How Long and In What Manner to Great Mastery?

Ricky Wood wrote: I guess what I'm sayin is that worrying about posers teaching internal stuffs seems a little paranoid to me. I pretty much teach nothing but basics.

Take kokyu-ho, the most basic exercise we have in aikido for building internal power. Many teachers I've met do teach it without any kokyu ryoku at all. They have no idea that they're missing it and their students have no idea either--until they lay their hands on an aikidoka from a different lineage and wonder what the hell is going on.

They have no idea that they're missing it and their students have no idea either--until they lay their hands on an aikidoka from a different lineage and wonder what the hell is going on.

Or they meet someone "stronger" in a different way and go... WTF! How...???

Hello Mark,

You should be aware that John Stevens extensively revised Perpetual Peace and published the revised work as Invincible Warrior in 1997. It is not clear that the newer work is more reliable than the older work with respect to matters of fact.

PAG

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: Hello Mark, You should be aware that John Stevens extensively revised Perpetual Peace and published the revised work as Invincible Warrior in 1997. It is not clear that the newer work is more reliable than the older work with respect to matters of fact. PAG

Peter,

Thank you. I'll keep an eye out for Invincible Warrior as I go through some of the books I have now. It's interesting to reread them and find correlations to ideas like this thread. Although Stevens puts more emphasis on Omoto kyo as being a cause for Ueshiba's martial power, Stevens still shows a very limited time frame for it to happen. It will be interesting to read more of Steven's work to see what changes or remains the same.

Mark

Mark Murray wrote: Peter, Thank you. I'll keep an eye out for Invincible Warrior as I go through some of the books I have now. It's interesting to reread them and find correlations to ideas like this thread. Although Stevens puts more emphasis on Omoto kyo as being a cause for Ueshiba's martial power, Stevens still shows a very limited time frame for it to happen. It will be interesting to read more of Steven's work to see what changes or remains the same. Mark

Hello Mark,

Rather than search for Invincible Warrior, which, after all, is a biography of Morihei Ueshiba based on secondary sources, I suggest that you obtain a copy of the English translation of Kisshomaru's biography (I quoted a long section in my latest post in the TIE 10 thread), but then read it very critically, in the light of Stan Pranin's research in Aikido Journal.

However, you have devoted a number of threads to giving 'raw' quotes from interviews in Aikido Masters and then drawing conclusions about Sokaku Takeda or Morihei Ueshiba. I have taught comparative culture for many years and I know that most research in this field is based on interviews. However, the type of interview in which the interviewer simply allows the interviewee free reign is notoriously unreliable. It has to be supplemented with more reliable data, which has never been done in aikido.

Best wishes,

I'm wondering whether the single greatest impediment to the development of internal power is the overuse of chairs.
Do they ever screw up your alignment.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: Hello Mark, Rather than search for Invincible Warrior, which, after all, is a biography of Morihei Ueshiba based on secondary sources, I suggest that you obtain a copy of the English translation of Kisshomaru's biography (I quoted a long section in my latest post in the TIE 10 thread), but then read it very critically, in the light of Stan Pranin's research in Aikido Journal. However, you have devoted a number of threads to giving 'raw' quotes from interviews in Aikido Masters and then drawing conclusions about Sokaku Takeda or Morihei Ueshiba. I have taught comparative culture for many years and I know that most research in this field is based on interviews. However, the type of interview in which the interviewer simply allows the interviewee free reign is notoriously unreliable. It has to be supplemented with more reliable data, which has never been done in aikido. Best wishes,

Hi Peter,

Your quoted part in TIE was interesting. The rest of the book, I imagine, would be worth reading. I am finding, though, from reading through the books, interviews, lectures, etc that there are some common elements showing through. While it is true that research based upon these elements is risky at times, it is also true that denying certain common elements is hard to do ... unless there is a conspiracy theory at play.

Take for example the push test thread. While we have only sporadic quotes from the founder, we have many common quotes from multiple sources surrounding the founder. It would be very hard to deny that the founder had people push on him as some sort of test. It would still be hard to deny that this happened often. Unless everyone interviewed has agreed to spread this kind of misinformation.

Mining data from interviews can be unreliable. It is why I opened the threads. Because I wanted to pull data from as many sources as I could and examine the common elements. My interpretation and analysis can be faulty, so the threads are there for others to view and add their own. There are few places to pull reliable data, so I try to make do with what I have at the time.

Ignatius Teo wrote: Or they meet someone "stronger" in a different way and go... WTF! How...???

Exactly.

R

Assuming we are talking of the body of work including solo training as well as various forms of pushing-is it a coincidence that Takeda told Sagawa to keep it to himself? That Sagawa stated something along the lines of "This type of training was always something one kept to himself." ? That even in arts that had it they never stressed it? and instead relied on kata as a transmission vehicle?
As one senior teacher noted after feeling this for the first time statte "This would wreak havoc on Aikido as we now know it."
I like to think it answers the question of how long and what manner to great mastery to aiki in short order. While not being the only tools needed, they so outstrip all others combined that they should be the single most active part of training.
For that reason is it any wonder that so many did in fact keep the knowledge of how to train this way to themselves? Is it a conspiracy of silence? The motives for so many who have the skills to somehow not have taught them, and the fact that they are so rarely known or practiced today does speak to that. More so when you consider that other schools had them and dropped training them, and still others train them and kept them to theirselves.
Funny how Ellis's "Hidden in plain site" just keeps coming back around isn't it?

Mark Murray wrote: Hi Peter, Your quoted part in TIE was interesting. The rest of the book, I imagine, would be worth reading. I am finding, though, from reading through the books, interviews, lectures, etc that there are some common elements showing through. While it is true that research based upon these elements is risky at times, it is also true that denying certain common elements is hard to do ... unless there is a conspiracy theory at play.

PAG. The issue here is how you characterize these 'common elements'. Do you assume that all aikidoka would naturally recognize these common elements? You can think of the difference between truth and rumor, so I do not think it is necessary to resort to conspiracy theories. You can take it that I do not agree that these 'common elements' are obvious to those who read all the books, interviews, lectures, etc.
For example, some have argued that there are common elements running through O Sensei's douka: a kind of code that establishes that he really understood all the subtleties of the Chinese tradition concerning 'internal' arts. However this has never been established in detail and the usual response is that it is simply obvious to those who have read the Chinese texts.

Mark Murray wrote: Take for example the push test thread. While we have only sporadic quotes from the founder, we have many common quotes from multiple sources surrounding the founder. It would be very hard to deny that the founder had people push on him as some sort of test. It would still be hard to deny that this happened often. Unless everyone interviewed has agreed to spread this kind of misinformation.

PAG. I agree. However, I think you need to show more clearly and more exactly what the ability to pass the push test is supposed to show, or prove. My own teacher in the UK regularly had several students push on his head while he was sitting cross-legged, just like O Sensei. But we never thought that he had any special internal skills. Of course, he might have had, but neither he nor we realized it. However, this is another issue, which cannot be resolved by appealing to the push test.

Mark Murray wrote: Mining data from interviews can be unreliable. It is why I opened the threads. Because I wanted to pull data from as many sources as I could and examine the common elements. My interpretation and analysis can be faulty, so the threads are there for others to view and add their own. There are few places to pull reliable data, so I try to make do with what I have at the time.

PAG. Yes, but I think you need to understand the unreliability of the 'data' that you are mining. You mentioned 'reliable' data, but you appear to assume that the volume of data somehow makes the data reliable. In my opinion, any common element in unreliable data is just as unreliable as the elements.

Best wishes,

PAG

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: PAG. The issue here is how you characterize these 'common elements'. Do you assume that all aikidoka would naturally recognize these common elements? You can think of the difference between truth and rumor, so I do not think it is necessary to resort to conspiracy theories. You can take it that I do not agree that these 'common elements' are obvious to those who read all the books, interviews, lectures, etc. For example, some have argued that there are common elements running through O Sensei's douka: a kind of code that establishes that he really understood all the subtleties of the Chinese tradition concerning 'internal' arts. However this has never been established in detail and the usual response is that it is simply obvious to those who have read the Chinese texts.

Well, the "how" is my own theories. And hopefully, others would post their theories or in some way show that mine are flawed.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: PAG. I agree. However, I think you need to show more clearly and more exactly what the ability to pass the push test is supposed to show, or prove. My own teacher in the UK regularly had several students push on his head while he was sitting cross-legged, just like O Sensei. But we never thought that he had any special internal skills. Of course, he might have had, but neither he nor we realized it. However, this is another issue, which cannot be resolved by appealing to the push test.

This is the border between mining the data from unreliable sources, forming the theory and then proving the theory. And I do agree with your posts. My theories are just that. It is what I think is happening. But, I'm not really done gathering the commonalities, so I can only theorize at this point. I don't think everyone will agree with me and I hope that others will shed some light on what they see.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: PAG. Yes, but I think you need to understand the unreliability of the 'data' that you are mining. You mentioned 'reliable' data, but you appear to assume that the volume of data somehow makes the data reliable. In my opinion, any common element in unreliable data is just as unreliable as the elements. Best wishes, PAG

I think the volume of data that I am mining currently is reliable in the sense that it shows certain events happening. For example, in the push thread, Ueshiba was pushed and it happened often. Where it crosses over to theory is why was Ueshiba being pushed? What was Ueshiba working on? Etc.

I'm open to other theories and ideas.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: PAG. ... some have argued that there are common elements running through O Sensei's douka: a kind of code that establishes that he really understood all the subtleties of the Chinese tradition concerning 'internal' arts. However this has never been established in detail and the usual response is that it is simply obvious to those who have read the Chinese texts.

這個人可以閱讀漢語的, 也 不是太明顯.

Mark Murray wrote: I'm open to other theories and ideas.

The last 2 posts were peanut gallery style only resorting to a foreign language and pictures... Methinks that when people tell you to shut up, you take them a bit too seriously.

Rob

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: For example, some have argued that there are common elements running through O Sensei's douka: a kind of code that establishes that he really understood all the subtleties of the Chinese tradition concerning 'internal' arts. However this has never been established in detail and the usual response is that it is simply obvious to those who have read the Chinese texts.

Well, I grant that the idea has never been "established" as a fact in a rigorous academic manner, but I'd be willing to bet my house on it. To me it's an aside and that does indeed seem obvious for a number of reasons, but my focus has been more on the functionals of these skills. Let's just say that if the Chinese have used cars for a couple of thousand years and I find that O-Sensei turns out to have driven a Shinto-mobile that maneuvers exactly like a Chinese car and his douka make obvious references to gasoline and oil, I'm not too surprised. If someone says those references are not rigorous proof that Ueshiba drove a Shinto-mobile, I take the point as valid, but I'm not too concerned because I'm considering a wealth of other contributing data about the functional aspects and the douka are, to me, simply tangential additions to all the other indicators.

The more important question in my perspective has little to do with Ueshiba's Buddhist-derived Shinto references, but toward a more important consideration of whether the Yin-Yang cosmology came first and the body studies came later... or whether the body studies came first and the cosmology (the same things Ueshiba was cryptically referring to) developed out of the observations about how the body worked.

Incidentally, I'm still (as always) uncomfortable about the reference to "internal" without someone saying "internal strength" (nei jin) in some way. Even the external arts used these basic skills.

All the Best.

Mike Sigman

Hi Guys,

You know it seems to me very unlikely that Ueshiba got his internal power skills in a religious content free manner. My understanding is that receiving such training in some form of religious content was the norm rather than the exception. So regardless of where it came from, I would be very surprised if it didn't come in the normal packaging. (Yes, I know, they may not be taught that way now . . . but that isn't what we're talking about.)

Furthermore, it seems to me very unlikely that Ueshiba probably didn't get his primary instruction about internal strength from Onisaburo Deguchi. I think this simply because there is no evidence that I am aware of that Onisaburo Deguchi produced any other individuals with that power from among the many, many followers of Omoto.

Takeda, on the other hand, did produce others with internal strength.

This is no proof that I am aware of that Ueshiba learned his internal stuff from Takeda outside of some sort of religious context, nor is there proof, that I am aware of, that Takeda learned it outside of some sort of religious context.

One doesn't necessarily have to "drink the koolaid" to learn the technology that was so often dilivered within a religious context however.

(As an aside I'd encourage readers not to limit their thinking to tori fune kogi, tama furi, and the like. Shiko and the like - breath control - intent - were all a part of the Yamabushi no Gyo that my teacher taught me (which can exist in either a Buddhist or Shinto context) and according to what Toby Threadgill wrote Shindo Yoshin Ryu's Nairiki is fully taught in a similar vein.)

FWIW,

Allen

1. Push test. Ueshiba had people push on him often and with everything they could muster. That is not arguable. It happened. Ueshiba's students said it in interviews, Ueshiba is interviewed talking about it, Ueshiba demonstrates on video, and As Takahashi stated it on a Youtube video. No one could push him over. No one with any kind of jujutsu or judo or sumo or kendo could push him over. Theoretically, that says that there is something different that Ueshiba did that the others, who had these backgrounds, could not.

2. Time. None of the greats studied more than 15 years to get as good as they did. Some did it in far less time -- 5 to 10 years. This, too, is not arguable. It is fact -- once they started training with Ueshiba.

3. Teaching. The skills were taught in some manner. Takeda to Ueshiba, Sagawa, Kodo. Ueshiba to Tomiki, Shioda. (Yes, I leave out other names. Who got it, at this point, isn't as important as it was passed on.) And those taught had varied backgrounds that didn't help them before they started learning. See point #2.

So, here is my thought process. For the below items, I use Dan as an example, but the who isn't important. There are others who can do this. I use Dan because I have more experience with him.

1A. Dan lets people push on him. I couldn't move him. I know others that couldn't. I have a background in aikido. Others had varied backgrounds. The push test here is indicative of some specific skill. Does that specific skill relate to #1 above? Theoretically, I believe it does. But, more research was needed.

2A. I see Dan's students from ground zero to almost 15 years. I see the skill levels between them and it is interesting to note that someone with 3-5 years is strong (budo strong). They withstand pushes well. They move with structure and can apply it. The one person with almost 15 years is, in my opinion, beyond Tohei's skill level. Does that apply to #2 above? Added with #1A, it starts to paint a very strong theory. More research.

3. Dan has a teaching methodology that creates strong (budo strong) students in 3-5 years and it just progresses from there. The skills he has can be taught and in a short (relatively in the martial world *and* with the student putting in the solo and paired work) time. Does that apply to #3 above? Again, with 1A and 2A, it looks pretty good.

So, that was just my basic approach. The skill set itself added to the research, but I won't go into that part right now. I want to keep this simple.

Background. The above was the start and the experience. But, it still doesn't really tie them all together. So, I started digging on the Internet and asking questions.

1B. Someone else who trained under Ueshiba stated that what Dan was doing was what Ueshiba did. As in #1 above, we have direct evidence (for those that do the research). Also, every aikido student who went has come back stating that, yes, this is what aikido is all about. This is the skill set. It's hard to argue with 4th degrees to 6th degrees about what constitutes aikido.

2B. People who have invested 20 to 40 years have experienced these skills and said it was what they were looking for. They have invested long years of training trying to achieve these skills and when confronted with direct, physical experience, they have said these are *the* skills of Aikido. 20 plus years of training. Yet, the greats never trained that long to be strong. What was it that was missed? 100% conversion rate is hard to overlook.

3B. If you do the research, you can find where Dan trained, who he trained with, and what school. I'll give you a hint -- DR. So, here is someone who trained in the precursor to aikido showing skills from that lineage. Ueshiba didn't get his skills from Deguchi. Stan Pranin's research nullifies that theory. Ueshiba got his skills from Takeda. Takeda taught Ueshiba, Sagawa, Kodo. Each student of Takeda used the DR aiki in their own way.

The conclusion that I have reached is that these skills *are* aiki. They are what Ueshiba used.

Allen Beebe wrote: Furthermore, it seems to me very unlikely that Ueshiba probably didn't get his primary instruction about internal strength from Onisaburo Deguchi. I think this simply because there is no evidence that I am aware of that Onisaburo Deguchi produced any other individuals with that power from among the many, many followers of Omoto.

Oops! Meant to write, "Furthermore, it seems to me very unlikely that Ueshiba got his primary instruction about internal strength from Onisaburo Deguchi. . . "

Deguchi may have influenced Ueshiba with how to spin, market, package, frame, interpret, his internal strength . . . he seems to have influenced Takada's packaging (naming of Daito ryu).

The timing of this influence and name change (if accurate) made me remember that there is a picture of Yoshida Kenji in front of a kakejiku upon which was written "Yanagi Ryu Aikijujutsu" (if memory serves) dated about this same time. Kotaro Yoshida and Takeda Sokaku had a pretty tight connection, which leads me to wonder if there was any tangential Deguchi influence upon that art's naming.

Just drawing lines between various dots floating in my vacuous brain . . .

Allen

You know the funny thing about this is that the length of time to have the basic skill set screws up a lot of things I thought were facts.

I used to read posts here and on other forums about aikido where people wrote some incredible assertions, and when you asked them what their background was it would be like: "I was an uchideshi for 4 or 5 years!" and I'd think "yawn". But I didn't give them too hard of a time because in many other fields 4-5 years brings you close to expert status. We give people "masters" and "PHDs" in a short amount of focused time. People who work on computer systems for that much time can get near expert status in their field. Then you have aikido, where 40 years used to "scratch the surface".

Now a different training methodology brings us back into the 4-5 years range. You still will have just barely scratched the surface, but it is actually scratched. I don't know what to think about this, in 50 more years will I still think after 5 years of this stuff that I indeed scratched the surface? It seems like the depth to be discovered is potentially far beyond what I thought possible in a lifetime. At what point do we say "great mastery".

Rob

Hey Allen,

At what point do we say "great mastery".

Hey, in my case, I just don't...

Best,
Ron

The question is dual in its scope. What Manner to Great Mastery? It has two sides. The first being in what training method did the "greats" use to gain such skill. However, there is a flip side to the question. Exactly how were the "greats" perceived as having "Great Mastery"? Others viewed them as being great, but why? What manner gave them this view?

We can all see Shioda on video trouncing his ukes. We can see Tohei tossing people. Ueshiba. Etc. However, nowhere do we ever see any students who are comparable to the teacher. It is as if the students are there only to show the great mastery of the teacher. Shioda, Tomiki, etc were *taught* something. They learned how to be strong. It was knowledge and training passed to them by other teachers. Where, then, are their students that they passed on this training? Could they not teach as they were taught? Was the teaching method flawed? Was there only a few taught the specific skills?

It is easy to show great mastery when the students are of such a vast difference in skill and abilities. If the training method is not flawed, where are the students to match the teacher? These "greats" taught over many years. And if they (the greats) learned in such short time, where are their students who also learned?

What "Great Mastery" lies within the vast skill differences between two people?

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hey Allen, Hey, in my case, I just don't... Best, Ron

Hi Ron,

I think you may have read Rob Liberti's post and thought it was me. At least the quote you posted was his.

I'm with you. I'm very uncomfortable with terms like "mastery," "master," etc. They imply a lot and prove very little. I also am a proponent of letting one's ability speak for itself.

Hope you're well,
Allen
(Reminder: Come to Washington!)

Mark Murray wrote: ....Others viewed them as being great, but why? What manner gave them this view? We can all see Shioda on video trouncing his ukes. We can see Tohei tossing people. Ueshiba. Etc. However, nowhere do we ever see any students who are comparable to the teacher. ....

I've seen endless examples of teachers, live and video, trouncing their students so I don't think this criteria means much. Do you have some other means of judging skill that leads you to say we don't see students comparable to their teachers.

Even hands on I think you have to be very good yourself in order to tell the subtle differences between very good, great mastery and something you wanted to believe in.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Gibbons wrote: Do you have some other means of judging skill that leads you to say we don't see students comparable to their teachers.

Yes
Can they stop their teachers in their tracks.
Are encouraged to do so.
Are being specifically and in great detail taught how to stop the teacher in their tracks.
And they -the students- have skills that are increasingly challenging the teachers to stay ahead in their own pursuits or have the student shoot past.
And without knowing rank, you can sort them by skills
.
.

Even hands on I think you have to be very good yourself in order to tell the subtle differences between very good, great mastery and something you wanted to believe in. Regards, Mark

I don't think that's true at all. On one level you are going to get handled regardless of your efforts-you'll know straight away you are far outmatched.
On another level you should be also dealing with power far beyond your abilities. And that power should be unusual and obvious.
And so far I haven't mentioned waza or subtleties in anyway.

Subtleties in waza? Depends on what you mean. Most of what I have seen in various arts that is subtle isn't really worth much. Most wouldn't work and is nonsense against able fighters..
Subtleties in movement? That's more realistic to carry forward in more stressful environments

Dan Harden wrote: Yes Can they stop their teachers in their tracks. Are encouraged to do so. Are being specifically and in great detail taught how to stop the teacher in their tracks. And they -the students- have skills that are increasingly challenging the teachers to stay ahead in their own pursuits or have the student shoot past. And without knowing rank, you can sort them by skills I don't think that's true at all. On one level you are going to get handled regardless of your efforts-you'll know straight away you are far outmatched. On another level you should be also dealing with power far beyond your abilities. And that power should be unusual and obvious. And so far I haven't mentioned waza or subtleties in anyway. Subtleties in waza? Depends on what you mean. Most of what I have seen in various arts that is subtle isn't really worth much. Most wouldn't work and is nonsense against able fighters.. Subtleties in movement? That's more realistic to carry forward in more stressful environments

You know Dan, it's posts like this that keep me waiting for your posts. Some very good stuff in that one.