Japanese "Ki," Chinese "Chi"

Give it up, Rob. You're tap-dancing. Your cover is totally blown. You should have left Chuck with his own mess.

Mike

Stay with something true, like sharp pointed Japanese chopsticks or rounded point Chinese chopsticks. Or even, G-d forbid, flat ended Korean chopsticks. You must eat.

In gassho

My "cover"? Is that a metaphor too?! I will give up trying to add clarity to your misunderstanding. Thanks for backing off on the whole "butting in" nonsense with respect to public forums.

Ironically, the word for chopstick in Japanese also means "bridge" - which is also metaphor - and that's a fact.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: Ironically, the word for chopstick in Japanese also means "bridge" - which is also metaphor - and that's a fact. Rob

Um, I have no horse in this race, but that statement is true on neither an orthographical nor morphological level. It may be true on an etymological level, but that's not at all clear as far as linguists are concerned.

Analogies are oft the bane of discourse...

I see Tom Yowata is reading the thread...I'd personally really enjoy hearing any insights he might have.

Best,
Ron

Mark Uttech wrote: Stay with something true, like sharp pointed Japanese chopsticks or rounded point Chinese chopsticks. Or even, G-d forbid, flat ended Korean chopsticks. You must eat. In gassho

With the same authority, I declare declare that American forks are sharp pointed, British forks are rounded pointed, and Australian forks are flat ended. Definitely it's impossible to fork over American food to your mouth with a British fork, and vise verse.

Roosvelt Freeman wrote: With the same authority, I declare declare that American forks are sharp pointed, British forks are rounded pointed, and Australian forks are flat ended. Definitely it's impossible to fork over American food to your mouth with a British fork, and vise verse.

LOL. I like you Roosvelt. You can sure crack a good one while keeping a straight face.

If I am to rate some of the posts on this thread, I will rate them as excellent for provoking and refreshing despite out of context with my original thread. They did give me new thoughts on the meaning of "aiki" and "ki"/"chi" as applied to aikido and try to picture the rest of the iceberg that is under the water. IMHO, I think we should look beyond harmony and blending for the meaning of "aiki". Within the confine of the yin yang (in yo) paradigm, one can compound "Ki" or extract "Ki" if one knows the means as would a trained chemist should know for each of the elements.

David Y

Thank you all.

David Y

Josh, Really?! I thought hashi meant chopsticks, it also meant bridge, and pronounced just a little differently it meant "edge" - so if someone yelled "HASHI" at me in Japan, I would have to try to guess whether to go eat, run to the bridge, or draw my samurai sword. But hey, I'm not real attached to being right. If I misunderstood the meaning(s) of hashi, I apologize!

Roosevelt, I liked your forks comment too.

David, I think the questions are always at what level of ability and understanding is it best to try to extract ki from the compound aiki, what was the best method for both getting ready to do that, and what was the best method for actually doing it? I'm sure that would vary according to the student's natural abilities, but I would think that some generalations could be made. I would love to see some ki books on that topic. Especially if they were supported by having seminars with people trained in those methods.

Rob

Wunderbar! Bridge also translates as 'edge'? I have been accused of living on the edge for many years! It is good to know that the edge is a bridge! There is a legend that at the end of the world, there will be the final judgement in the valley of Jehosophat. There will be two bridges: one of iron and one of paper. People will be directed to one or the other. Those directed to the paper bridge may tremble in fear, but, as the legend goes, the iron bridge is the one that collaspes. The paper bridge holds.

In gassho.

Rob Liberti wrote: Josh, Really?! I thought hashi meant chopsticks, it also meant bridge, and pronounced just a little differently it meant "edge" - so if someone yelled "HASHI" at me in Japan, I would have to try to guess whether to go eat, run to the bridge, or draw my samurai sword. But hey, I'm not real attached to being right. If I misunderstood the meaning(s) of hashi, I apologize!

Hashi 箸, "chopsticks", is written with a completely different character than hashi 橋, "bridge", or hashi 端, "edge". This is the orthographical difference.

At first glance, in romanization, these all look like synonyms. But they are all pronounced with different pitch intonation. "Chopsticks" starts high and drops:

^ha shi

"Bridge" is the opposite.

ha ^shi

"Edge" is level: ha shi.

That is the morphological difference. In standard spoken Japanese, "chopsticks" would never be confused with "bridge" or "edge", just like "desert" and "dessert" would never be confused in standard spoken English. Nor would we ever say that "desert" also means "dessert".

Incidently, in the Kansai dialect of Eastern Japan, the intonation is reversed, but the distinction remains!

Rob Liberti wrote: snip...David, I think the questions are always at what level of ability and understanding is it best to try to extract ki from the compound aiki, what was the best method for both getting ready to do that, and what was the best method for actually doing it...snip?

Rob,

IMHO, the "Ki" in Aikido is not confined to the compound "aiki" alone. The compound "aiki" is just a generic in the oriental language (Chinese, Japanese or Korean). Similar to the compound/term "shu-ha-ri", it is hardly used spoken or written. Similar to the element "O", O is O no matter from what you extract - from O2, H2O, CO2, SO2, etc. O is an universal element. "Ki" or "Chi" or "Qi" however you call it is the same.

To understand the compound aiki, we should also try to explore "ai"

Best training

David Y

PS Perhaps Joshua Reyer can help us on the language side.

David Yap wrote: PS Perhaps Joshua Reyer can help us on the language side.

If someone were to say that aiki is different from qi, I think I would go along with that. If someone were to say qi and ki were two different things, I would disagree.

Single concepts retain their meaning in both Chinese and Japanese. Compounds, well, complicate things. Particularly modern ones. Aiki has a meaning related to, but distinct from, qi.

That said, I think Mr. Gordon started out with the kernel of a good idea (that aiki is not the same as qi) and then took it waaaaay too far of a conclusion ("Ki, chi? Apples, oranges.")

(To add to the ever increasing number of analogies, I'd put it "Ki, chi? Apples, apples. Aiki, chi? Apple pie, apples.")

Ai 合 represents an action, au 合う. Aiki refers to a particular action of ki, that of matching/blending/joining. Developing one's aiki is different from developing one's ki, but again, they are related, as one is a thing, and the other an action of that thing. Developing one could certainly help in developing the other.

And it goes without saying that in other martial arts, like the Chinese arts that also focus on qi, the same or similar concepts can be developed, even if called by different names. Apple pie vs. apple cobbler, as it were. Not to mention that apple pies can all taste different depending on their other ingredients.

(Damn. For someone who dislikes analogies as a discourse strategy, I really ran with that one.)

For those sick of analogies I thought I'd give my two cents.

First off I'm going to presuppose that to some degree the foundation between both arts is similar at the high levels. Understanding tru-balance, standing w/ the spine, relaxation of the pelvic crease to let power through, never putting power into the shoulders when generating power etc etc etc.

Many CMA schools tend to use this power to generate a "burst" of power (it can be fairly smooth too, for controlling purposes) in a single instant. This can be a strike, throw, what have you.

Aiki, is simply using the same foundation in a different manner. How to "put" your power in unhindered, unstopping "through" the other person. There's probably not as much emphasis on the dantien drop since generally you don't seek to "emit" power. But you could, since the framework is there. Only thing is, if you can "thread" your "groundpath" through to the other person, you effectively take away his base, which doesn't really require any explosive release of energy to throw him.

Sagawa's feel was described as a "laser that passed through you unhindered" (or something of the like, I don't remember the exact quote), so I don't think I'm all that far off the mark.

Really the difference is in how you choose to develop it.
CMA styles emphasize the drop of the tanden, the Aiki everyone's been bickering about doesn't. Instead they simply focus on a higher level of manipulating the "ground" path. (But that still requires a manipulation of the tanden to some degree, actually both of them :-D)



Comments? (Btw, I don't necessarily think I'm right, so anyone that has anything specific they want to help correct me on, feel free)

Crap. I went and started Ki Wars XXVIII ...

I don't think there's any argument that ki and chi/q mean similar things. My point is that Japanese and Chinese systems take differing approaches and unless you have a solid grounding in your core art, with a good understanding of ITS approach, then overlaying the methodology, theory and practice from completely different systemology might be counterproductive.

Chuck Gordon wrote: My point is that Japanese and Chinese systems take differing approaches and unless you have a solid grounding in your core art, with a good understanding of ITS approach, then overlaying the methodology, theory and practice from completely different systemology might be counterproductive.

So how about some support for the *assertion* that "Japanese and Chinese sytems take differing approaches"??? There are differing approaches, for instance, to the ki and kokyu developments skills within Aikido and Karate, and of course there are different approaches of tactics and strategies between Karate and Aikido. But if you throw out the obvious remark that tactics and strategies *generally* differe between styles, there is no really essential difference between the core principles of Ki development in Aikido, in Karate, or in the Chinese martial arts. To think there is some relevant difference that exceeds the supercedes the simple differences *in-country* between styles is naive and fatuous.

FWIW

Mike

Chuck Gordon wrote: My point is that Japanese and Chinese systems take differing approaches.

I'd like to hear the difference from an expert of both Japanese and Chinese arts like you.

Roosevelt,

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.

However, if you'r einterested, I've studied Japanese budo for more than 30 years, and over the course of those 30 years, have spent a year or two here and there in other systems, among them Pa Kua Chuan (of which the more modern spelling is Ba Gua, IIRC).

No expert, just a long-time student.

Also, to be specific and perfectly open, I do not believe in ki/chi as anything supernatural or as anything that occurs outside of the known and researchable physical universe.

As for the differeing approaches, that's something, IMHO, best discovered on the mat. To examine the ki in the Ki Aikido referent, one should study Ki Aikido under a good teacher. If you want to study Tai Chi, do so in the kwoon under the tutelage of a good Tai Chi instructor.

That's _my_ theory.

And that answers the question of how ki and qi are different (or even used different), as you asserted, how?

Mike

One thing I notice in Taiji, Xingyi, Aikido, Bagua, etc., etc., as practiced in the West, is that there is this "Boy Scouts Around the Campfire" mentality where someone stands up and says "here's my theory" and everyone nods sagely. Maybe it would help if there were more of a "so tell us how that works" mentality rather than an "it's my turn to tell a ghost story" mentality. I know plenty of people who have "studied 20-30 years" who simply don't know much other than rituals, some foreign words, and have a "telling ghost stories around the campfire" attitude. The best way to avoid all this is simply hold everyone to facts, as opposed to "feelings", IMO.

FWIW

Mike

Chuck Gordon wrote: Roosevelt, Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.

It depends on your answer.

Chuck Gordon wrote: However, if you'r einterested, I've studied Japanese budo for more than 30 years, and over the course of those 30 years, have spent a year or two here and there in other systems, among them Pa Kua Chuan (of which the more modern spelling is Ba Gua, IIRC).

You took my question in the wrong way. I had not intention to question your superficail qualification (i.e. years of study, ranking) since I have little to show. I only want to know (or learn) your undersatnding of both arts.

Chuck Gordon wrote: Also, to be specific and perfectly open, I do not believe in ki/chi as anything supernatural or as anything that occurs outside of the known and researchable physical universe.

In total agreement. But there is no scientific ways to measure the ki/qi either. The lack of tangible feekback (except to the prationer itself) make it hard to teach and learn.

Chuck Gordon wrote: As for the differeing approaches, that's something, IMHO, best discovered on the mat.

Here is when my sarcastism comes in. For someone who believes that ki is natrual, physical and teachable, yet thinks that a method or two can't be put into words, I have less respect.

I'm relieved to see that this thread finally got to discussing what was actually presented. Joshua and Robert John, thank you for your wonderful posts.

I'd love to read about "the core principles of Ki development in Aikido, in Karate, or in the Chinese martial arts." Are there any good books discussing this?

Rob

Whatever, Roosevelt. Do what you wish. Think what you wish. If you don't like what I say, don't read it. Have a nice life ...

Rob Liberti wrote: I'd love to read about "the core principles of Ki development in Aikido, in Karate, or in the Chinese martial arts." Are there any good books discussing this?

Thanks to Mark Walsh in another thread, REACH OUT: BODY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR PEACEMAKING by Paul Linden is a wonderful essay, http://aiki-extensions.org/member_pubs.html.

It also uses some image to present excercise. You can clearly tell its written by someone who knows. Unlike someone who fakes.

Side point. I think too many love talks in some Aikido jodo, people forget the very first principle is "be true". Without "true", there isn't any Aikido.

Another point is "power", Paul said it well "Power creates stability, wich is a PREREQUISITE for the vulnerable softening of love", "love without power is limp and ineffective".

"Chi chung: way of power" recommended by Mike Sigman is a good book. Lack of illustation makes it hard to understand, especially in the section about power of metal, wood, water, fire and earth. It's interesting that the power of metal is similar to the sword cutting without the sword. I haven't figure out the other movement due to lack of pictures. Maybe the author tries to sell us his video?

Chuck Gordon wrote: If you don't like what I say, don't read it.

I don't think you have said anything yet. How can I not like what you haven't said?

The whole problem is that you haven't said anything.

Roosvelt: How's the trip to Cancun?

Chuck: Go to find out yourself?

Roosvelt: I've been to barbados. I've heard that Cancun has similar nice weather and blue ocean.

Chuck: Cancun, Barbados. Apples, oranges.

Roosvelt: Can you tell me about it?

Chuck: If you don't like what I say, don't ask.

Roosvelt: ?!

Roosvelt Freeman wrote: "Chi chung: way of power" recommended by Mike Sigman is a good book. Lack of illustation makes it hard to understand, especially in the section about power of metal, wood, water, fire and earth. It's interesting that the power of metal is similar to the sword cutting without the sword. I haven't figure out the other movement due to lack of pictures. Maybe the author tries to sell us his video?

Anyone can write a book. I have always been intrigued by the credence many people put in something "because it is in a book". I have a very extensive library of books (periodically I clean it out and give a number of fairly useless volumes on "advanced studies" to the local library)... yet when people ask me for recommendations I can only ever think of a few books to suggest, and even then I have reservations.

Most of the books about Aikido, Karate, Chinese martial arts, etc., are very far from complete and contain only hints of things that I would consider "must know" in order to make any progress. The book on "Chi Gung: Way of Power" is a good book with a fair amount of useful information, but once again if you don't already know a fair amount about what the author is referring to, it doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems to usually go back to that one phrase, in good martial arts books...... "unless you already know it, the book doesn't tell you much".

Let's face it, it's simply hard to find good information. And the real killer that I've found over the years that almost equals the *lack* of good information is the huge amount of poor information that all the would-be "experts" and "teachers" throw in... the really hard part is to distinguish between good information and junk information. And most teachers are teaching bogus information, but most students are too loyal to ever understand that fact.... so most students will not try to discriminate in information if it in any ways means questioning what their "teacher" has told them. So they are doomed. The only real hope in most martial arts is for the somewhat new, still curious, students who can focus on reality.

FWIW

Mike