Banned from the dojo

'I like most Aikido Dan grades are protecting their own association and Sensei.'

Of course Geoff, I'd expect nothing else

Best,

Nick.

'I like most Aikido Dan grades are protecting their own association and Sensei.'


Two points here:

If the association is strong why does it need protection?
Unless its a direct physical threat; why does sensei need protection?

This isn't to demean anyone but surely the Sensei's (and by extension the association's) Aikido stands or falls on its own merits.

Geoff Aisbitt wrote: I like most Aikido Dan grades are protecting their own association and Sensei.

Why would you feel the need to do that?

I genuinely don't see the need to 'protect' one's association or sensei. My sensei can protect himself pretty well - ask the guy who got into a road rage incident with him one time My association is open minded and things will always be discussed, and there is none of the "my style's better than your style" or "my sensei fell out with your sensei" rubbish going on. We train with whoever we like, differences are embraced, we share what we have learned from different sensei.

It is precisely because of this open spirit that the organisation works as well as it does - it just doesn't attract people who wish to be argumentative or political. If one of us did something dumb or disrespectful, we'd be letting ourselves down first and foremost, not just sensei or the organisation!

I don't see the purpose in 'banning' anybody from attending a course for solely political reasons. Changing associations is not an act of disloyalty - every individual has the right to decide where he or she wishes to train. Sensei may advise, but they do not have the right to prevent you from training elsewhere - they are not your mum!

Ruth

every individual has the right to decide where he or she wishes to train. Sensei may advise, but they do not have the right to prevent you from training elsewhere - they are not your mum!

Obviously, on the other hand, they do not have to teach you or take you back either. M.A. is a way of life and should be considered as a certain type of commitment, if this is the view taken by your sensei, and you prove to be unable to take this commitment upon you, why must he accept you ?

Amir

Ruth McWilliam wrote: I don't see the purpose in 'banning' anybody from attending a course for solely political reasons. Changing associations is not an act of disloyalty - every individual has the right to decide where he or she wishes to train. Sensei may advise, but they do not have the right to prevent you from training elsewhere - they are not your mum!

LOL!! thanks for that Ruth,

My mum's a lot more scary than any Sensei

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: LOL!! thanks for that Ruth, My mum's a lot more scary than any Sensei

Your'e welcome!

So is my mum when she gets annoyed with me

Ruth

Amir Krause wrote: Obviously, on the other hand, they do not have to teach you or take you back either. M.A. is a way of life and should be considered as a certain type of commitment, if this is the view taken by your sensei, and you prove to be unable to take this commitment upon you, why must he accept you ?

Of course the sensei doesn't have to accept you. When I say you are free to train anywhere, I mean anywhere they are happy to have you train with them

OTOH I think that anybody who turns away a student because of trivial reasons is only making themselves look a bit silly.

If you buy into the whole 'Aikido is a way of life' thing, would you not also buy into 'Aikido is for all'? To me they are an equal part of O Sensei's vision.

Re: Commitment, is the working mother with 3 kids who can only train once a week giving any less commitment than the single 21 year old guy who trains 6 times a week? Is the 40 year old guy who lives out in the middle of nowhere, 100 miles from the nearest dojo, any less committed than his friend who lives in the city with 5 or 6 dojo to choose from?

I have seen too many people being unfairly treated because they didn't measure up to their sensei's ideal of 'commitment'. It is not something fixed and rigid, any more than it is in a partnership. It is floating and flexible, and measured by intention, not absolutes.

YMMV

Ruth

well put Ruth!... i totally resemble some of those remarks...

This is a frequent occurence among large organizations or associations. The high authority figures within the group feel that they need to lay down their own version of the law in order to preserve order and the "chain of command". Personally the "chain of command" is a crude reference to a power trip. But thats just me. IMHO I believe a yudansha is a yudansha. They have worked long and hard and deserve respect. Yet this written (and apparently sometimes unwritten) rule was created without account for deviance. As are most rules. What I mean by deviance is the unavoidable imperfections that all of us exhibit. Remember, yudansha were one go-kyu as well. What bothers me is that they've forgotten that they were once in the positions of the people they have outcast of their own accord. They ones lacked flaws in ukemi just as we did. Sean. It may be moot point now. If it is, if this happens in the future, ask what this may be coming from. If it's a misunderstanding, so be it. Make sure the misunderstanding becomes an understanding. Other then that, it matters not the opinions of the other students. What matters is that you progress and learn.
Best of Luck,
Justin

Cheers for all your comments guy's.

At this point I'd just like to say thanks you to Mr. Aisbitt for his kind invitation, but I have never like watching Aikido (even if it is the best around in my opinoen). Also I would like to thank Mr. Seth for including me personaly in his posts.

I may come back to this point after I've had a think. (Yes Nick its going to hurt I know)

Hi Sean,

Thank you for the reply, I think you know the score, myself and you as far as I am aware have never had a cross word between us. The invite stands, and is genuine,.

Geoff

Thanks again Mr. Aisbitt for your kind words, but as I say before I'am a great believe in doing what your told. I think that if me being on the mat will create bad atmoss, its better if I stay away altogether.

I wish you and your association all the best and know fine well that the course will be enjoyable as you have one of the best Sensei around teaching it. All I can say to all who commented on this thread, if you can train at Crowtree Leisure Centre, Sunderland, on the 9th April please do so. I feel it a worth while course to attend, and the training, oh the training I miss it so much. Its brill.

As for the score, all I know is Sunderland will lose, please everyone don't post in making fun of us (Sunderland fans), we need your understanding at this point in time.

And its football not soccer, I'am referring to for our American friends.

Ruth McWilliam wrote: Of course the sensei doesn't have to accept you. When I say you are free to train anywhere, I mean anywhere they are happy to have you train with them

Already in this comment you hide the concept - a sensei should accept all students, it is wrong to filter students and select those the sensei feels he should teach. I disagree with this concept.

Ruth McWilliam wrote: OTOH I think that anybody who turns away a student because of trivial reasons is only making themselves look a bit silly.

Agree, but maintaining a certain spirit in the dojo is not a trivial issue and may in some cases be an issue of "way of life".

Ruth McWilliam wrote: If you buy into the whole 'Aikido is a way of life' thing, would you not also buy into 'Aikido is for all'? To me they are an equal part of O Sensei's vision.

Japanese Martial Arts considered themselves as a way of life long before Aikido, yet many M.A. were very restrictive and selective with students. Requiring blood-oath of loyalty was not unheard of in the koryu styles. Looking for recommendations and examining students before accepting them is still common in some places. I have read some styles maintain this concept even at present.

And, Ueshiba sensei vision is not part of my Aikido. In fact, I was told a blood oath had been required in Korindo Aikido at the beginning (around 1950s). So please excuse my ignoring this part of your comment.

Ruth McWilliam wrote: Re: Commitment, is the working mother with 3 kids who can only train once a week giving any less commitment than the single 21 year old guy who trains 6 times a week? Is the 40 year old guy who lives out in the middle of nowhere, 100 miles from the nearest dojo, any less committed than his friend who lives in the city with 5 or 6 dojo to choose from?

No argument here. Commitment should be measured with relation to a specific situation. Yet, in some cases, a person is simply incapable of committing for something, in those cases, one should consider if it is not better to wait until he will be able to commit himself.

Ruth McWilliam wrote: I have seen too many people being unfairly treated because they didn't measure up to their sensei's ideal of 'commitment'. It is not something fixed and rigid, any more than it is in a partnership. It is floating and flexible, and measured by intention, not absolutes.

I have seen both the phenomena you wrote about, as well as people who came to the Dojo when they felt, and disappeared for some periods for no good reason. Those people were surprised when Sensei and veterans treated them with less enthusiasm (actually, one such situation I think about was a tourist who went to Aikikai Hombu in Japan and disappeared for a two weeks tour without telling anyone).

'commitment' is a complicated issue, that should be considered with care. In many cases, there is not a clear cut write and wrong, rather some blame should fall on both sides.

Amir

Amir Krause wrote: Already in this comment you hide the concept - a sensei should accept all students, it is wrong to filter students and select those the sensei feels he should teach. I disagree with this concept.

I do not agree. There is no sensei, who can teach all the world.

And even if the sensei is willing to teach you, he should do it in the way, he thinks is the best.

That might be inviting you as uke, that might be treating you like any other participant. That might be even ignoring you or not accepting you for this session. (and the next and ...)

I do not know the guys of this thread, so it is just speaking generally, but in the end it is sensei's decision.

Regards Dirk

Amir Krause wrote: Already in this comment you hide the concept - a sensei should accept all students, it is wrong to filter students and select those the sensei feels he should teach. I disagree with this concept.

Huh? Not hiding any concepts in my statement! I accept that not everybody will want certain students on their mat, and that is fine with me. I would never presume to tell anybody what they 'should' do! My own preference is to train with sensei who welcome students from anywhere. Exclusivity and cliques are not good for creating harmony and understanding, IMO.
YMMV.

And I agree with Dirk - no one sensei can teach everybody in the World, we all need different teachers at different times.

Ruth

Sean Cassidy wrote: And its football not soccer, I'am referring to for our American friends.

It is so very soccer.

Not much Harmony and where is the spirit? There must be a lesson to learn somewhere. Why do they not wont you at there Dojo in the first place?

The question if reworded may be, what does exclusion do. Does it en-power the people who are doing the excluded, or reinforce the fact that exclusion only hurts Aikido in the long run.

My situation aside, who benefits from any kind of exclusion. I think only the person how thinks he was some kind of power over people and like's to show you they can effect your life for the good or the bad. Personaly I feel very sorry for people like that.

And James something I done understand. How can you call it American Football when you move the ball around with your hands. Surely it should be American Handball

Sean Cassidy wrote: And James something I done understand. How can you call it American Football when you move the ball around with your hands. Surely it should be American Handball

I really don't like "American Football", myself (or handball for that matter ). I tend to do what my Brazilian and Peruvian friends do and pronounce it "Futbol". Futbol is played everywhere. How can the whole world be wrong about this sport?

Technically, I played "soccer" in my youth (a long time ago), but I'm still a big fan of it - and futbol.

Hi all.
Just to point out the course with sensei riley is actually at The Seaburn Centre, Sunderland. I agree, sensei Riley is an Excellent instructor and I have the greatest respect for him and his organisation. That is why I invited him to instruct on the course.
this whole thread is getting rather twee, as most of the contributers know nothing of the background to the issue they are just responding at a superficial level on the info as it is developing - no matter the direction.
The best to everyone
Pete

As I stated in my last post, putting me aside. EXCLUSION helps no but the people doing the excluding.

A final thought on this thread, can someone give any examples of exclusion being a positive thing.

Yes. Say I have a propensity for getting into fights, and I am a yudansha with a dojo. My instructor gets tired of bailing me out of jail / his dojo getting a bad reputation. He boots me, at least until I learn to keep my hands to myself.

That would be positive, in my opinion.

Best,
Ron

Yeah I can see that being a very positive thing. Another one that I tried was asking someone to leave when they turned up late, when I was trying to get some grading training in. It didn't work but sh** happens I guess. I surpass my is not positive but I tried. Cheers Ron

I can't help but thinking that exclusion, save in the cases of emtremely damaging behaviour (i.e sexual harrasment, devient behaviour of intentionally trying to do permanent damage) is detrimental to any course anywhere in any style.

To ban/barr/exclude/request the non attendance of a San-dan from a course can be nothing but detrimental as it deprives people of one more talented person who wants nothin g more than to train. his friends and fellow aikidoka may go to the course with sour feelings, they will have sour oppinions of the organisation which may inturn cause bad feelings to extend into bad behaviours which may lead to the need for them to be banned themselves. this will lead to their friends feeling sour......I think we can all guess where i am going.

The idea (in an ideal world full of pretty flowers and birds singing in the trees, free guiness by the tankard and more meat than one person can humanly and safely eat) is that one good turn manifests itself in three, three goes to nine nine to twenty seven, twenty seven to eighty one. in four steps you go from 1 to 81, sadly the same happens with ill feelings.

To get back to the post, i feel that asking someone not to train on their matt is an inherantly flawed idea (for the ideas above) but more than that it shows a side of an organisation that i personally didn't expect or believe existed (i have had the pleasure of training with and learning from many people from it). it has made me wonder what this whole idea of Harmony and Energy is actually all about.

Why train in it if we don't believe it, why believe it if it is never shown, why show it if it is never reciprocated?

It may be cynical but why bother training at all, and say we are training with harmony for all living things and with a balance of energy when we refuse the entry onto a course of someone who has left an organisation for what he felt would be a one better suited to his physical abilities, and his ideas of how aikido should be practiced? did O'Sensei not say that the only aikido you can do is your aikido.

what would have been worse a person leaving an organisation focused on a beautifully flowing style of aikido for one which is more focused on the irimi with room to 'play'

OR

Staying in the one they were in and trying to impose their attitude on an organisation which has prospered with its own distinct style and has no need to change to fit one individual.


To me the best way to burry any hatchet which may have existed was for one person to extend the olive brance to the thread starter and allow him to train. Not to say they thought it would cause bad feeling. bad feeling with whom? one might ask, surely it would only with those who would benefit from any reconciliation.

My extended rant/splurge of thoughts, musings and feelings over.....for now

'this whole thread is getting rather twee, as most of the contributers know nothing of the background to the issue they are just responding at a superficial level on the info as it is developing - no matter the direction. '

Thats free speech for you. Personally, I think it became 'something else' when people named names...

However, there is a very good question in here that keeps getting overlooked:

'What do we learn from exclusion if anything?'