Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?

Jon Reading wrote: Why is an aikido demonstration a choreographed presentation on a floor that is not open to public participation? Is it that we are not using the right terminology? Or, is it that we are not demonstrating aiki?

Good point. Maybe we should call them "tastings," I dunno. There are "seminars" which by the very word, people are going to expect to actively participate and learn, not just watch a "demo."

If demonstrating aiki is as simple as creating a hands-on experience, why are there not more of them? Why not visit a jujujtsu dojo, let the students touch you and parade off with new students who have felt something they want to train?

I think there are more of them, but you've got to go back to that great mom n' pop pizza shop, or the microbrewery, or small farm. The quality is going to be inherent at that scale, but once you start trying to franchise and increase the production of scale, the quality goes down.

And as far as visiting other schools to get students; we could liken that to walking in with your own brand of microbrew to a loud sports bar. 1. You're getting into someone else's business. 2. Most of the people there just want a good buzz, want to watch the game, want a cheap and near-frozen tasteless beer, and don't give a crap about your Belgian Saison you've been perfecting for five years.

And in my case, and I think for many other Aiki people, I'm not looking to take away students from other arts and have them join "my school." I don't have "a school." In fact, I like that these people train where they train, and come to me for tools and skills that they can insert into their own training. I have students who are actively training in Wing Chun, Aikido, JKD, etc. - some of them are seriously into it – training hard for 6+ hours every week. They come to me once a week and we work together for a couple of hours. And often they bring other people from their schools to train with me. I'm not only not a threat to their school or their teachers, I'm giving them skills they can use within their own training classes at their schools. I even get indirect comments from their teachers, through the students, that the students are showing a lot of improvement, are more solid and sensitive, and that their techniques are a lot more effective. I don't even call what I do "Aiki," I just call it eclectic martial arts or just training. So, when the Wing Chun guy trains with me, he's training Wing Chun, the JKD guy is training JKD, the Aikido girl is training Aikido, etc.

I can talk about beer all night long at a brewery while I sample the flavors. We can argue about IPAs and why anyone would want to drink them. But there is one requirement... I have to know about beers. Imagine a conversation about beers if your partner didn't know what was a lager, or a pilsner, or a stout. How would that stifle your conversation? How awkward would it be to be in a brewery drinking beer with some one who clearly does not have working knowledge about beers, but is energetic and confident in her opinions?

Yes, well, you have to be interested in beers. Something to get your foot in the door. And have some experience. And that's why I'm usually only interested in training people who already have a reasonable background in, and who are actively training, martial arts.

But many people, like your girl who doesn't have a working knowledge – and probably doesn't even want one – is more than happy to enjoy her mass-produced beer that's served colder than 40 degrees. And she could be energetic and confident in her opinions, and she has a right to be. "Well," she says, "I don't really like beer all that much, and I like it really it cold, and I don't want too many calories, and I like something dependable I can find at most places. And I like Bud Light Lime 'cause it's just fun and makes me feel good and it reminds me of my trip to Mexico. Trying other beers just gives me a headache." And her opinion is 100% legit. And screw your IP lager and Aiki ale.

The point is, in most cases, people who are seeking something of a more esoteric quality are going to seek it out. And they know that. Some of the best teachers don't advertise, don't have websites, are hard to find, are hard to contact. don't post on forums, don't make elaborate videos. don't have a dojo in a strip mall, don't try to revolve what they do around a commercial school, don't try to make a living as a martial artist...

But I think there's a good groundswell, and it's catching on. And there is information out there, and there are people out there, and resources, and conversations, and hands to touch, and body skills to learn. And in that way there's never been a better time to be into this stuff. It's just that it's never really going to be "out there" on a large scale. Just like heirloom tomatoes are hard to find, but worth the effort for a small portion of the market who appreciates the quality of experience.

Martial arts is already a subculture in our society. And IS/IP/AIki is an even smaller subculture within that. It's always been like that, and it will always be like that. But just the fact that there's more information and communication is a pretty amazing thing, I'd say.

So, again, we should ask: What's more important? Quanity or quality? Because we reach a point where the returns are diminishing, and the more you get of one, the less you get of the other.

Dan Richards wrote: But many people, like your girl who doesn't have a working knowledge -- and probably doesn't even want one -- is more than happy to enjoy her mass-produced beer that's served colder than 40 degrees. And she could be energetic and confident in her opinions, and she has a right to be. "Well," she says, "I don't really like beer all that much, and I like it really it cold, and I don't want too many calories, and I like something dependable I can find at most places. And I like Bud Light Lime 'cause it's just fun and makes me feel good and it reminds me of my trip to Mexico. Trying other beers just gives me a headache." And her opinion is 100% legit. And screw your IP lager and Aiki ale.

so are we talking about how women and beers help with aiki here? or using women and beers to demonstrating aiki? i am a bit confused once you guys started talking about beers and women.

Phi Truong wrote: so are we talking about how women and beers help with aiki here? or using women and beers to demonstrating aiki? i am a bit confused once you guys started talking about beers and women.

As so often happens, this thread is at lagerheads.

Christopher Li wrote: As for the "stuff" - Saotome has a lot of "stuff", IMO, even certain people who have been cast from Aikiweb into the outer darkness acknowledge this frequently. Now the problem - when I trained with him he had a very difficult time transmitting what stuff he had. I think that he still does, several of his long time students still training with him have stated flatly that this is the case. He says himself that he doesn't really know how he does what he does, or how he learned it. One of his primary teachers, Seigo Yamaguchi, said something quite similar. So we have a version of the telephone game. Student 1 gets some stuff from the source, but doesn't really understand what he's getting or how he got it, and without that level of comprehension they don't really get everything that's going on. When the time comes for Student 2 to teach they have they same problems, in great part because Student 1 doesn't understand what he does or how to teach it. Student 2 gets some stuff, but probably less than Student 1, who had access to the clearer transmission, and what he gets is more likely to be a little garbled. Student 3...and so on. Everybody in the telephone game is convinced that they understand the message that they heard, and is convinced that they transmitted it faithfully and clearly - but by the end of the chain the message is almost always quite different from what it was when they started.

That is precisely the problem.. . and brings us to the crux of my point on the issue of "demonstration."

How can anybody be said to have demonstrated anything to someone who, when they have been given the demonstration -- still does not know what has been demonstrated to him ?

Or, at best perceived but a small slice of what was intended to be seen in the demonstration ?

Isn't that like the telephone game now crossed with the six blind men trying to describe the only parts of the elephant each of them can reach ?

And what if (as seems admitted above) the demonstrator cannot even put a name to what he is trying to demonstrate, so a sighted person cannot even go look up "elephant" and find out how to reconcile all the partial concrete descriptions with the actual thing ?

Your approach in the floating bridge blog article is just exactly that catalog of the six blind men giving their reports on as the yet unperceived and unnamed "elephant."

The chief experience you need to know what an elephant is, is to see it and have it named. However, to match the blind men's partial descriptions into the form of the whole beastie -- this is a riddle. And --in our case -- a form of non-verbal riddle.

Chris -- you have the riddle solved, too -- and all the descriptions and relationships laid out consistently and coherently -- you just don't name it.

I name it: "This is an elephant -- and what is more -- you men are NOT blind -- just open your eyes and look!"

But the only way we don't do another round of telephone -- with hardly anyone ever managing to do what everyone plainly says Dan does-- no matter how much they approve and marvel and and applaud his revival of the RealStuffs(tm) etc. etc. is to put this on a sounder footing -- and in objective terms that ties the demonstration down its to concrete, reliable, physical and physiological descriptions and repeatable sensations and actions -- and at each generation of transmission.

Failing that, we are all just starting the second stanza of the same sad hymn -- and the anguished refrain in twenty years time will be just the same.

David Orange wrote: From what you say, it's clear you've never experienced what people are referring to.

Ah. NOW, I see. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao...."??

You may note that when Laotzu got fed up with idiot warlords telling him they know exactly how to govern the country -- just about five minutes before each of them got overthrown by the next rival upstart -- where did HE go? -- He went to the WEST... Hey! There's an idea! Who bested who in the really important martial contests of the last two centuries or so ?
East or West ?

"Maybe there's something to this magister's "physicks," after all, O Sublime One...."

Chris has laid it out very well. As far as "matching" mechanical and physiological terms, I think you're missing the boat. How do you know they "match"?

A mystic AND a skeptic? Wonders never cease.

How do you know where your hand is without looking? ... I know. That's how I know. Both literally -- and figuratively.

Consider it a Western koan -- my gift to you. Mind you, I borrowed it from Kant, so could you give it back to him in not too battered condition, if you don't mind, you know, whenever your done with it ?

The point here is that your ideas explain some mechanical things, but it's not IP/IS or aiki.

... and to which I rejoin the same question "How do you know?"

Koan. A marvelous thing, that ...

You need experience much more than anyone here needs your "explanations."

It is fascinating to witness a mind that places a science-denying conspiracy-theorist, ideologue, nude model and unfunny comedienne --- in the same category as someone trying to put a poorly described but effective eastern physical practice into valid western mechanical and physiological terms, using, like, you know big scary science words 'n stuff.

Funny is in the eye of the beholder -- but really, I'm not as pretty as she is. Ask Jon, he'll vouch for me ...

Flying airplanes is equal parts intellectual grasp of often counter-intuitive physical principles as it is intuitive physical performance according to those principles -- and nobody with any sense of self-preservation denies the importance of BOTH of them -- and most of those that ever did, ended up in a scorched crater somewhere.

Tell you what -- I'll strike my balance, and you strike yours? Deal?

Erick Mead wrote: Chris -- you have the riddle solved, too -- and all the descriptions and relationships laid out consistently and coherently -- you just don't name it. I name it: "This is an elephant -- and what is more -- you men are NOT blind -- just open your eyes and look!" But the only way we don't do another round of telephone -- with hardly anyone ever managing to do what everyone plainly says Dan does-- no matter how much they approve and marvel and and applaud his revival of the RealStuffs(tm) etc. etc. is to put this on a sounder footing -- and in objective terms that ties the demonstration down its to concrete, reliable, physical and physiological descriptions and repeatable sensations and actions -- and at each generation of transmission. Failing that, we are all just starting the second stanza of the same sad hymn -- and the anguished refrain in twenty years time will be just the same.

I have no objection to putting things on a more objective footing, none at all. We do it all the time in training - but that doesn't go in the blog, you have to come here for that. In any case, I think that you really don't know what we're talking about here, and without that experience you have no basis to put anything on any kind of footing. As a couple of folks have pointed out, you're already making crucial misinterpretations of the original Japanese.

And with that, I'll step out of this conversation, it's kind of pointless, don't you think?

Best,

Chris

Janet Rosen wrote: As so often happens, this thread is at lagerheads.

Snort - there is real beer up my nose.

@ Erick:

Ueshibas images are not of his own origin, but are taken from much older texts and teachings. So nearly every word of the quotes you gave can be traced back to those traditions. This is true even for the cites from the kojiki.
Also there exists lots of literature about kan/li. Commentaries, instructions and the more.
We don't have to refer to our own speculation and phantasy. We can look it up. And study it. Doing that things open up suddenly. And the connections between certain Japanese ans Chinese arts become obvious. And so do certain training methods ...

Carsten Möllering wrote: @ Erick: Ueshibas images are not of his own origin, but are taken from much older texts and teachings. So nearly every word of the quotes you gave can be traced back to those traditions. This is true even for the cites from the kojiki. Also there exists lots of literature about kan/li. Commentaries, instructions and the more. We don't have to refer to our own speculation and phantasy. We can look it up. And study it. Doing that things open up suddenly. And the connections between certain Japanese ans Chinese arts become obvious. And so do certain training methods ...

I'm not disputing that. In fact I am well aware of it. I also don't think his meaning differed greatly, though differently expressed from what I understand of the more remote sources (and which have suffered equally from periodic bouts of telephone game disease). My undergraduate degree was in Asian Studies and Chinese language and philosophy, and I studied under and prepared my major thesis under the daughter of Gen. Chennault (Madame Chang Kai Shek was her godmother), a professor of medieval Chinese literature. I am not without some well-grounded perspective on these points -- but I also do not pretend to plumb the depths of root texts or practices of wushu.

However, Ueshiba happens to be our proximate source, and the source most familiar or accessible to our aikido audience. He is the one who related it most closely to the form of training he put forth and that we aim to follow and pass on. More to the point those more remote and Chinese sources introduce a whole new level and layers of differing idiomatic concepts, and yet further from the canon of terms in which Ueshiba did communicate, and underlaid with their own schemes of understanding the world.

As for me, I am not wrestling with those concepts in their own idiom -- I am taking in their concrete expressions of application and operation and relating those in our terms of physical application and operation -- for the same actions and relationships. In truth I don't propose anything really novel --which I think Chris's work really demonstrates fairly well-- am just translating what he has said, basically. I started my effort on the project off and on ten years ago, and so I have made more than fair number of good connections between these things. I find it not at all surprising that Chris's more orthodox recitation echoes what I see in my Western interpretation of the same ideas.

It is true that the terms used by Ueshiba, CMA and Western mechanics often differ in the reach of their relative semantic fields, but bodies are still bodies. With the body as a reference "text" to mediate those different ranges of meaning -- we can't go far wrong. I am not speculating, much less fantasizing. I am observing, describing and applying this in Western terms -- not meaning to be divorced from or to supplant any source ideas -- be they Ueshiba's, DTR or CMA -- but to harmonize them and relate them in our -- rather successful, I might add -- Western technical idiom.

I am more than happy to chat about the more remote sources you value -- and see how they are properly interpreted in these terms, if they may be.

Christopher Li wrote: As a couple of folks have pointed out, you're already making crucial misinterpretations of the original Japanese.... And with that, I'll step out of this conversation, it's kind of pointless, don't you think?

It is pointless unless you make your critiques clear. You've made vague allusion to such -- but hardly "pointed it out." I prefer direct points.

Are we speaking of the "jeweled" part of the "jeweled spear" you vaguely criticized earlier? It is variously rendered as 天沼矛 or 天瓊戈 both rendered as "Ame nu hoko." The first is generally considered to be a phonetic use of the Chinese character for the Japanese "nu" since it refers otherwise to a swamp, 沼 "numa". This usage now predominates in modern Japanese whereas 沼 read merely as "nu" is very archaic when referring to jewel or gem. In the case of 瓊, "nu" more specifically refers to a fine jade . This is the connection to tama 玉 which means "jade" and as appears in 勾玉 magatama= "bent jade (gem)" which is one of the regalia of the Emperor, and a common symbol of political authority in villages and territories way back before Heian times.

According to Nihon Shoki, Susanoo presented these gems to Amaterasu in a 500 gem necklace-- who bit them (suggesting the magatama comma shape is but part of a whole with its missing complementary shape -- suggesting the full Taijitu). Alternatively, another version says it was her necklace originally, and Susanno bit the gems apart in a fit of pique. Either way, one of them then spit them out down to earth to create many derivative deities -- thus justifying their divine significance as a heaven-sent symbol of human authority derived from the gods of both sun and storm.

Izanagi was the primordial sky god as Izanami was the primordial earth goddess. Susanoo was his descendant god of sea, sky and storms -- and hence tying back to the association of the floating bridge (and the jade-gem (or spiral image) spear --as a waterspout or tornado image) --

Susanoo is important as the progenitor of what Ueshiba came to call aiki -- in the image of the Kusanagi "grass-cutter" sword --another of the regalia of Imperial authority. Kusanagi was taken from the tail of the Oroshi -- the long, coiled ,"eight-branched" firespitting demon snake. (Tornado -- plus lightning). His most violent episode in Kojiki comes when he flays a horse and drops it on the roof of the palace where Amaterasu is doing her weaving. Now, tell me THAT's not a tornado -- tatsumaki 竜巻 = "long, coiled ". "Grass-cutter" wold be an apt description of scour patches that
a whirlwind leaves when touching down in grain fields.

The term "numa" -- may hearken to a mangled reference or parallel association from the mainland -- and may tie the Kojiki-Nihon Shoki creation sequences to those of China. Specifically, they may refer to the creation story of the Jade Emperor Yu Huang 玉皇 and the Post-Deluge progenitor heroes/deities -- NuWa and FuXi. Nuwa 女媧 and FuXi are the children of the Jade Emperor -- and like Izanagi and Izanami -- are both siblings and spouses. NuWa supposedly created men of mud -- giving some interesting further phonetic connection to numa meaning swamp -- and a similar image of the solidifying drops from the spear of Izanagi -- compared to the dripping muddy scarf of NuWa .

NuWa and FuXi are also typically depicted as having snakelike bodies interwined in the dual-opposed spirals we have been discussing. FuXi is also the fabled inventor of the eight trigrams -- and so also tie into Carsten's concerns about K'an and Li, and the water and fire imagery -- as do the Susanoo (storm)/Amaterasu(sun) roles in combination in the descent of the magatama to earth. Jade in Chinese lore is the 'stone of heaven" a link between the heavenly and earthly worlds -- which is the image of the character for jade: 玉 yu or maga-. of magatama.

What does all this mean ? We can ring the changes on comparative mythology all day long, and for a very important reason: The ancients were just as pointedly and carefully observant about phenomena as as we are-- and got the concrete images generally quite correct. They also saw the patterns of relationships -- and in complex depths of associations too. What they lacked was a sense of impersonal and general physical laws by which they might with greater facility organize functional principles lying behind these observed phenomena -- as we do. They ascribed such patterns and the often fickle manner in which they seemingly appeared to personalities and characters of personified gods.

Casting no aspersions on the richness and layered subtlety of their observed association -- and indeed the accuracy of their imagery -- the plain fact now is that we don't need more divination into our art -- we need more physics.

Problem actually is: "Bodies are still bodies" doesn't really apply.
First and basic thing of internal practice is to renew your body. And to change it. The quality of your movement changes. And not only that.
I'm aware that this sounds strange but the body of someone who practices an internal art is clearly different from someone who does not. So "body" is not the reference text. Although it seems so "body" is not reliable in that sense.
I only understood and experienced that, when I started to practice internals myself.

Carsten Möllering wrote: First and basic thing of internal practice is to renew your body. And to change it.

Change it how Carsten? You can change how the body does things but you cannot change the stuff from which it is made. Perhaps you are referring to changing how the body behaves in different situations?

Carsten Möllering wrote: The quality of your movement changes.

Quality is a subjective term unless you are referring to measurable effects. So when you use the word quality, how are you using it?

Carsten Möllering wrote: I'm aware that this sounds strange but the body of someone who practices an internal art is clearly different from someone who does not.

Different in what ways? For instance, I know that when I am moving in a high state of mind/body coordination my perception of my movement, my partner's movement and our combined movement is vastly different from my perception of everyday walking around town movement. But my body is still my body: flesh, blood, bone, muscle, sinew, tendon and so on. What's different about yours?

Ron

Erick Mead wrote: MANY WORDS- we need more physics.

And what better authorities do we have on such matters than say, oh, a University Mathematics Professor? Someone like renowned Aiki master and direct pupil of Daito Ryu Master Sagawa Yukioshi, (and retired Professor of Mathematics at Tsukuba University), Tatsuo Kimura! What luck! Someone who no doubt gets the physics side of the Aiki equation inside and out and who had the chance to train for over two decades with, perhaps, the greatest of Takeda Sokaku's pupils.

Fortunately for us Kimura Sensei has written about his discoveries in the world of Aiki. Let's take a look at some select quotes of his from his book Discovering Aiki My 20 years with Yukiyoshi Sagawa Sensei. Maybe he'll talk about torsional shear, let's see!

It is not a physical matter of this or that angle...

It is not muscular power or Ki. However, since the conscious world is non-material, it usually has no influence over the material wold.. Aiki is like a key to combine them...

You move just by thinking...

If something appears as a form, it can be imitated, but Aiki is not a form. The essential aspects of Aiki don't appear as a form...

It did not come from within me, but completely from the outside...

Sensei often strongly criticized me saying things like. "You really are not at all perceptive!" or "Kimura, you can't grasp Aiki unless you become reborn."

I felt Sensei had advanced to a higher dimension. His techniques were so wonderful that I shouted out mentally, "These techniques cannot be done by human beings. These are divine techniques!"

As long as Aiki is a technique done by human beings, it is impossible to think that you can do anything even if you understand it. However, once you begin to understand Aiki, you move into a freer world beyond the restrictions of physical bodies. You can progress at an unbelievably rapid pace beyond what would normally be possible....

It would have been impossible to understand Aiki even by great efforts if I hadn't met Sagawa Sensei. The reason is that the way of thinking when using Aiki is basically different from doing normal techniques...

Sometimes there are teachers who say that they will kindly teach you anything. However, if they don't have some ability, it won't be of any use even if they teach you kindly...

Thus, to actually be able to do something is very important. In particular, martial arts have no meaning unless you can actually do things...

For me now, at least, Aiki is not only one martial art technique, but rather it is something unknown which suggests that the ability of human beings is actually far beyond that which it is normally considered to be.

Quotes about Kimura from Stan Pranin

"When I tested the small, stubborn 50 year old Kimura Sensei, I was completely controlled by him... My power of resistance was neutralized by the use of Sensei's stance and internal energy...Kimura Sensei clearly demonstrated to us the world of energy that exceeds the physical dimension."

And now some final words from the fully-versed in physics and mathematics Professor Kimura.

I think it is important that you do not just believe what others say, but rather check for yourself, rely on your intuition, and listen to your heart.

However, people who do not discover new things and who believe they understand things have a tendency to think that only they are correct and that others are wrong. This way of thinking will not lead to further development.

So what professor Kimura seems to be saying is it's a software issue, not a hardware issue. Be the ball, and don't sweat the physics, or you'll never get it. I'm not going to argue with an Aiki master/mathematics professor.

Scott Burke wrote: And what better authorities do we have on such matters than say, oh, a University Mathematics Professor? Someone like renowned Aiki master and direct pupil of Daito Ryu Master Sagawa Yukioshi, (and retired Professor of Mathematics at Tsukuba University), Tatsuo Kimura! What luck! Someone who no doubt gets the physics side of the Aiki equation inside and out and who had the chance to train for over two decades with, perhaps, the greatest of Takeda Sokaku's pupils. Fortunately for us Kimura Sensei has written about his discoveries in the world of Aiki. Let's take a look at some select quotes of his from his book Discovering Aiki My 20 years with Yukiyoshi Sagawa Sensei. Maybe he'll talk about torsional shear, let's see! It is not a physical matter of this or that angle... It is not muscular power or Ki. However, since the conscious world is non-material, it usually has no influence over the material wold.. Aiki is like a key to combine them... You move just by thinking... If something appears as a form, it can be imitated, but Aiki is not a form. The essential aspects of Aiki don't appear as a form... It did not come from within me, but completely from the outside... Sensei often strongly criticized me saying things like. "You really are not at all perceptive!" or "Kimura, you can't grasp Aiki unless you become reborn." I felt Sensei had advanced to a higher dimension. His techniques were so wonderful that I shouted out mentally, "These techniques cannot be done by human beings. These are divine techniques!" As long as Aiki is a technique done by human beings, it is impossible to think that you can do anything even if you understand it. However, once you begin to understand Aiki, you move into a freer world beyond the restrictions of physical bodies. You can progress at an unbelievably rapid pace beyond what would normally be possible.... It would have been impossible to understand Aiki even by great efforts if I hadn't met Sagawa Sensei. The reason is that the way of thinking when using Aiki is basically different from doing normal techniques... Sometimes there are teachers who say that they will kindly teach you anything. However, if they don't have some ability, it won't be of any use even if they teach you kindly... Thus, to actually be able to do something is very important. In particular, martial arts have no meaning unless you can actually do things... For me now, at least, Aiki is not only one martial art technique, but rather it is something unknown which suggests that the ability of human beings is actually far beyond that which it is normally considered to be. Quotes about Kimura from Stan Pranin "When I tested the small, stubborn 50 year old Kimura Sensei, I was completely controlled by him... My power of resistance was neutralized by the use of Sensei's stance and internal energy...Kimura Sensei clearly demonstrated to us the world of energy that exceeds the physical dimension." And now some final words from the fully-versed in physics and mathematics Professor Kimura. I think it is important that you do not just believe what others say, but rather check for yourself, rely on your intuition, and listen to your heart. However, people who do not discover new things and who believe they understand things have a tendency to think that only they are correct and that others are wrong. This way of thinking will not lead to further development. So what professor Kimura seems to be saying is it's a software issue, not a hardware issue. Be the ball, and don't sweat the physics, or you'll never get it. I'm not going to argue with an Aiki master/mathematics professor.

"It did not come from within me, but completely from the outside..." Undermines the assertion that "Internal power" is needed for aiki, no? Kimura also stated that aikido people, including his own aikido teacher, Yamaguchi, had no idea about aiki (as it relates to Daito Ryu), so people saying that Yamaguchi's students have "the stuff" may be talking about different "stuff" than "aiki" as defined in DR. Something to keep in mind during these discussions.

Oisin Bourke wrote: "It did not come from within me, but completely from the outside..." Undermines the assertion that "Internal power" is needed for aiki, no?

No, it doesn't. Heaven and earth come completely from the outside, and with training man learns to control those forces internally. Not that hard to grasp.

Oisin Bourke wrote: "It did not come from within me, but completely from the outside..." Undermines the assertion that "Internal power" is needed for aiki, no? Kimura also stated that aikido people, including his own aikido teacher, Yamaguchi, had no idea about aiki (as it relates to Daito Ryu), so people saying that Yamaguchi's students have "the stuff" may be talking about different "stuff" than "aiki" as defined in DR. Something to keep in mind during these discussions.

Heck, Sagawa said Ueshiba had no idea about Aiki.

Scott Burke wrote: No, it doesn't. Heaven and earth come completely from the outside, and with training man learns to control those forces internally. Not that hard to grasp.

So "internal power" is not actually Internally driven except for the bit that is? And you ignored his statements about aikidoka not understanding aiki as expressed in DR.

.

Oisin Bourke wrote: So "internal power" is not actually Internally driven except for the bit that is? And you ignored his statements about aikidoka not understanding aiki as expressed in DR. .

You could always write to professor Kimura to clarify, after all, I'm just a neophyte and he is a Daito Ryu Aiki master.

And as for ignoring "his statements about aikidoka not understanding aiki as expressed in DR", yeah I did ignore them. So what? They weren't pertinent to the points I was addressing. I'm not a damned stenographer, copy those quotes yourself if you're so inclined. Sheesh.

From another site:

Tokimune Takeda stated that DR doesn't own "aiki." That aiki has existed in Japanese martial arts for centuries. Another current kodokia 7th Dan stated the same thing: "Daito ryu doesn't own the term, aiki." And Sagawa essentialy stated no one really "got" aiki BUT him! Call it what you will but Kimura and other Sagawa students, as well as any number of Aikido Shihan have been stopped dead in their tracks and easily handled by the internal power / aiki proponents. Dan

Something else to think about during these conversations

Scott Burke wrote: Fortunately for us Kimura Sensei has written about his discoveries in the world of Aiki. Let's take a look at some select quotes of his from his book Discovering Aiki My 20 years with Yukiyoshi Sagawa Sensei. Maybe he'll talk about torsional shear, let's see!

Mostly he writes about what Aiki NOT is, and I suspect that he is not really interested in explaining a training method ore clear up about what he learned form his teacher.
He carefully arranged his statements in a way that nobody who is looking for "secrets" will grasp anything concrete ore usefull.

Markus Rohde wrote: Mostly he writes about what Aiki NOT is, and I suspect that he is not really interested in explaining a training method ore clear up about what he learned form his teacher. He carefully arranged his statements in a way that nobody who is looking for "secrets" will grasp anything concrete ore usefull.

The funny thing for me was that I had recently reread his book. Well, his glowing homage is probably a better description. Anyway, as I finished the book again this thread started up in earnest. It made me laugh out loud because I was wondering why he didn't get in to more specifics or details. Then it occurred to me that he's probably had the same conversation that's going on in this thread himself. I'd have probably done the same...

Zoe Botnaro wrote: From another site: Something else to think about during these conversations

Well, sure, anyone can use the term "aiki". What's important is how they interpret the term. IMO, if you are going to get to grips with the term as used in Daito Ryu, you need to practice the art under an appropriately licensed instructor to an appropriate level.Otherwise, you are just relying on hearsay and guesswork and could well be imparting erroneous information As for using it in other arts including aikido, that's up to the practicioners of those arts. As for the Kodokai seventh dan and the people stopping Kimura et al, would you care to give names?

I don't get why we throw around English translations of interviews and writings and hang off them like they are factual evidence taken at face value.

I mean I get why we throw them around - they are all we have. But they rarely come with contextual information as to the level of candor and possible motivations of the interviewee or writer. I always assume these things are an omote, tatamae type statements. I especially think that when I read what Tokimune Takeda had to say

Regarding anything at all about Sagawa, I assume there was an atmosphere of credulousness in his dojo; at the very least, the culture of the dojo was such that if you talked about anything that went on in there, you made it sound like the most amazing crap ever.

Even Ueshiba. In the films, his ukes are tanking. Even in the Asahi dojo one, because that wasn't the same material he was teaching for defense of the presses. So we want to take everything these guys say - who all had some investment in maintaining the image of Osensei as the world's most advanced martial artist - at face value when they describe Ueshiba's skills. Sure, okay!

Keith Larman wrote: The funny thing for me was that I had recently reread his book. Well, his glowing homage is probably a better description. Anyway, as I finished the book again this thread started up in earnest. It made me laugh out loud because I was wondering why he didn't get in to more specifics or details. Then it occurred to me that he's probably had the same conversation that's going on in this thread himself. I'd have probably done the same...

Sure seems to me like the Aiki he is describing is an effect, and not a skill.

Cliff Judge wrote: Sure seems to me like the Aiki he is describing is an effect, and not a skill.

How is the difference meaningful? I think there's pretty universal agreement that training is necessary if one is to achieve "aiki" effects. So does it really matter whether the thing being trained is control of one's own body or alignment with external forces? Or, as I see it, both? How does the "effect" vs. "skill" question change the teaching methodology?

Katherine