Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?

Peter Rehse wrote: Well sure and when I first started struggling with Mandarin I was disappointed that the characters were not necessarily pronounced with the "Chinese" pronunciations I learned in Japan although in reality many were not that far off. It helps to remember that in China there was a large variation in languages/dialects (where a language becomes a dialect I have no clue) with the written language the unifying element. Japan for the longest time was part of that. OK so that said I tend to agree that if you are going to use terms that are part of Japanese martial arts it is probably best to use the local pronunciation. Still it is completely fair to say that if the characters are the same - the meaning is also.

I agree with that, but the thing is, just because the characters have the same dictionary meaning, does not mean there are not huge differences in connotation. i would trust the judgment of someone who had done some training in both Japanese and Chinese martial arts as to whether tanden and dantien are really the same concept. For me, people who use both terms interchangably seem to be implying that they have enough knowledge of both systems to say they are the same.

Cliff Judge wrote: I agree with that, but the thing is, just because the characters have the same dictionary meaning, does not mean there are not huge differences in connotation. i would trust the judgment of someone who had done some training in both Japanese and Chinese martial arts as to whether tanden and dantien are really the same concept. For me, people who use both terms interchangably seem to be implying that they have enough knowledge of both systems to say they are the same.

Context is everything of course but I would say that divergence is far more likely than convergence and if the former there should be an identifiable core meaning.

Christopher Li wrote: Compare for yourselves. I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that Takuma Hisa thought that what the two people were doing was completely different - here's what Yutaka Amatsu said: I've heard similar statements from Hisa directly, from private sources, and it's similar to the opinions expressed by my teachers who also were students of Takuma Hisa.

Well Takeda, Hisa and his students have been pretty definite that there was enough difference between the methodology to term the two arts "Takeda Ryu" and "Ueshiba Ryu". And Ueshiba renamed his art. I would submit that, taking into the contemporary descriptions of takeda and ueshiba, this almost certainly refers differences in body methodology. This would mean that Ueshiba was doing something essentially different in terms of body usage than Takeda and the other of takeda's higher level students who continued to teach Daito ryu. In other words, Ueshiba was teaching something different from DR from the 1930s.
Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

Oisin Bourke wrote: Well Takeda, Hisa and his students have been pretty definite that there was enough difference between the methodology to term the two arts "Takeda Ryu" and "Ueshiba Ryu". And Ueshiba renamed his art. I would submit that, taking into the contemporary descriptions of takeda and ueshiba, this almost certainly refers differences in body methodology. This would mean that Ueshiba was doing something essentially different in terms of body usage than Takeda and the other of takeda's higher level students who continued to teach Daito ryu. In other words, Ueshiba was teaching something different from DR from the 1930s. Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

Well there was quite a bit going on with the naming, so it's hardly that simple. Additionally, "Takeda-ryu" and "Ueshiba-ryu" is hardly definitive in and of itself (all that really indicates linguistically is the "style" of that particular person) - the Takumakai, for example, often uses "Aikido" to describe itself in Japan.

Takeda, FWIW, didn't change what Ueshiba had been teaching at the Asahi dojo - he acknowledged that they had already studied the basics and built upon the foundation, which is quite different.

Now, you've been very clear that you don't think that people in Aikido should comment on Daito-ryu without a high level of initiation in that art. Why do you feel free to comment on Aikido and what Ueshiba taught and practiced without a high level of initiation in that art? Personally, I don't care, but you can't have it both ways.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Well there was quite a bit going on with the naming, so it's hardly that simple. Additionally, "Takeda-ryu" and "Ueshiba-ryu" is hardly definitive in and of itself (all that really indicates linguistically is the "style" of that particular person) - the Takumakai, for example, often uses "Aikido" to describe itself in Japan.

First DR group I ran into was at Tsukuba Daigaku. They introduced themselves to me as an Aikido group - a matter of convenience I suspect.

Peter Rehse wrote: First DR group I ran into was at Tsukuba Daigaku. They introduced themselves to me as an Aikido group - a matter of convenience I suspect.

That's what I'm saying - the name may mean something, or it may mean nothing at all - it's tricky to read too much into it when there are multiple issues in play.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Well there was quite a bit going on with the naming, so it's hardly that simple. Additionally, "Takeda-ryu" and "Ueshiba-ryu" is hardly definitive in and of itself (all that really indicates linguistically is the "style" of that particular person) - the Takumakai, for example, often uses "Aikido" to describe itself in Japan. Takeda, FWIW, didn't change what Ueshiba had been teaching at the Asahi dojo - he acknowledged that they had already studied the basics and built upon the foundation, which is quite different. Now, you've been very clear that you don't think that people in Aikido should comment on Daito-ryu without a high level of initiation in that art. Why do you feel free to comment on Aikido and what Ueshiba taught and practiced without a high level of initiation in that art? Personally, I don't care, but you can't have it both ways. Best, Chris

There's quite a bit going on regarding Amatsu and Hisa's comments about what Takeda teaching was more "advanced" or whatever too IMO. Anyway, I'm not arguing with you over the "basics" I'm pointing out that Takeda and Hisa quite clearly stated that Ueshiba didn't teach (or wasn't privy to) the advanced levels of the art.

As to commenting on aikido, It's pretty obvious: Takeda said it, Hisa sad it, Amatsu said it, so take it up with them. Ueshiba learned DR to a certain level, and then went his own way. As to what exactly Ueshiba taught,(and why) have my opinions, but the bottom line is that he wasn't (according to the above people) disseminating the advanced levels of DR. Nothing to do with me, so don't make it personal.

Oisin Bourke wrote: As to commenting on aikido, It's pretty obvious: Takeda said it, Hisa sad it, Amatsu said it, so take it up with them. Ueshiba learned DR to a certain level, and then went his own way. As to what exactly Ueshiba taught,(and why) have my opinions, but the bottom line is that he wasn't (according to the above people) disseminating the advanced levels of DR. Nothing to do with me, so don't make it personal.

Well, you're posting your own conclusions and citing their statements in support - and other people are doing similar things with reference to Daito-ryu. The difference is that no one is saying that you ought not to be commenting on Aikido because of your lack of experience in that art. As I said, you really can't have it both ways.

Hisa said (essentially) that Takeda was doing things at a higher level than Ueshiba. That's a no brainer for me - if my teachers walk in the door I would certainly hope that they're teaching and functioning at a higher level than I am, why else would they be my teachers?

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Well, you're posting your own conclusions and citing their statements in support - and other people are doing similar things with reference to Daito-ryu. The difference is that no one is saying that you ought not to be commenting on Aikido because of your lack of experience in that art. As I said, you really can't have it both ways. Hisa said (essentially) that Takeda was doing things at a higher level than Ueshiba. That's a no brainer for me - if my teachers walk in the door I would certainly hope that they're teaching and functioning at a higher level than I am, why else would they be my teachers? Best, Chris

You are misrepresenting my comments.

Amatsu said this:

"It is my personal opinion, I think there are three types of Daito-ryu. One is Aikido, Ueshiba-sensei wanted to make his Aikido popular, even children and aged people can enjoy it, so he abandoned foot skill. As Hisa taught me, foot has more power than arm, so practising is painful, it may be an obstacle to make Aikido popular, so Ueshiba abandoned it. "

So Ueshiba changed a methodology that is not MY opinon, that is Amatsu"s.

Hisa said

"Hisa san told me. There are two types of Daitoryu, one is Takeda Sokaku's and the other is Ueshiba Morihei's. Takeda Sokuku's is the original one but for making Daitoryu popular Ueshiba Morihei's is better. As it is softer and more beautiful. Takeda's is more painful and not as beautiful. He taught Ueshiba's style in his dojo because students were all citizens, whereas he was teaching me Takeda's because I was a journalist at the Asahi.

One difference between Takeda's and Ueshiba's is that in Takeda's you use your legs. A leg is more powerful than an arm hence attack the enemy's arm with your powerful legs. The objective is the joints, and to attack them with you leg. When enemy is standing and moving freely it is difficult to attack the joints with your legs, so throw the enemy down to your feet and use your legs. Hence Takeda's has no throw away technique."

So Ueshiba changed the methodology. That's HISA'S opinion, not mine. There is an obvious change in methodology. Ueshiba even changed the name of the art!

It is also not a simple matter of the teacher being better than the student.Takeda had more advanced teachings than Ueshiba was privy to. Ueshba split from his teacher before he got these teachings. That is not "my" opinon either, that s Hisa's and Takeda's.

These are all stated facts, so stop trying to pin the "spin" on me. Take it up with them and the takumakai. They also happen to support previous statements refuting comments about throws in DR, so they do indeed point to people with insufficient experience of DR commenting as if what they they say is fact (as opposed to qualifying their statements by highlighting that this is their opinion).

I'm not going to carry this on further. I'm just repeating myself at this stage, and readers can make their own minds up, f so inclined.

Oisin Bourke wrote: So Ueshiba changed the methodology. That's HISA'S opinion, not mine.

You missed the quote from Amatsu where he said:

Hisa san judged that Takeda’s wazas were same kind as Ueshiba’s.

In any case, everybody's free to draw their own conclusions - and make their own statements about their conclusions, as you have. Which is precisely my point.

Posting somebody else statement to prove or illustrate a point implies that you agree with that point, does it not? Take some responsibility for that.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: You missed the quote from Amatsu where he said: In any case, everybody's free to draw their own conclusions - and make their own statements about their conclusions, as you have. Which is precisely my point. Posting somebody else statement to prove or illustrate a point implies that you agree with that point, does it not? Take some responsibility for that. Best, Chris

Once again you're cherry picking. Takeda, Hisa and the takumakai are on record stating that Ueshiba wasn't privy to some teachings. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to ascribe the same point to Amatsu's above statement. In any event, it's a pretty open and vague statement, so if you want to claim it for whatever purpose, off you go.It still doesn't change the basic point.

On your second point, well, If you held Mert and others earlier on this thread to the same standard, I wouldn't have even posted. Unfortunately, Mert and Carsten posted assertions about DR not as their own qualified opinions, but presented them pretty much as undisputed. This comes up again and again in these kind of threads BTW. I posted supporting Grant's statements about DR. But sure, if people want to qualify their statements as being their own opinions based on their limited knowledge, rather than making assumptions, I'd fully encourage them to do so. It would get rid of a lot of fractiousness in these debates IMO.

On your final point, stop making this personal. The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

Oisin Bourke wrote: The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, in addition, he also made significant changes in methodology to the art from the 1930s at least. These changes almost certainly involved changes in body methodology, as what he was doing was jujutsu (a body to body based art). so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

I edited the above.

Oisin Bourke wrote: Once again you're cherry picking. Takeda, Hisa and the takumakai are on record stating that Ueshiba wasn't privy to some teachings. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to ascribe the same point to Amatsu's above statement. In any event, it's a pretty open and vague statement, so if you want to claim it for whatever purpose, off you go.It still doesn't change the basic point. On your second point, well, If you held Mert and others earlier on this thread to the same standard, I wouldn't have even posted. Unfortunately, Mert and Carsten posted assertions about DR not as their own qualified opinions, but presented them pretty much as undisputed. This comes up again and again in these kind of threads BTW. I posted supporting Grant's statements about DR. But sure, if people want to qualify their statements as being their own opinions based on their limited knowledge, rather than making assumptions, I'd fully encourage them to do so. It would get rid of a lot of fractiousness in these debates IMO. On your final point, stop making this personal. The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

Oisin, all that I said was that I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion, and I stated my reasons.

You've missed my entire point on the "standards" thing - which only came up because you brought it up...as you have on other forums.

I really don't care what anybody's qualifications here - they may mean something, or it may not, there's really no way to say. My point was simply to point out your double standard.

If Mert and Carsten are "unqualified" to comment on Daito-ryu then you are certainly unqualified to comment on Ueshiba.

Or, alternatively, we could leave all that on the side and just focus on the arguments that are actually being presented.

Imagine that, a conversation based on the arguments being made, rather than the people making the arguments...

Best,

Chris

Oisin Bourke wrote: ... Carsten posted assertions about DR ...

I have never posted any assertion about Daitô ryû.

In my first and my second post I was not aware that Gavin was talking from a Daitô ryû standpoint. In fact I thought of him as someone, who had just begun to practice a very soft and "loving" way of aikidô.
As soon as I realized where he is coming from I wrote: "Thank you! I was completely on the wrong track!"

What I indeed stated was - and is - that I use to practice on a regular base with a student of Endô sensei who is teaching Daitô ryû Roppokai. And with students of his, who also use to practice with Endô sensei. And that at least our understandig of aiki "goes together".

I never meant to claim to know anything about Daitô ryû. Like I wouldn't talk about any other budô I don't practice myself or am not involved in in which way ever.
True: I am to blame for not having made that more clear but all my following statements refer to the aikidô I myself practice.

I hope that rereading my comments with this in mind might help to relase some tension?

...............................

Besides that ...
I am very interested in the relation of Japanese budô and especially the understanding of Ueshiba Morihei of aiki and the Chinese roots of this understanding. I am researching into this for some time now (on my level of "scholarship"). And I was completely perplexed when I started to realize how deep and intense these relations were.
In a very short formula. I think - besides other sources - Ueshiba was heavily influenced by the thinking patterns of internal alchemy of Quanzhen Daoism.
The knowledge, the texts, the practice was not only available in Japan and for him. But what's more, as far as I understand it by now, was very alive in Japan.

One last simple point, not to prove something, just to have in mind also:
When I look up in and yô in my English or my German dictionary of Japanese language, they both give me yin and yang. Which seem to have become loanword by now. So in my classes I don't mean to speak Chinese when I'm using yin and yang for in yô. But I am translating in yô to "German".

Christopher Li wrote: Oisin, all that I said was that I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion, and I stated my reasons. You've missed my entire point on the "standards" thing - which only came up because you brought it up...as you have on other forums. I really don't care what anybody's qualifications here - they may mean something, or it may not, there's really no way to say. My point was simply to point out your double standard. If Mert and Carsten are "unqualified" to comment on Daito-ryu then you are certainly unqualified to comment on Ueshiba. Or, alternatively, we could leave all that on the side and just focus on the arguments that are actually being presented. Imagine that, a conversation based on the arguments being made, rather than the people making the arguments... Best, Chris

A note on qualifications. I don't think I ever stated that people need to be "qualified" to comment on an art . If I did, I certainly didn't mean that. What I was getting at is that if people are going to offer an opinion on arts, they need to qualify their arguments to their extent of exposure (or not) to said arts, as opposed to presenting their opinions as a 'fait accompli".
Of course anyone is free to voice their opinions and present evidence. But repeatedly, assertions are made regarding Dr and DR aiki by people with little or no direct experience of the art. And of course, the same courtesy should be extended to other arts, be it aikido, koryu or whatever. People should be clear on the extent of their exposure (or not) when they are making points IMO. Just to be clear for people reading these posts. It would make things a lot easier to understand. BTW, the assertions made about Ueshiba were actually made by those who practiced with him and/or Hisa/Takeda.

Carsten Möllering wrote: I have never posted any assertion about Daitô ryû. What I indeed stated was - and is - that I use to practice on a regular base with a student of Endô sensei who is teaching Daitô ryû Roppokai. And with students of his, who also use to practice with Endô sensei. And that at least our understandig of aiki "goes together".

Thanks for your post, Carsten. On this point, Would you say what you are doing is essentially the same?

OK, let's keep this simple and bring this back to the major fork in the road that Gavin took us down with the introduction of Daito-ryu into this thread.

• "Power" as goal or not of "Daito-ryu":
  • Citations with quotes clearly verifying that Hisa felt students should seek at least one specific type of "power" in his variant of the art, while differentiating that power from others.
  • Still waiting for a clarification of the use of the term "internal strength", as stated on the Australian Takumakai website. That could lead to a very worthwhile discussion, so let's see if it materializes.

• As for lack of throws, and not throwing people away:
  • Here's a 1939 photo of Hisa, courtesy of Aikido Journal, throwing someone -- away. It's an exception to the norm in Daito-ryu, sure, but nonetheless, there it is, literally in black and white.
    
  • Besides, here's what the Australian Takumakai website has to say on the topic of throws, among other things:
    

    Through harmonisation and the application of Aiki the practitioner is able to respond naturally and appropriately to a range of threat levels utilising evasion, redirection, atemi, locks, throws and pins.

  • Nonetheless, I'm all for hearing a description of techniques that cause people to leave their feet and land in the same spot or two meters away that's semantically different than the word "throw".I agree the term, like "power" doesn't adequately capture all the nuances of what occurs between training partners, in this case when doing "nage-waza".

If there are no throws, what's Hakaru Mori doing in this video? Ueshiba's contribution ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuYnTdqOkZA



Best,
Bernd

The demonstrations run from jujutsu to aki-jujutsu to aiki-no-jutsu. From 5:20 onward Mori is using aiki-no-jutsu and throwing people away. One of the characteristics of aiki-no-jutsu are of course, aiki as control with no leg or foot power. I was taught that Aiki-no jutsu is the higher level throws. I was also shown that in the Ropokai almost all of the techniques were of the aiki-no-jutsu level (higher level) and lack leg or foot power.

I think we should consider that Ueshiba, like Mori here, and Okomoto of the Ropokai, all decided to use the upper level techniques of the art demonstrating pure aiki as the foundation of their arts. Therefore I think the arguments for leg power are from the lower level teachings of the art, mostly by lower level students.
Zoe

Oisin Bourke wrote: A note on qualifications. I don't think I ever stated that people need to be "qualified" to comment on an art . If I did, I certainly didn't mean that. What I was getting at is that if people are going to offer an opinion on arts, they need to qualify their arguments to their extent of exposure (or not) to said arts, as opposed to presenting their opinions as a 'fait accompli". Of course anyone is free to voice their opinions and present evidence. But repeatedly, assertions are made regarding Dr and DR aiki by people with little or no direct experience of the art. And of course, the same courtesy should be extended to other arts, be it aikido, koryu or whatever. People should be clear on the extent of their exposure (or not) when they are making points IMO. Just to be clear for people reading these posts. It would make things a lot easier to understand. BTW, the assertions made about Ueshiba were actually made by those who practiced with him and/or Hisa/Takeda.

I notice that you presented your conclusions as a 'fait accompli", as fact (you actually used the word "fact"), and there was nowhere in that comment or before that you qualified your argument with your experiences (which were never stated on this thread):

Oisin Bourke wrote: IAnd then we have the fact that Takuma Hisa stated quite clearly that what Ueshiba was doing and what Takeda Sokaku was doing was completely different

I didn't (and don't) believe that to be completely accurate, and that's when I replied:

Christopher Li wrote: I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that Takuma Hisa thought that what the two people were doing was completely different

Further, you went on to make conclusions about what Ueshiba was doing:

Oisin Bourke wrote: Well Takeda, Hisa and his students have been pretty definite that there was enough difference between the methodology to term the two arts "Takeda Ryu" and "Ueshiba Ryu". And Ueshiba renamed his art. I would submit that, taking into the contemporary descriptions of takeda and ueshiba, this almost certainly refers differences in body methodology. This would mean that Ueshiba was doing something essentially different in terms of body usage than Takeda and the other of takeda's higher level students who continued to teach Daito ryu. In other words, Ueshiba was teaching something different from DR from the 1930s. Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

Never on this thread have you stated your qualifications to make such a statement, or "qualified your argument as to the extent your of exposure (or not) to said arts" - just asked that others do so.

I'm not so much arguing about your statements (which I think is a complex discussion, and not nearly as simple as you have stated) as I am about the double standard here.

In any case, I think that demanding a resume from anybody making a posting on an internet forum is a losing proposition. Even many of the "qualified" Daito-ryu folks who participate in these discussions are often, in reality, people with realatively little experience in the art who have no business under the kind of standard you're talking about making any kind of statements at all.

Why don't we stick to discussiing the statements as posted and leave it at that?

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: I notice that you presented your conclusions as a 'fait accompli", as fact (you actually used the word "fact"), and there was nowhere in that comment or before that you qualified your argument with your experiences (which were never stated on this thread): I didn't (and don't) believe that to be completely accurate, and that's when I replied: Further, you went on to make conclusions about what Ueshiba was doing: Never on this thread have you stated your qualifications to make such a statement, or "qualified your argument as to the extent your of exposure (or not) to said arts" - just asked that others do so. I'm not so much arguing about your statements (which I think is a complex discussion, and not nearly as simple as you have stated) as I am about the double standard here. In any case, I think that demanding a resume from anybody making a posting on an internet forum is a losing proposition. Even many of the "qualified" Daito-ryu folks who participate in these discussions are often, in reality, people with realatively little experience in the art who have no business under the kind of standard you're talking about making any kind of statements at all. Why don't we stick to discussiing the statements as posted and leave it at that? Best, Chris

TBH, Chris I wouldn't be so strident in my opinions if others weren't. I probably wouldn't post at all As I've said, this whole narrative of Ueshiba doing IP skills culled from DR which are culled from CMA is indeed presented as a done deal in these discussions, repeatedly. I have brought up the training situation with Takda/hisa to highlight that a basic tenet of this assertion (Ueshiba's body training methodology) wasn't really linked to inner level DR based on evidence of people who were there, yet you keep trying to pin this as "my" opinion. This is just distracting from the main points.

I also haven't "demanded a resume", but you could be right. If people won't be up front about their training history when posting opinions on DR and aiki related stuff, discussions probably aren't going to go anywhere. BTW, Mert raised "qualifcations", when people disagreed with his points, and Zoe has just done the same. Why not go after them? I have no problem posting my training history. And You keep on going on about being "qualified" to post when I never said that at all. But look, you've made your point about this repeatedly. It really has nothing to do with the points raised in the thread, so why not drop it?

I'm actually gong to be offline for the bones of a week anyway.

Zoe Botnaro wrote: I think the arguments for leg power are from the lower level teachings of the art, mostly by lower level students. Zoe

I think the arguments for "power" are from the lower level teachings, be it leg or whatever.

Oisin Bourke wrote: TBH, Chris I wouldn't be so strident in my opinions if others weren't. I probably wouldn't post at all As I've said, this whole narrative of Ueshiba doing IP skills culled from DR which are culled from CMA is indeed presented as a done deal in these discussions, repeatedly. I have brought up the training situation with Takda/hisa to highlight that a basic tenet of this assertion (Ueshiba's body training methodology) wasn't really linked to inner level DR based on evidence of people who were there, yet you keep trying to pin this as "my" opinion. This is just distracting from the main points. I also haven't "demanded a resume", but you could be right. If people won't be up front about their training history when posting opinions on DR and aiki related stuff, discussions probably aren't going to go anywhere. BTW, Mert raised "qualifcations", when people disagreed with his points, and Zoe has just done the same. Why not go after them? I have no problem posting my training history. And You keep on going on about being "qualified" to post when I never said that at all. But look, you've made your point about this repeatedly. It really has nothing to do with the points raised in the thread, so why not drop it? I'm actually gong to be offline for the bones of a week anyway.

Well, this is the leading edge of a discussion (with many of the same players) that has been going on for close to 20 years now. It's not surprising, in that context, that many of the statements appear to be presented as a "done deal". I think that you're just going to have to live with that.

It seems to me that you stated your opinion quite clearly:

Oisin Bourke wrote: Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

As I said before, take responsibility for your own postings.

FWIW, I'm not objecting to you (or anybody else) expressing an opinion about Ueshiba, regardless of qualification.

As to your Takeda/Hisa point - I can make the exact same arguments without Ueshiba in the equation, without discussing how much Ueshiba was or wasn't taught. It doesn't really affect the base argument. There have been a series of book on Takeda published in Japan that are researching the very same argument - without Ueshiba in the equation.

I don't remember Mert demanding qualifications in order to post an opinion, although he inquired at one point for clarification (I don't think there's anything wrong with that), and I certainly don't read Zoe's statement as anything close to that.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: As I said before, take responsibility for your own postings. I don't remember Mert demanding qualifications in order to post an opinion, although he inquired at one point for clarification (I don't think there's anything wrong with that), and I certainly don't read Zoe's statement as anything close to that. Best, Chris

Whatever Chris, still trying to make it personal. And for the Millionth time, I have never "demanded qualifications" of someone before posting. You consistently misrepresent my comments. As for the other comments, more double standards from you. I'm finished here.

Hi,

My posts on this were just to highlight what it seems is a very different approach from what I learnt.

I was always told from the very beginning that it is not a good idea to WANT to become powerful, the more powerful you WANT to be, the enemy does the same. The main purpose of Daito Ryu is to defeat the enemy, not make them stronger.

My teacher always told me, if you think you are powerful go to a good judo/jujutsu dojo, or mma gym and show them how powerful you are. Do you think they will care about your dantien? Aiki should set you free, not make you become obsessed with power. My teacher actually warned me against doing that and told me about people who had done that, and it didn't end too well for them.

The photo you showed of Hisa Sensei, that is him doing Ueshiba Ryu. Ueshiba Sensei changed what he learnt from Takeda Sensei and introduced throwing people away. Hisa Sensei had two clubs in Osaka; the Kansai Aikido Club and the Asahi Dojo. What he taught at the Asahi Dojo was different.

Gavin