is there a reason Tohei looked for it outside of Ueshiba?
A reason Sagawa did not teach "it" till almost before he died?
A reason Takeda said never teach "it" to white people?

Is there an "it" that is thee "it" that others know OUTSIDE OF AIKIDO... and yet it still can be "thee it" of Aikido's "it," Jim? Or do you think Ueshiba was a one-off?

Dan

Christopher Li wrote: On the other hand, if you follow Stan's logic, just because you call it Aikido and were taught by people calling it Aikido doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Ueshiba (at least, that particular Ueshiba) either... Physics is physics, whether I learned it from Newton or not - and if it's not physics then it isn't physics, even if I learned it directly from Newton's son. Before anybody blows an artery - I'm not arguing that this is the case, but the logic certainly applies. Best, Chris

One of the things Stan states in that article is that the reason why so many AIkidoka are/were doing stuff that is so different than the Founder's Aikido, is that they only spent a couple of years training with him, and "Certainly this was enough time to become proficient in the art, but not enough to master the vast technical repertoire of Aiki Budo with its many subtleties."

But it would be plenty of time to teach the deshi solo training drills, and get them working on pushing on each other and pushing on walls and stuff, right?

Is there an "it" that is thee "it" that others know OUTSIDE OF AIKIDO... and yet it still can be "thee it" of Aikido's "it," Jim? Or do you think Ueshiba was a one-off?  

Probably the first thee it?...:-D

Quote
Dan, this is not a proposition that can be refuted or proven physically. It is more an issue of truth in advertising. So I go to push you, can't move you, then I find myself flung across the room, big deal. Doesn't make it Aikido. The fact that it is pretty cool, and you've attracted some higher-level Aikido people to train with you, and they say it has opened doors for them, revived their practice, doesn't make it Aikido. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with Ueshiba. Quote

Hi cliff. In my opinion this is body training and the outer form can follow many expressions. This can probably be taken into many other arts so its not just being unmoveable its about a body qualify which is unnatural and has to be seriously trained in. But take everything i say with a pinch of salt

Regards chris

Dan Harden wrote: But again, you miss the point of those questions. The fact that we are using the same methodology he discussed, we can place it historically and contextually, and we can define it, explain it and use it...does point to us doing what he was doing.

IF it were true that you were using the same methodology he discussed, that MAY point to you doing something LIKE what he was doing.

Cliff Judge wrote: One of the things Stan states in that article is that the reason why so many AIkidoka are/were doing stuff that is so different than the Founder's Aikido, is that they only spent a couple of years training with him, and "Certainly this was enough time to become proficient in the art, but not enough to master the vast technical repertoire of Aiki Budo with its many subtleties." But it would be plenty of time to teach the deshi solo training drills, and get them working on pushing on each other and pushing on walls and stuff, right?

It could be, if he was actively involved on a day to day basis (which he wasn't), or if there weren't a certain caginess in the the teaching process (ala "stealing the techniques"), or if he were more explicit and less "universal" in his instructions to people who didn't have the background to understand the context, etc....

There are (were) a lot of factors in play, if you ask me.

"pushing on each other and pushing on walls and stuff" isn't any easier to teach than anything else, BTW.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: "pushing on each other and pushing on walls and stuff" isn't any easier to teach than anything else, BTW.

No less time consuming, in terms of teacher-student direct contact, than precisely transmitting 118+ paired kata?

Cliff Judge wrote: No less time consuming, in terms of teacher-student direct contact, than precisely transmitting 118+ paired kata?

Depends on the person, I guess, but even standing absolutely still can get into an enormous amount of detail.

Besides, the post-war students never learned the 118.

Best,

Chris

Cliff Judge wrote: No less time consuming, in terms of teacher-student direct contact, than precisely transmitting 118+ paired kata?

You actually believe he was involved in "precisely" transmitting 118+ paired kata?
When he asked Shirata not to leave, but stay and help his son-why do you think Shirata chose to teach Solo training as "The fix?"
Why do you suppose Kisshomaru banned them in favor of paired waza?
Why do you suppose Kisshomaru never had his fathers power?

Dan Harden wrote: I will try to outline what I think in more detail tomorrow when I can get to a computer. This is from my phone. I hardly think telling.... me...I am lecturing on MY version of aiki, when I am using Ueshiba's words and exercises in proper context is correct. At least my efforts are cogent, have historical precedent, are logical and can be explained, demonstrated to produce power in anyone who does them....thus can be taught, and I have a thousand witnesses. Thus far our detractors have produced nothing to match the above, and no person who is able to cancel out, much less absorb what we claim Ueshiba was doing. Which leaves me wondering why we are even having a debate in the first place. I am being polite enough to try and explain what Ueshiba was in fact doing to those who have no comparable power, explanation of or method of their own tbat produces the unusual power he was noted for. Instead they point to their teachers and to stances and techniques. None of which the founder EVER gave credit to. What he did give credit to...they self admittedly cannot explain. Oh well. Dan

Who is detracting what from whom? Certainly I'm interested in what you are doing and have no intention to discredit it. I think it most likely you are the real deal (IHTBF to be sure though, right?). The quote used a word in Japanese that could have all kinds of meaning, as a principle of someone else's concept of AIKI. Do you know what he meant by that principle?

Mark Murray wrote: The founder of AIKIDO, Morihei Ueshiba O-sensei, spent many years adapting techniques from Daito-Ryu Jujitsu and other martial arts (1) to embody the principle of AWASE (2). As far as I know, this is an unsupported idea. There idea that Ueshiba's aikido came from "other martial arts" is rather, well, wrong.

I added the numbers:

1. The idea has been supported, even by Dan Harden.

Dan Harden wrote: I mean let's face it, he came from an informal Itto ryu and Jikishinkage ryu background into watching/ possibly training (I'd bet on it) informally in TSKSR and KSR and Yagyu. No one is EVER going to mistake Itto ryu's approach for Shinto ryu.

How much would you have bet on Osensei training in these other arts?

2. What is the principle of the broad term "awase" that David Alexander is talking about? Has any been made attempt to find out?

Dan Harden wrote: Ya don't think he picked up some things? Continued to develop? So even if he picked up one principle...cough. With all that exposure that's it...ONE...are you kidding me....What was he, blind?

So when Osensei described his training as "A forging (tanren) of one's own mind (kokoro), the body and the ki that connects them, bringing all three simultaneously into harmony with the workings of the universe and all things" what principle was involved? Bear in mind that the original Japanese uses "musubu" 結ぶ for "connect" and I took no liberties in translating "chowa" 調和 as "harmony". Awase 合わせ is a broader term and, for example, could even include the reigi in the dojo. Why spend all that time on tanren, forging the body if the principle is just pre-emptive movement?

Dan Harden wrote: Aiki and awase Aiki as a concept prior to awase is for building a bujutsu body. Noted by Takeda, Sagawa, Ueshiba, Kodo, Tokimune, Tohei, Shirata, And many ICMA masters as well. The dynamic balance of forces within you creates the immovable body that is placed in a -theoretically- invincible position, which is aided *by* that immovable body in motion. This is accomplished partly through other causal effects; like lack of slack leaving no telegraphing, and neutralization of forces creating movement and cancellation of resistance in an opponent not otherwise capable of being achieved through normal motion and a normal body type... which leads to a more fully realized concept of.... awase.

So what are you saying Alexander Sensei meant by awase? Are you just using Mark's "modern aikido" version? Being faster than the other guy, leading etc while using conventional forces?

Regards

Carl

Carl
I never addressed Alexanders thoughts at all. I was addressing other folks discussing timing and placement and hanmi of all things. I addressed my thoughts on the both the difference and the joining of the two in several places.I have answered your question on Ueshiba's model of connection within the body in different ways as well, some in more detail than others just a few posts or a page back. Did you miss them?
Here is a recent one a few posts back.

Aiki and awase Aiki as a concept prior to awase is for building a bujutsu body. Noted by Takeda, Sagawa, Ueshiba, Kodo, Tokimune, Tohei, Shirata, And many ICMA masters as well. The dynamic balance of forces within you creates the immovable body that is placed in a -theoretically- invincible position, which is aided *by* that immovable body in motion. This is accomplished partly through other causal effects; like lack of slack leaving no telegraphing, and neutralization of forces creating movement and cancellation of resistance in an opponent not otherwise capable of being achieved through normal motion and a normal body type... which leads to a more fully realized concept of.... awase.

I am preparing for a weekend trip to Europe, so won't be around too much longer. I think there is enough expressed in the posts to clarify my views.
Dan

Cliff Judge wrote: Of course! Many people on this forum have found some new material that they are very enthusiastic about. There have been multiple epiphanies. That's really great! But what they are training is not from Ueshiba, so it is not correct to say that it is "Ueshiba's". There is a continual resistance to this truth, and the general shape of counter-argument goes along the lines of "but it is really great training," or "here are twelve Chris Li translations that seem to be talking about something I think i am talking about," or etc.

Actually, yeah, some of it is. Did you miss my posts where I stated that some of the stuff I trained from Dan was exactly the same as what Ueshiba handed down ... outside Tokyo hombu. No, I won't say who or where. If you do the research, you find the trails.

Hey Carl,

This quote from your last post seems to describe the solo body training that these IP/Aiki guys are talking about...So when Osensei described his training as "A forging (tanren) of one's own mind (kokoro), the body and the ki that connects them, bringing all three simultaneously into harmony with the workings of the universe and all things" Sounds like standing on the floating bridge. :0) That would be the principal of aiki...!!!

Take Care,

ChrisW