True Warfare

Well, I only took ukemi from Endo Shihan once, but liked it. Saito Shihan was my main teacher.

Carl Thompson wrote: I think the mention of Endo Shihan maybe distracted some people from the fact that this thread is in the "spiritual" section, not the technical one. Endo's basics are very different from Saito Shihan's and I think it would be a mistake (and also off topic) to make assumptions about Bjorn sensei's technical skills (including kokyu/IP) based on Endo Shihan's training methods.

The only reference to training styles in this thread was when Abrams clearly stated that there is no aiki in Iwama-style aikido.

Peter Gröndahl wrote: The only reference to training styles in this thread was when Abrams clearly stated that there is no aiki in Iwama-style aikido.

Yes I noticed that

I figured anyone viewing the thread and coming up with such conclusions should be familiar with Bjorn's teacher. If a reader was not so knowledgeable about a particular teacher and only had the mention of Endo by one of that teacher's students to go on... I figured I'd point out that there's a difference. I don't know about Marc's particular experience.

Carl

Marc Abrams wrote: Mark: In my line of work, you learn that directly challenging the reality of a delusion does not get you very far. Feel free to extrapolate . Regards, Marc Abrams ps- I have found that my kyrptonite shield protects me from the mercury gas so I can collect the gold flakes and sell them down the road at my favorite pawn shop.

Sounds like you've asked yourself a few questions.

Before invading another country we realize what got us into this situation. We realize we have no right to invade anyone. We realize the difference between invasion and entering and sharing. We then realize we only enter anothers space through invitation.

Then we realize that when someone is trying to invade our space we enter into the realm of self defence.

Then we go beyond even that. We realize Aikido.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Before invading another country we realize what got us into this situation. We realize we have no right to invade anyone. We realize the difference between invasion and entering and sharing. We then realize we only enter anothers space through invitation. Then we realize that when someone is trying to invade our space we enter into the realm of self defence. Then we go beyond even that. We realize Aikido. Regards.G.

So, um, are you advocating that people do the *wrong* thing in order for them to realize aikido? You have posted a list of things to do before realizing aikido and the very first one is the invasion into "another country". Do you really believe that someone must do the wrong thing before finally realizing aikido?

If you only enter another's space through invitation, but there is no invitation, how do you realize aikido. If you have a psycho who gives no invitation using a knife, does that mean you have no aikido? Or is it that you *can* invade without invitation if it's "self defence"? Which means, again, that you're doing the wrong thing to go beyond to find aikido.

What do you mean by "beyond even that". It's like you've made a grand canyon leap of faith which is based upon faulty premises to arrive at some unknown definition of "aikido".

Graham Christian wrote: Before invading another country we realize what got us into this situation.

They were "asking for it". Like Tohei when his coat was stolen.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=695

Mark Murray wrote: So, um, are you advocating that people do the *wrong* thing in order for them to realize aikido? You have posted a list of things to do before realizing aikido and the very first one is the invasion into "another country". Do you really believe that someone must do the wrong thing before finally realizing aikido? If you only enter another's space through invitation, but there is no invitation, how do you realize aikido. If you have a psycho who gives no invitation using a knife, does that mean you have no aikido? Or is it that you *can* invade without invitation if it's "self defence"? Which means, again, that you're doing the wrong thing to go beyond to find aikido. What do you mean by "beyond even that". It's like you've made a grand canyon leap of faith which is based upon faulty premises to arrive at some unknown definition of "aikido".

Hi Mark.
May I say it is me who is surprised more by others not seeing invasion as anti-aikido than others being surprised by that view.

Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido.

For someone who has never trained from that viewpoint it would indeed seem like a giant leap of faith or unreal and such a person would no doubt find a way of putting it down.

By thinking in terms of right and wrong you create your own confusion.

There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know.

Until invasion is seen as arrogant and unnecessary then it merely serves as a barrier to increased awareness and thus better solutions. The better solutions therefore are more harmonious and effective and thus more Aikido.

In as much as 'faulty' premises and 'erroneous' definitions then suffice to say quite the opposite. It brings about a better reality on what the founder meant by those things he said referring to Aikido that many still argue about or don't fully appreciate to this day. ie: love, universal love, non-resistance, no enemies, centre of centre, harmony, loving protection, no pulling or pushing, etc.etc. etc.

Regards.G.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: They were "asking for it". Like Tohei when his coat was stolen. http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=695

And this means?

Another kitten.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Another kitten.

As I thought. Not much.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi Mark. May I say it is me who is surprised more by others not seeing invasion as anti-aikido than others being surprised by that view. Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido. For someone who has never trained from that viewpoint it would indeed seem like a giant leap of faith or unreal and such a person would no doubt find a way of putting it down. By thinking in terms of right and wrong you create your own confusion. There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know. Until invasion is seen as arrogant and unnecessary then it merely serves as a barrier to increased awareness and thus better solutions. The better solutions therefore are more harmonious and effective and thus more Aikido. In as much as 'faulty' premises and 'erroneous' definitions then suffice to say quite the opposite. It brings about a better reality on what the founder meant by those things he said referring to Aikido that many still argue about or don't fully appreciate to this day. ie: love, universal love, non-resistance, no enemies, centre of centre, harmony, loving protection, no pulling or pushing, etc.etc. etc. Regards.G.

You didn't address my post. You went off on a tangent. You stated that one had to invade prior to realizing "aikido". Why? Here in this post, you seem to back track and state that one shouldn't invade for "aikido".

I find from your posts that you are really having a hard time putting into words exactly how you define aikido. First, it's invade prior to aikido, then it's don't invade prior to aikido, then it's people don't understand aikido, then it's aikido is harmony, loving protection (which is really just mimicking other people's words), then it's this and then it's that. You dance about with your ideas like a marionette on a pogo stick being chased by circus ponies. I've yet to see some solid ideas from you about aikido.

If you're trying to seem like a teacher, perhaps a suggestion ... solidify your ideas and definitions of aikido such that people can understand them. As it is, I think a lot of us are just shaking our heads ... trying to figure out where you stand, what you believe, how you define aikido, etc.

And writing things like, "There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know" and "Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido" don't help as they are perceived as a type of backhanded insult. Maybe you don't mean them that way, maybe you do. I don't know. But, a more, clear, and concise posting style from you would help in a lot of ways.

Mark Murray wrote: You dance about with your ideas like a marionette on a pogo stick being chased by circus ponies.

Circus ponies? That belongs to TTTCNBN.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi Mark. May I say it is me who is surprised more by others not seeing invasion as anti-aikido than others being surprised by that view. Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido. For someone who has never trained from that viewpoint it would indeed seem like a giant leap of faith or unreal and such a person would no doubt find a way of putting it down. By thinking in terms of right and wrong you create your own confusion. There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know. Until invasion is seen as arrogant and unnecessary then it merely serves as a barrier to increased awareness and thus better solutions. The better solutions therefore are more harmonious and effective and thus more Aikido. In as much as 'faulty' premises and 'erroneous' definitions then suffice to say quite the opposite. It brings about a better reality on what the founder meant by those things he said referring to Aikido that many still argue about or don't fully appreciate to this day. ie: love, universal love, non-resistance, no enemies, centre of centre, harmony, loving protection, no pulling or pushing, etc.etc. etc. Regards.G.

...didn't The Founder also teach....irimi?

A key principle of aikido, which is 'anti-aikido'; if only you'd been there to tell him, he could have appreciated aikido!

Mark Murray wrote: And writing things like, "There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know" and "Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido" don't help as they are perceived as a type of backhanded insult. Maybe you don't mean them that way, maybe you do. I don't know. But, a more, clear, and concise posting style from you would help in a lot of ways.

You don't understand: he's harmonising with you, using super-real, completely mastered aikido!
That's what aikido is, at higher levels: the opposite of harmonising - but that's just how it looks to us peons...

Graham Christian wrote: And this means?

I take it to mean: an opening is an invitation; consider your surroundings.

Mark Murray wrote: You didn't address my post. You went off on a tangent. You stated that one had to invade prior to realizing "aikido". Why? Here in this post, you seem to back track and state that one shouldn't invade for "aikido". I find from your posts that you are really having a hard time putting into words exactly how you define aikido. First, it's invade prior to aikido, then it's don't invade prior to aikido, then it's people don't understand aikido, then it's aikido is harmony, loving protection (which is really just mimicking other people's words), then it's this and then it's that. You dance about with your ideas like a marionette on a pogo stick being chased by circus ponies. I've yet to see some solid ideas from you about aikido. If you're trying to seem like a teacher, perhaps a suggestion ... solidify your ideas and definitions of aikido such that people can understand them. As it is, I think a lot of us are just shaking our heads ... trying to figure out where you stand, what you believe, how you define aikido, etc. And writing things like, "There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know" and "Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido" don't help as they are perceived as a type of backhanded insult. Maybe you don't mean them that way, maybe you do. I don't know. But, a more, clear, and concise posting style from you would help in a lot of ways.

Mark. You say I stated that. I did not. If that is your take on what I said then it is in that one passage you are referring to that the misunderstanding lies. I shall reread it and see if it says what you say it does.

I have found that what I say can be construed as a backhanded insult when it isn't so yes that leads to learning how to present better. It also has another side. Some are just plain not willing to accept I could know more than them in this expansive art. How to address those is quite a challenge, enjoyable, yet challenging.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: May I say it is me who is surprised more by others not seeing invasion as anti-aikido than others being surprised by that view. Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido.

I think Bjorn made the semantics a little more clear that his use of the term holds different connotations than yours. The world around us "invades" us through the simple virtue of contact; it is inescapable. How we interact with that contact determines whether or not it's a pleasure or something else. How we are organized determines the initial nature of the interaction/contact. He's not saying (I'm pretty sure) people should practice breaking and entering or starting wars or striking needlessly.
I suggest the idea that no one fully apreciates Aikido; that each of us has different qualities and quantities of understanding...hence the need for life-long study.

By thinking in terms of right and wrong you create your own confusion.

You seem to be suggesting some folks have the wrong view of Aikido.

Mark Murray wrote: So, um, are you advocating that people do the *wrong* thing in order for them to realize aikido? You have posted a list of things to do before realizing aikido and the very first one is the invasion into "another country". Do you really believe that someone must do the wrong thing before finally realizing aikido? If you only enter another's space through invitation, but there is no invitation, how do you realize aikido. If you have a psycho who gives no invitation using a knife, does that mean you have no aikido? Or is it that you *can* invade without invitation if it's "self defence"? Which means, again, that you're doing the wrong thing to go beyond to find aikido. What do you mean by "beyond even that". It's like you've made a grand canyon leap of faith which is based upon faulty premises to arrive at some unknown definition of "aikido".

O.K. Back to this one. As I said looking at it from right and wrong you will not see what I am saying there.

To understand what I mean you would have to read what I wrote on 'three stages of 'Aikido' .

So I could be guilty of bad presentation and assuming people here already know where I'm coming from.

So for your benefit I'll explain further. Ist stage is learning how to harmonize with yourself under pressure ie: whilst being attacked or held etc. 2nd stage is then learning how to harmonize with the force, motion etc, in other words the other and thus handle the other competently. Third stage is going beyond this and not only doing the first two but protecting and making the other feel better as a result of the interraction. To actually improve their condition.

Along this path you start by, in stage one, learning how to remain calm and stable etc whilst being 'invaded' In stage two you are learning that through certain principles you can now actually handle those 'invading' your space. In stage three you learn you have no concerns therefore on self defence and become aware of other principles where you can enter and share and bring about harmony and betterment for that potential enemy and there is no invasion necessary. Thus the words of O'Sensei make sense at that point.

Now back to my style of presentation. I have said I give things that make people think. They make some react, sometimes passionately. However they always have a basic tenet which I see needs inspection. In this case 'invasion'

Why? Because when I see people following a thought like sheep without inspecting it I see the blind following the blind. In this case if you believe in invasion then it would be wise to look at what you are agreeing with by following what sounds 'logical' If you agree with invasion then don't complain when you are invaded would be a very simplistic way of putting it. Thus you would be agreeing with bullying, with rudeness and bad manners, with rape even and burglary for they are all instances of invasion.

Only a misinformed or indeed psychotic person would think this way for it is how they justify their actions by seeing the 'others' as enemies.

There, I have explained my view as best I can. You may agree or disagree or share, it's up to you.

RegardsG.

Matthew Gano wrote: I think Bjorn made the semantics a little more clear that his use of the term holds different connotations than yours. The world around us "invades" us through the simple virtue of contact; it is inescapable. How we interact with that contact determines whether or not it's a pleasure or something else. How we are organized determines the initial nature of the interaction/contact. He's not saying (I'm pretty sure) people should practice breaking and entering or starting wars or striking needlessly. I suggest the idea that no one fully apreciates Aikido; that each of us has different qualities and quantities of understanding...hence the need for life-long study. You seem to be suggesting some folks have the wrong view of Aikido.

Hi Matthew.
I see the word invasion used as you say he used it later but is it true? Does the world around us invade simply by virtue of contact? Thus I say the wrong word is used. In the op it is clearly about invading and cutting communication lines etc. It is about attacking and dominating with superior force. So I suggest a better analogy that's all.

I too suggest an incomplete appreciation of Aikido in it's fullness.

Now me suggesting or implying some folks have a wrong view of Aikido. Yes I do. Do not many say I have a wrong view? Did not those taught by Ueshiba himself differ in opinions and say such things even about each other? Yes, some did.

I would say however I do not say it as blatantly as many for I also say all those doing various forms of Aikido are all doing Aikido. Sounds contradictory but it's all down to when I say it and why. As usual context is king. Others can then in future say 'but you said' and use it as a put down or whatever but as I've said about historical data, a person can say anything at any particular time so taking a 'he said' and then using it to mean extra and over what he was using it for at the time is a failing in my view. Or even demeaning it and thus giving it less import.

So I can imply many don't understand Aikido and also I can imply everyone is doing Aikido both.

I can also say from the view of 'ultimate' Aikido that no one I've seen is doing it. As can you or anyone say the same.

May I just also add that many teachers may say the same. For example I could imagine let's say Tohei having said 'No Ki no Aikido' and thus when seeing that aspect not 'emphasized' could well say that's not Aikido. I guarantee some shihans have said as much at times from their various views.

So I put it to you, how comes it's 'understandable' if one person says it yet not so if another does?

Thoughts?

Regards.G.

Matthew Gano wrote: I take it to mean: an opening is an invitation; consider your surroundings.

Yes, an opening to potential harmony.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Yes, an opening to potential harmony. Regards.G.

Perhaps the thief felt harmonious.

Graham Jenkins wrote: ...didn't The Founder also teach....irimi? A key principle of aikido, which is 'anti-aikido'; if only you'd been there to tell him, he could have appreciated aikido!

Ha, ha. Now how do you tie in irimi to what I was saying and how do you then manage to create a scene of me in a place telling O'Sensei something?

That bee in your bonnet sure is giving you a buzzz.

Matthew Gano wrote: Perhaps the thief felt harmonious.

Nah, just a ninja practicing.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi Matthew. I see the word invasion used as you say he used it later but is it true? Does the world around us invade simply by virtue of contact? Thus I say the wrong word is used. In the op it is clearly about invading and cutting communication lines etc. It is about attacking and dominating with superior force. So I suggest a better analogy that's all. Regards.G.

Sorry Graham, seemingly you clearly didn't understand my op and that leads me to think you have no experience of what I'm describing. It's a caring, loving, aware and conscious feeling engagement that is present from the moment we lay eyes on each other. It's being your brother when you don't believe you have one. We can call it pre-emptive and infiltration using words of war or we can call it fully embracing using more acceptable language. Some times some words just hits the correct note inside and we can feel it in our engagement. If you loosen your judgment of what is the correct way of saying something, missing the heart of the matter, you might find a new experience waiting to reveal itself to you. If you like to express it differently please do so, and let's see if we are describing the same thing? Because so far I haven't heard you describe anything similar to what I've expressed in the op. To clarify, it is not literal. Do not invade another country please. Really I shouldn't have to clarify this. It's takes away all joy in sharing. Because you already know it's a metaphor for an interior experience between two aikidokas. But if you want to play the fool and pretend you know better the hole you're digging for your self just gets bigger and bigger.