The continued Evolution of Aikido

In the spiritual side of Aikido, the concepts of harmony, peaceful, love, etc. don't evolve, it is the person who does. We define and place the meanings and the proper applications, it's structure, we can evolve that. It is how we look at it that evolves. We have that power to do so. A power we can't exercise on our own humanity.

Don McConnell wrote: I guess I would offer up two thoughts. The first is that IF aikido chooses to respond to the popular culture, then I could see aikido bifurcating into two directions. One is an art that is more interested in the "spiritual" benefits of aikido and the other is one that "devolves" back toward its daito ryu roots and incorporates current MMA concepts, more resistive training, and is interested in becoming more of a ring fighting sport or art. On the other hand since so few people reach a truly advanced level of aikido, and those that do tend to be old enough that they won't be seen competing in competitive martial arts, perhaps we will never know what aikido truly is capable of.

I would agree entirely with this quotation as seen in my blog at A.J. https://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=3104
Hence the growth in Shodokan Aikido....... to the point that other aikido "styles" are now taking up the competition element.....
Tomiki Shihan will be proved right ....... Eventually
The reluctance of "purists" to prove their ability and be tested..... only then we will see their true worth.......

Yea, know one Aikido style can't be better then another. One Aikido style can't evolve over another. They are just different interpretations or add other ingredients to the stock of Aikido.

Philip Burgess wrote: Tennis is stilled played by hitting a ball over a net. Soccer is played kicking a ball up and down a field into a goal. What evolves is the player, the equipment, the rules, but not the game. The game is an abstract thing, how can that evolve?

Ok, the fundamental principles that define the 'game' are intact but to say the game hasn't evolved is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Philip Burgess wrote: Aikido is principles and all the stuff Kevin said. How can that evolved physically the phenotype of the creature.

The phenotype is the observable interaction of an organism's genotype( basic structure) and the environment and implies evolving.
Aikido (the martial art) is MOVEMENTS ( surely the movements can evolve) based on principles ( an observation of physics) and unless the principles are in their most purest form, they can evolve too.

Paul Burgess wrote: Darwin was looking at creatures who he felt where related that evolved, but didn't see the evolution take place. He didn't look at creatures and said, hey that creature de-evolved into a lower form of a creature. He should have been looking at human history.

Right , it has been concluded that another fundamental principle of Nature, that cannot be denied, is that all things evolve or else become extinct and that's a truth that had occured for millions of years. In fact, humans HAVE evolved over the thousands of years. IN fact, it's inevidable for things to evolve.

Jennifer Smith wrote: well with inflation the way it is $ .02 is worth less and less all the time. just joshin' ya.... But seriously. I agree with the first assertion you make about definitions being helpful. So here is the definition of revolution. http://www.answers.com/topic/revolution

I know my opinion might be worthless, but still......the Merriam-Webster definition is: 1. the action by a body of going around in an orbit or a eliptical course. 2. a sudden , radical, complete change. My emphasis is the implication- revolution implies discordial change, like the American Revolution ( and all revolutions in history), where Colonists were totally disgruntled with the King of England and so, revolted- fought to overthrow. I just don;t believe that that's the case in Aikido.

Attilio Anthony John Wagstaffe wrote: I would agree entirely with this quotation as seen in my blog at A.J. https://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=3104 Hence the growth in Shodokan Aikido....... to the point that other aikido "styles" are now taking up the competition element..... Tomiki Shihan will be proved right ....... Eventually The reluctance of "purists" to prove their ability and be tested..... only then we will see their true worth.......

IMO, to add Shotokan or Tae Kwon Do or any other striking,violent, harmful art to Aikido is NOT evolving it, IMO, it mutating it or devolving it.

Osensei studied the most violent and deadliest arts known at the time and developed Aikido by REMOVING the violence and by definiton developed a hybrid Martial Art. To add the violence back in does not evolve it, but DE-volve it back to the violent arts that it started out as.

Philip Burgess wrote: Yea, know one Aikido style can't be better then another. One Aikido style can't evolve over another. They are just different interpretations or add other ingredients to the stock of Aikido.

You mean that it's not possible to have a style of Aikido that has a more direct route to blend wth the Uke's center, getting him off center, or eliminating excessive movement etc or a more realistic form of Aikido dealing better with street situations, incorporating a taser, for instance, or techniques/system to allow folks to learn Aikido exponentially quicker, with a total physical, nutritional and medical makeup, tutoring, etc wouldn't that be an evolution of Aikido?
Btw, I'm curious to what 'other ingrediants' you're refering to.

Clarence Couch wrote: I know my opinion might be worthless, but still......the Merriam-Webster definition is: 1. the action by a body of going around in an orbit or a eliptical course. 2. a sudden , radical, complete change. My emphasis is the implication- revolution implies discordial change, like the American Revolution ( and all revolutions in history), where Colonists were totally disgruntled with the King of England and so, revolted- fought to overthrow. I just don;t believe that that's the case in Aikido.

Not worthless, just worth less with the effects of inflation. In case ya can't tell, I'm just kidding....I'm guessing you are, too.

Yes, I realize your emphasis and I'm using it as an opportunity to re-direct toward a generative perspective. My point,and I believe if you reference the entire definition selections I provided,which, btw, include the ones you offer here, is that revolution ( small r ) is not a dirty word. It is a word that, as you have it above describes power in practice......."The action of a body of going in an orbital or eliptical course." I mentioned, previously, but I'll say it again, the single political definition put aside.

So, I'm not here trying to revolt, fight, or overthrow your opinion, thereby starting an aikiweb revolution (see I do understand that definition ).

Essentially I agree with you about the nature of practice and that could be quite nice.

I'm just not throwing 'the baby out with the bath water' in terms of language and it's power in correct, un- absconded, use.
Like English Kotodama, if you will. But that is an issue for another thread in language. & Perhaps I'll see you there.

Thanks for the interesting dialog. I'm having fun with this thread.

For now I have to go turn, move in a circle, rotate around an axis, turn the tides of aggression, and move around a stable center...but definitely not do anything involved with revolution.

still having fun,
jen

Clarence Couch wrote: Osensei studied the most violent and deadliest arts known at the time and developed Aikido by REMOVING the violence and by definiton developed a hybrid Martial Art.

I do not agree with your point of view. Martial Arts are violent by Nature and aikido is still a Martial Art. What distinguishes it from others is that it is not a tool any more, but it is a weapon by itself.

On a battle field people use martial arts in case they lose a weapon, so that they can retrieve their weapon and be able to continue the fight. What does it mean that aikido is a weapon? I think, that Morihei Ueshiba chose among others only twelve deadly techniques to accomplish that goal (fall on a head in the blink of an eye). Similar to judo techniques (seoi-nage, or kata-guruma), you can always spare a life by throwing your opponent on his back. That is why we call aikido a Peaceful Martial Art, as well.

Kisshomary Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei made the most important evolution of aikido by modifying it so that it can be preserved to the next generations. We all practice aikido in different ways; in different schools, facing different styles and teachers, having different understanding of the art. One thing we all still do everywhere is practicing those 12 techniques: ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kote-gaeshi, tenchi-nage, kaiten-nage, juji-nage, ude-kime-nage and koshi-nage.

A while ago I was trying to explain my own approach on how to use my aikido study to became a master, because in my view studying the art for only 2-3 hours a week in dojo (even for 50 years) does not give one any chance to master it. If practicing sword-mastership or any ancient weapons in general, has only a cultural aspect, I perceive mastering aikido skills as a very important part of every human being education. Unfortunately, we study aikido in every aspect of the art without keeping this idea in mind. Most people still see aikido as a combative art and try to compare it with others. It doesn't make any sense, simply because the purpose of any aikido move is never to start a fight.

Clarence Couch wrote: IMO, to add Shotokan or Tae Kwon Do or any other striking,violent, harmful art to Aikido is NOT evolving it, IMO, it mutating it or devolving it. Osensei studied the most violent and deadliest arts known at the time and developed Aikido by REMOVING the violence and by definiton developed a hybrid Martial Art. To add the violence back in does not evolve it, but DE-volve it back to the violent arts that it started out as.

Are you referring to Shotokan Karate or or have you misread my post?
Can I ask you whether or not you have really experienced a violent situation.......?
Were you the victim of that experience and what did you do?

Violence removed from aikido?

Purpose is to never start a fight?

Interesting discussion.

I am not an O'Sensei scholar or an expert on what he actually intended or did not intend to do....

however, I find it hard to believe that he EVER intended to remove violence from aikido, in fact I believe it to be the opposite.

We need to fully embrace and understand violence and the root of it on a personal level.

I believe the whole sect of belief that attempts to remove violence by reframing it to be Polictically Correct or "aiki-fruty" is treading on very dangerous ground and ironically willl end up doing damage to the very thing they are seeking to avoid in the first place...violence!

What aikido, as well as most martial arts, does is remove the unnecessary features of violence that we don't need to relive or experience. Blood, gore, actual harm...the aspects that cause us pain and psychological damage.

What we end up with is a practice that allows us to work through the issues of associated with violence, experience and confront them and learn how to physcially, emotionally, and sprititually deal with them.

Reframing, ignoring, or re-interpreting what we are actually practicing as anything other than that is not helping us learn and grow in our understanding of the world we live in.

As far as the purpose being to never start a fight. I certainly understand that and hold that out as a personal goal for sure. However, I personally stop short of using that as a axiom/tenant.

To me, aikido is aikido, fighitng is fighting. It is not about who starts or stops a fight, but simply about fighting or violence period.

I can think of plenty of instances in which I would certainly preempt or strike with the first blow.

O'Sensei in the Art of Peace by John Stevens purports that part of the goal is to present such a strong front that no one would dare attack you.

How do you do that without the ability or willingness to strike first or fight?

Your intent might be to avoid fighting, but you must be committed to fighting if you must.

That is the irony of what we practice!

Understanding that irony or duality is a big part of the message that needs to be understood with respect to aikido IMO.

Anything other than that is either ignorance or idealism...both of which set you up for failure!

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Purpose is to never start a fight?!

I think, you misunderstood my final sentence. By saying "purpose of any aikido move is never to start a fight." I did mean, that aikido is a final solution. By a fight I understand continues fighting. Using aikido skill you're supposed to show your power (to intimidate) by responding to the first strike. Trying to avoid a confrontation is the best solution without question, but it is not necessary an exclusive attribute of aikido.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Violence removed from aikido? Purpose is to never start a fight? Interesting discussion. I am not an O'Sensei scholar or an expert on what he actually intended or did not intend to do.... however, I find it hard to believe that he EVER intended to remove violence from aikido, in fact I believe it to be the opposite. We need to fully embrace and understand violence and the root of it on a personal level. I believe the whole sect of belief that attempts to remove violence by reframing it to be Polictically Correct or "aiki-fruty" is treading on very dangerous ground and ironically willl end up doing damage to the very thing they are seeking to avoid in the first place...violence! What aikido, as well as most martial arts, does is remove the unnecessary features of violence that we don't need to relive or experience. Blood, gore, actual harm...the aspects that cause us pain and psychological damage. What we end up with is a practice that allows us to work through the issues of associated with violence, experience and confront them and learn how to physcially, emotionally, and sprititually deal with them. Reframing, ignoring, or re-interpreting what we are actually practicing as anything other than that is not helping us learn and grow in our understanding of the world we live in. As far as the purpose being to never start a fight. I certainly understand that and hold that out as a personal goal for sure. However, I personally stop short of using that as a axiom/tenant. To me, aikido is aikido, fighitng is fighting. It is not about who starts or stops a fight, but simply about fighting or violence period. I can think of plenty of instances in which I would certainly preempt or strike with the first blow. O'Sensei in the Art of Peace by John Stevens purports that part of the goal is to present such a strong front that no one would dare attack you. How do you do that without the ability or willingness to strike first or fight? Your intent might be to avoid fighting, but you must be committed to fighting if you must. That is the irony of what we practice! Understanding that irony or duality is a big part of the message that needs to be understood with respect to aikido IMO. Anything other than that is either ignorance or idealism...both of which set you up for failure!

I appreciate this post, Kevin. Thanks.

A lot of what you've said here has been stated by my aikido teachers , is my experience, and can also be found in Terry Dobson's book, It's A lot Like Dancing.

On an individual note:
For my part, I don't go to prove myself in the dojo in any particular way other than bringing my entire self there year after year..etc..and rediscovering, in new terms, that which is always there. How training effects each individual is, well, individual. That is also an enlightening paradox I observe.
I have been eventually grateful for the times that I've used my traditional aikido off the mat to save lives, my own included. Sometimes using methods that might seem violent. But then again storms are violent at times, too, aren't they? And that is a description of nature, which is the inspirational model for aikido that I, and many of my teachers before me, use. Other teachers have taught in different terms. That was also helpful.
I'm a lot more aware of my limitations than I was before I began my training and I'm a lot more aware of my gifts, too.
That's been a big piece of my personal evolution in the arts. And since the art and the individual are fairly inseperable,at least in my case, I'd say that is an evolution of the art. But I'll let nature sort that out. I'm just grateful to have the practice to comment on in the first place.

Salim Shaw wrote: Here's a great video clip ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D10w1VFGZh0

Hello, I have some technical questions about this video

1. In the basic ikkyo, nage's "inside" hand grabs the uke's shoulder (at 0:44 for example). This is different from the basic that I was taught where the elbow is grabbed thus providing the nage with strong leverage which prevents uke from "standing up".
What is the rational for taking the shoulder and not the elbow?

2. The uke is reversing the ikkyo by "standing up", at 2:08 the nage is open to an atemi from the uke's left hand as he is setting up the wristlock, again at 2:18 and 2:22.
Is there an assumption that uke does not strike?

3. The uke is reversing ikkyo by rolling away from the nage. The nage gives up his upright kamai and follows the uke into newaza (3:07).
Under what circumstances having the uke in a lock while lying with your back on the ground is better that remaining upright and not having the uke at all?

Clarence Couch wrote: You mean that it's not possible to have a style of Aikido that has a more direct route to blend wth the Uke's center, getting him off center, or eliminating excessive movement etc or a more realistic form of Aikido dealing better with street situations, incorporating a taser, for instance, or techniques/system to allow folks to learn Aikido exponentially quicker, with a total physical, nutritional and medical makeup, tutoring, etc wouldn't that be an evolution of Aikido? Btw, I'm curious to what 'other ingrediants' you're refering to.

See Aikido is physics, its movement. It is an abstract. It is something people thought of and do. Aikido isn't live like us. Evolution applies to us and living creatures like marine lizards. You know evolution by that guy named Darwin who started the whole Evolution thing which we now apply to everything even thought we shouldn't. Even in the loosest terms, Evolution applies to us improving our skill. We evolve, we learn, we change, we use the tasser, we make the circle properly, we improve the movements of our own bodies to get the results we seek, not Aikido. That is what I was saying.

What I am about to say I want to preface it with animal breeding, particularly dairy cattle. Yea, it's abit weird but...now does the advances in milk production through genetic breeding of dairy cows considered evolution of the cow? How about different techniques one dairymen uses vs. other to get higher milk production, say equipment, or methods of relaxing the cows during milking. Are these techniques for milk production improvement over another is a matter of improved techniques of obtaining milk or evolution of the cow? The end result is improved milk production, not an evolved cow or milk.

Sure you can manipulate the cow's genes and get six utter's or none at all but that isn't evolution. Thats messing with a bovine's genes. Man is messing with the genes to get something desired or non-desired. There is no evolution there.

Isn't it the same way with Aikido? You can manipulate the genes of Aikido to get something desired or non-desired from it to fit your goals. We as technicians can improve our Aikido skills, but Aikido itself doesn't improve, it is a composition of natural laws etc. used by humans against other humans to get a desired.

I know what was said about Aikido and evolution that is at the core of this old wore shoe, but then is it accurate. Just because it was said doesn't mean the source is accurate, or correct or otherwise. Just because you skill advances doesn't mean your intellect does too. That isn't an insult. It is just a comment saying that when we hear or read something from someone with admirable skill we automatically assume we understanding fully what they say and what they mean etc. No insult intended it is that we just can't assume we know what they mean.

I like what Jennifer said too about circles, and turning etc. not being a revolution.

That is all I am saying, I have a different perspective on it and I explained it. For anyone who like myself doesn't want to search Darwin's theory here is it in short.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Violence thing being talked about:

I don't know. I is too far down on the Aikido food chain. But what I glean from what I think I understand from what has been translated on what O'Sensei said, I think we work on two levels. A personal level where you defend yourself and not kill your attacker i.e. let the attacker know ( assuming he is not high) that he will not conquer you. Then there is the global level where we put peace before war. O'Sensei from what I know wasn't a scholar or thinker like Plato, Descarte, etc. I am betting his views are not complex like Voltaire's. Though he did think of himself as a god (maybe equates to what we consider as a superstar pro. I don't know it was just a guess). I think he was a man of social change, i.e. a MLK figure instead.

The idea of violence being discussed might be beyond the scope of O'Sensei's original contemplation on violence. I think O'Sensei's focus of his contemplation was on being peaceful, and peace, and not violence. Maybe? Kind of ....

My take on it, FWIW.

I think it's interesting to think about "evolution" and "adaptation" of social inventions, including ideas and practices. Darwin, after all, didn't invent the word. However, perforce, these terms carry a certain amount of ideological baggage of their own. Still, I think it's possible to ask intelligible questions such as, "Were the changes in O'Sensei's art after WWII an adaptation to a different social time, or an evolution of a martial art?" I also think it's a mistake to consider this question on a strictly bio-analogical basis. Adaptation, which is how a "genotype" responds to its environment, is not the same as evolution, which is how the genotype changes over time. But, removing the biological analogy, the underlying idea remains that adaptation is more of a tactical response to the immediate situation, whereas evolution connotes a more fundamental change.

(One might even reframe some of the discussion here in terms of the difference between the idea of a revolt and the idea of a revolution.)

This whole discussion suggests to me Hagel's famous idea, "The owl of Minerva flies too late." That is, we may seldom have a good idea either what we are changing into, or what we are changing.

My aikido changes. I hope it improves, if cyclically. Sometimes technical details become clearer; other times sensitivity to uke; others, ma ai; on it goes.

Aikido also will change. I don't think we know how; and how we will evaluate that change reflects our underlying fix on what our own Aikido is or ought to be.

Regards,

Dh

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Violence removed from aikido?

I didn't say remove the violence from Aikido, I said he developed Aikido to remove the violence from Aikijutsu, etc. By that I mean the bone crushing, complete joint removal, rip the throat out, skull crushing, etc.

To answer another querie, I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps where I boxed and then studied Shotokan Karate in Iwakuni, Japan, then some JKD and then Tae Kwon Do and then MMA. I understand about fighting and violence. I have a 30 stitch scar on my belly from a knife fight on the street. I fully understand about meeting fire with fire.

I love Aikido and will study/practice it 'tilI die, because that'swhere i am in my life, but I know that up against a hardened crininal, I'm gonna need something else, 'cause Aikido ain't gonna save me, but that's not why I study/practice it.

That hardened criminal/young punk MMA fighter on steriods ain't gonna lay down just 'cause I toss him around. I'm gonna have to take him out or he's gonna take me out and that's the simple fact, so I'm gonna have to crush his skull and rip his throat out any way I can before I run out of gas, or I'm dead. That's why I have a CCW and carry 9 rds of .45 hollow point, 'cause I'm not even gonna stand there and fight the guy, period. One lucky punch could leave me paralyzed or dead. I'm not even gonna give him the chance. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry. Hopefully some day I'll be comfortable enough to just carry a taser.

Philip Burgess wrote: The idea of violence being discussed might be beyond the scope of O'Sensei's original contemplation on violence. I think O'Sensei's focus of his contemplation was on being peaceful, and peace, and not violence. Maybe? Kind of .... My take on it, FWIW.

One thing folks seem to forget, is Osensi lived thru WWII. He joined the Japanese Army and spent his time training Japanese soldiers to fight and kill Then he witnessed the Atom Bomb. If anybody doesn't think that will change a Japanese person, they need to go to Peace Park in Hiroshima, like I did, and see the museum there. Watch the movie, see where a person was sitting on a concrete step and the waves fused his body into the concrete, intact. Folks were alive, but had no meat on their bones, their clothes and jewelry fused into their skin. If anyone doesn't think that'll cause a warrior to rethink his fate and place in the world, I don't know what will. Those folks actually believed the end of the world was upon them. Oh yes, he knew about violence, more than anyone else could imagine.

[quote=Philip Burgess;220661
I like what Jennifer said too about circles, and turning etc. not being a revolution.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks. But I AM saying that it IS revolution, as in rotate,revolve,turn,etc.....how political Revolutions come about is another story for another thread. I will say that political revolutions involve energies that start low and then go spiraling upwards. But I'd like to keep that conversation separate . Otherwise this thread will become a descending spiral; At least for me.

As for evolution, Darwin and O'Sensei: What they have in common is that they both were observers of natural phenomena and they both put a name on their discpline/ observation: one named their work aikido and the other named their work evolution.. As to creating or making those 'things'..Well, they both contributed their works for the benefit of our understanding.
Best

David Soroko wrote: Hello, I have some technical questions about this video 1. In the basic ikkyo, nage's "inside" hand grabs the uke's shoulder (at 0:44 for example). This is different from the basic that I was taught where the elbow is grabbed thus providing the nage with strong leverage which prevents uke from "standing up". What is the rational for taking the shoulder and not the elbow? 2. The uke is reversing the ikkyo by "standing up", at 2:08 the nage is open to an atemi from the uke's left hand as he is setting up the wristlock, again at 2:18 and 2:22. Is there an assumption that uke does not strike? 3. The uke is reversing ikkyo by rolling away from the nage. The nage gives up his upright kamai and follows the uke into newaza (3:07). Under what circumstances having the uke in a lock while lying with your back on the ground is better that remaining upright and not having the uke at all?

1. Maybe it depends on the situation, dynamics, or assumptions that you are dealing with? I tend to follow what Roy is doing, mid tricep or shoulder. My intent is to actually control the spine through the shoulder joint. My rational would be that arms and elbows move pretty darn quickly and in unpredictable ways. I always know where the shoulder is in relation to the spine, and that is what I really want anyway so I tend to go there. Is there anything wrong with controlling the elbow? Maybe not in principle, as you can still probably access Uke's center through the elbow. I just think it is easier and less variables to deal with going to the mid bicep or shoulder. I also don't like to "grab" as it causes a proprioception, a delay on my part and exudes a response to uke.

2. I can't really comment on it too much since I am not Roy. Maybe he will. Is he really standing him back up? Not sure he really is and there is more room to extend Uke by weighting him on one leg before the reversal. It happens so fast in the video it is hard for me to tell if he is actually standing him back up or not. Atemi...not sure there is really much time or ability on uke to deliver an effective strike in that situation. A blade, maybe something could be delivered on the reversal. Again, you'd have to ask Roy. I have no issue though with what he is doing tactically given the right parameters/assumptions.

3. Under what circumstances? Probably not too many if you are talking street application. Roy could have just as easily done Knee on Stomach with the arm extended while remaining upright. Roy, as you probably know, is a BJJ black belt and is doing much to combine the principles of BJJ and Aikido. As his student base in made up of BJJ and aikidoka, it would make sense to show this as an option. There is nothing wrong with it, it is simple one option.

Tactically if Uke was strong and had a knife in that hand, you could pop back pretty quickly, break the arm, remove the knife and be right back up on your feet pretty quickly. In practice we tend though to move slow and set the lock in waiting for the tap. Again, simply "one way" to do things! It can be difficult to control a non-compliant opponent from standing positions so it is good to know ways to do that such as this arm bar. That said, I typically prefer knee on belly/back and remaining up right. I think you will find that Roy would also agree with this!

Good questions!

Clarence Couch wrote: I didn't say remove the violence from Aikido, I said he developed Aikido to remove the violence from Aikijutsu, etc. By that I mean the bone crushing, complete joint removal, rip the throat out, skull crushing, etc. To answer another querie, I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps where I boxed and then studied Shotokan Karate in Iwakuni, Japan, then some JKD and then Tae Kwon Do and then MMA. I understand about fighting and violence. I have a 30 stitch scar on my belly from a knife fight on the street. I fully understand about meeting fire with fire. I love Aikido and will study/practice it 'tilI die, because that'swhere i am in my life, but I know that up against a hardened crininal, I'm gonna need something else, 'cause Aikido ain't gonna save me, but that's not why I study/practice it. That hardened criminal/young punk MMA fighter on steriods ain't gonna lay down just 'cause I toss him around. I'm gonna have to take him out or he's gonna take me out and that's the simple fact, so I'm gonna have to crush his skull and rip his throat out any way I can before I run out of gas, or I'm dead. That's why I have a CCW and carry 9 rds of .45 hollow point, 'cause I'm not even gonna stand there and fight the guy, period. One lucky punch could leave me paralyzed or dead. I'm not even gonna give him the chance. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry. Hopefully some day I'll be comfortable enough to just carry a taser.

Sounds good.

As I stated I am not sure why exactly he chose to remove the "hard" stuff that you see in aikijiujitsu. I am not so sure how anyone knows what he did or didn't remove as most of us recieve our training 3 or 4 generations removed now.

Personally, I think he chose to concentrate on the things he concentrated on so he could build Ai Ki. Those things were probably simply not productive in developing Ai Ki so he did not concentrate on the. Jitsu, as you know, is concerned with tactical application whereas, DO is concerned with the overall way or philosophically/spiritual/personal development/growth.

From my limited experiences with Saotome Sensei, I am not so sure that O'Sensei removed these elements.

This is an old video Saotome Sensei, but it demonstrates a very strong and brutal/direct kamae.

Whenever I have worked with Saotome sensei he always makes a point of demonstrating the bone crushing, throat ripping etc that is inherently there.

I am sure more senior and experienced students of Saotome can comment on this more accurately, but I sense that Saotome Sensei is concerned about this not being there everytime he teaches and lectures to us as he seems to make a very deliberate attempt to demonstrate and discuss it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1WNUThJ9E

Clarence Couch wrote: One thing folks seem to forget, is Osensi lived thru WWII. He joined the Japanese Army and spent his time training Japanese soldiers to fight and kill Then he witnessed the Atom Bomb. If anybody doesn't think that will change a Japanese person, they need to go to Peace Park in Hiroshima, like I did, and see the museum there. Watch the movie, see where a person was sitting on a concrete step and the waves fused his body into the concrete, intact. Folks were alive, but had no meat on their bones, their clothes and jewelry fused into their skin. If anyone doesn't think that'll cause a warrior to rethink his fate and place in the world, I don't know what will. Those folks actually believed the end of the world was upon them. Oh yes, he knew about violence, more than anyone else could imagine.

I agree. I am sure it must have had a big impact on things. Not sure what how the Atomic Bomb impacted his perspective or philosophy, but for me it is hard to imagine that it did not.

I think that this is exactly why he chose to practice budo the way he did ensuring that the elements that were important concerning conflict and violence were retained in aikido in order to help folks understand the nature and process of harmony.

Philip Burgess wrote: Violence thing being talked about: I don't know. I is too far down on the Aikido food chain. But what I glean from what I think I understand from what has been translated on what O'Sensei said, I think we work on two levels. A personal level where you defend yourself and not kill your attacker i.e. let the attacker know ( assuming he is not high) that he will not conquer you. Then there is the global level where we put peace before war. O'Sensei from what I know wasn't a scholar or thinker like Plato, Descarte, etc. I am betting his views are not complex like Voltaire's. Though he did think of himself as a god (maybe equates to what we consider as a superstar pro. I don't know it was just a guess). I think he was a man of social change, i.e. a MLK figure instead. The idea of violence being discussed might be beyond the scope of O'Sensei's original contemplation on violence. I think O'Sensei's focus of his contemplation was on being peaceful, and peace, and not violence. Maybe? Kind of .... My take on it, FWIW.

On Defend yourself and not kill another: Certainly an ethical goal for sure. This is one that I share for sure, as I have no overwhelming desire to hurt or kill anyone or anything unnecessarily. I spend a huge part of my life trying to gain "skillfullness" to prevent just that! My hope is that when and if the opportunity presents itself that I will make the most skillful and best decision that I possibly can.

What I stop stop short of is removing the possibility of NOT killing as an option and practice those skills that involve killing, and I understand that the things I practice are designed to impart severe injury or death.

I get concerned sometimes that many practice with the ideal goal that they can somehow side step the whole harm/killing issue and move on to a solution set that somehow allows us to avoid it.

Again, this is the irony that I see with the whole issue dealing with killing and harm.

You do hit upon the point of compassion, which I think is very important in resolving conflict. You might knock your opponent down or kill him. It may not be important so much if he ends up alive or dead as much as it matters about your state of mind, or the amount of compassion that was involved in your decision to do so. that is, your actions were chosen based compassion.

the Dali Lama has written much about this and I have found them to be very relevant to this type of discussion.

I think many people put more weight on judging whether you kill or don't kill someone to be the ultimate judgement criteria (external) rather than on the compassion that was applied to the situation (internal). I think this is what is most important, and I believe it to be at the essence of O'Sensei's philosophy (at least this is what I get out of it).

Two levels of peace and harmony personal and global:

I think they are one. You can't have global peace without personal peace. It starts within you. Certainly we can have "peace" where folks are not killing each other and we live in realitive harmony, like we have in the U.S. that is different than "Authentic Peace" i which we live in total harmony without discord on any level.

In order to have Authentic Peace and Harmony, we must take care of ourselves only, that is all we can do, it spirals outward from there..through our actions and thoughts and intentions.

As a philosopher: I think it is relative. O'sensei at least developed a methodology to allow folks to practice his philosophy in an applied way. Scholars offer us a mental/intellectual model, but not much in the way of solutions really. I think this is what is important about what O'Sensei developed. History really defines someone's relative value to society. Those Greeks and Romans are a few years older than O'Sensei so we will have to see how it goes for him on a societal level. I will say he is a great one to those of us that he has touched or reached!

Not sure I'd put him in the same category as MLK or Ghandi as O'Sensei I don't believe has changed thoughts of perspective of whole secular societies. Again, maybe time will tell.

Again, though, he is important to those of us he reached, and his views are certainly in line with those two.

What is distinct is that he gave us a practice to follow and that is a big thing to those of us that are touched by aikido.