aikido is...

Have you all heard of a fellow named Amit Goswami? He's a physicist who posits that the primacy of reality is consciousness. ie all reality springs from consciousness. He's an interesting person to listen to...(much available on the web from him so I will try not to get over my head explaining second hand here). Taken with this POV I can understand and even believe what Cherie is saying....it's acceptable without quantifiable explanation. It may not be something I would say to my students but it is a valid POV. Mary, I would guess, has a materialist world view (sub atomic matter makes up atomic matter which makes up......and so on) and our conscious experience is epiphenomenon of the function of our brain. This POV clearly doesn't allow for Cherie's POV. It simply doesn't compute on any level for someone with a materialist POV....

Anyway, what I'm saying is, accepting the statement "I am the universe" depends on the paradigm you operate from.

Food for thought or just too much?

Russ

Russ Qureshi wrote: Have you all heard of a fellow named Amit Goswami? ... Food for thought or just too much? Russ

Very cool food for thought! I have some new reading to do! Thank you Russ!

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Let me rephrase the question. Do you know he said that or you believe he said that? The quotes you provided only prove someone wrote that (in English nonetheless) giving O Sensei as source.

Both. I believe he said it. And I believe that those who quoted him on this, more than once, would have no reason to put words in his mouth. I do however believe that it is quite likely they didn't not fully understand what he meant by the statement. Just as some here do not understand what I mean by saying aikido is everything.

Matthew Gano wrote: Would you be able and willing to describe it? Personally, i get uncomfortable when people say they know "exactly" what others mean, particularly in topics like this. Not that I think you don't, just that it seems questionable, based on personal experience. While I would word it differently, I think I agree with the idea that different people perceive things differently. Taking the opposite direction (i.e. assuming, for the sake of discussion, that you're not really able to understand it as well as you think) I would also say if it seems to make sense to you and it's useful to you, then that's probably good enough...for the most part. That being said, I still think it's a good thing to question. O Sensei put so much work into this that I think it's unlikely most people could appreciate "exactly" what he meant. Like you I have my hunches about how such phrasing might make sense, and on a functional level I can make it apply to a great many situations, but that doesn't mean it's exactly accurate. If you could find the words, assuming words can even be applied, I would greatly appreciate it. My purpose here is to understand the thoughts of others so I can refine my own so while I may make this or that assertion, it's only with the aim of getting feedback. You certainly answered the OP question, and I liked your answer because I think for you it's quite true. But as with many things, the more we talk about it and try to bring it to some objective state, the more difficult it becomes to talk about...and part of me thinks that begs for more discussion...though another part of me thinks it might be a waste of time. Anyway...rambling done for now. Take care, Matthew .

I wish I could find the words. I have been trying to find them for a while now. If and when I do I will write them down.

There is a reason I said 'I think" I understand. Perhaps the word exactly was misused here but I said what I said and I stand by it.

This was not something I was taught to belive in the dojo. It was learned through a great deal of observation, study and meditation on my own. It seems to me every time I turn around and look I am bumping into aikido. I wish I could explain. At the moment though, I think really it cannot be understood unless it is experienced. And who knows perhaps down the road with more time and observation my point of view will change. But I doubt it will. I really think it has much to do with how I personally experience and see the world around me. And that, I think, is rather different from the majority of people.

Russ Qureshi wrote: Taken with this POV I can understand and even believe what Cherie is saying....it's acceptable without quantifiable explanation. It may not be something I would say to my students but it is a valid POV. Mary, I would guess, has a materialist world view (sub atomic matter makes up atomic matter which makes up......and so on) and our conscious experience is epiphenomenon of the function of our brain. This POV clearly doesn't allow for Cherie's POV. It simply doesn't compute on any level for someone with a materialist POV.... Anyway, what I'm saying is, accepting the statement "I am the universe" depends on the paradigm you operate from. Food for thought or just too much? Russ

Great thoughts. I do believe you are right on the money here. It puts into words why I really don't feel like my explaining or proving my belief would be useful.

Cherie Cornmesser wrote: There is a reason I said 'I think" I understand. Perhaps the word exactly was misused here but I said what I said and I stand by it. ...It was learned through a great deal of observation, study and meditation on my own. It seems to me every time I turn around and look I am bumping into aikido. I wish I could explain.

Fair enough...and at a cursory glance I think I can relate to a bit of what you're describing..though it's hard for me to tell if it's my mind leading the experience(s) or the other way around sometimes...
At any rate, thanks for the reply.
Take care,
Matthew

Russ Qureshi wrote: It may not be something I would say to my students but it is a valid POV.

How is it valid? Because a smart fella holds the view? Because he is liked? Because he's popular? Because he gives support to an idea that many people *really* like because it dovetails with what they'd like to believe?

Let me ask...

Would the universe exist without us? If you say no, well, I'm sorry, there's not much more to talk about then. I'm just going to have another martini and make the world a softer, gentler place...

"I refute it thus". Whack. Damn, stubbed my toe on my consciousness.

I'm just glad that it isn't only philosophers who sometimes spout these things.

All POV are not equally valid. I knew an extremely bright mathematician when I worked in research. The fella's brain was magical in his ability to grasp complex number theory. Fantastic cryptographer. He was also a hateful racist. He was also fantastically paranoid and eventually ended up medicated and institutionalized. Smart fella, however...

Back to reading Searle. I never gave that man enough credit.

The question was: "What is aikido to you?"

So what's all this telling people they are wrong and demanding that they justify their opinions? These are personal views and noone can say anyone else is wrong. The most anyone can say is that's not how I see aikido or how I do aikido. That's cool. Aikido is broad enough to range from approaches more like krav maga to approaches more like yoga. And that's cool too.

Finally I would like to add something intelligent about Schopenhauer but right now I Kant.

Hi Keith,

This is pretty much THE question isn't it....

Would the universe exist without us? If you say no, well, I'm sorry, there's not much more to talk about then.

I am certainly not in a position to answer you in any other way than to spout what others have said, so again, I would ask you to do a bit of research on Goswami. Whether you agree with him or not you won't be disappointed. He does speak to the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. For me, intuitively, there is a unitive consciousness (not our walking around state of mind) that is tapped into via meditation/non regular states of mind....anyway, I've revealed myself now. Let the arrows fly.

Cheers,

Russ

Charles David Henderson wrote: Hi Hanna, Care to elaborate? I can see why you would say that Aikido "comes from the teachings of Morihei Ueshiba," and I'd have to agree that descriptions about what "Aikido is" are often personal and (however expressed) "true to some aikido practitioners and not to others." Here's what I'm not sure I understand. Accepting that aikido may be described as the martial art that "comes from the teachings of Morihei Ueshiba," at what point can we say that "descriptions that are true to some aikido practitioners and not to others" so depart from those teaching that it no longer "comes from" those teachings, but has "departed" from them so that the result is a different species of budo or quasi- or ersatz- budo? I am interested in your own view, but at the same time I wonder whether this isn't also an area where any attempt to delineate boundaries will be "true to some aikido practitioners and not to others." Since O Sensei is no longer alive, who would arbitrate such a dispute?

Most of the times, a martial art won't have to throw parts of the practitioners out because they are not doing karate/capoeira/shorinjikempo/aikido. More often, people who want to create their own organisation also give their art a new name. But if we ever have to say "teacher X says she is teaching aikido, but she isn't" that should surely be based on the aikido she does and teaches - not on what her mouth she says about what she is doing.

My reply to the question "what is aikido" is similar (although not identical) to what someone else wrote, along the lines "aikido is whatever the guys at Hombu says it is". However, there are several hombus (Aikikai, Ki no kenkyukai, Yoshinkan) and I think we all agree they all teach aikido. BUT had the head of Yoshinkan decided to call the art something else, or if Tohei sensei had, we would surely have accepted that. (I guess Tohei sensei did, in a way, but correct me if I am wrong: he never said "what I do is not aikido".) All these hombus were created by students of Morihei Ueshiba, or students of students of students of his.

Statements like "aikido is a red flower" or "aikido is peace of mind" or "aikido is the martial art of peace" or whatever are fine, as long as they are meant as descriptions and parables not definitions. Most of the time they are (and I'm sure that was the purpose of this thread, to collect such parables. So perhaps I should shut my mouth and continue the definition thing someplace else.)

Y'know....Aikido is....pretty much suffices....

Well....STILL FUN!!!!!

William Hazen

Russ Qureshi wrote: Y'know....Aikido is....pretty much suffices....

Yes, actually I agree for the most part. And honestly I don't really have problems with varied points of views. The fella you posted about is expressing a viewpoint that has a rich history in philosophy as well, so it's not exactly new. And I"m sure it will continue to be debated and re-introduced in the future.

The problem I have with threads like this is that they expose one thing that I think is a major problem in Aikido -- the inability to actually say what the hell it is. It became a vehicle for so many different points of view. It ends up being so variously defined that eventually it becomes, well, meaningless. It is used so many ways for so many people for so many different purposes that it simply ceases to have any defined meaning of its own. Hence my comments.

On the one hand I think it is perfectly fine for people to do whatever they want, to think whatever they wish, to believe what they choose to believe. No worries there. But as one of my old philosophy profs used to say, while you are entitled to an opinion, you are also entitled to be challenged as to the truth value of what you say. We end up using and miss-using poorly defined words to take on any meaning we wish building these grandiose theories and ideas that ultimately rest on nothing more than sophistry. It all sounds good. It all sounds nice. It would be nice if these things were true. But... when the rubber hits the road are we really making any sense?

Again, hence my comments. It is not to denigrate any particular point of view but to ask why we aren't more rigorous when we do start taking these flights of fancy into the realm of mysticism.

But... That may simply be an expression of my particular world view due to too much philosophy and psychology (incidentally I originally typed Weltanschauung instead of world view which made me laugh as it really made the point of too much philosophical focus in my own education).

So... Please, carry on and ignore the curmudgeon in the corner. I will admit to being mostly in agreement with Hanna above. I think she does also make the same point I was hoping would come out that we tend to confuse the parables with definitions. And while the parables are nifty, cool to think about, and make great quotes, at some point one may want to see if there is anything behind the curtain to support them. If they really make sense. If they really "fit" the world. Or if we're just looking for ways to justify what we want to be the case without any sort of critical eye.

So do carry on. It is Thanksgiving here after all and I promised to show my daughter how to make an AM radio from wire, a tube and miscellaneous parts. Now that's real magic. Voices from the ether...

Niall Matthews wrote: Finally I would like to add something intelligent about Schopenhauer but right now I Kant.

At this point, it's also worth (rather belatedly) pointing out that there's a difference between "Aikido is..." (the title of this thread...no, it was not, "What is aikido to you?") and "My experience of aikido is...". The former is a blind person asserting that he/she knows the nature of the elephant; the latter is a blind person stating what part of the elephant he/she has experienced.

Edit: also, what Keith said.

I talked about the English naming of aikido in a blog post http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/moon-in...f-aikido-4049/. Finally I went with aikido is the way of truth. Maybe that's too heavy or too far from the physical martial art - so what is it for you?

Mary I know very well what I wrote. Your very clever elephant quote which we have now had twice is not about aikido it's about people discussing aikido so it's rather sterile.

There were some really good suggestions and I liked Aikido is and Aikido is fun which were both in my top 3.

Niall Matthews wrote: I would like to add something intelligent about Schopenhauer but right now I Kant.

Niall Matthews wrote: Mary I know very well what I wrote. Your very clever elephant quote which we have now had twice is not about aikido it's about people discussing aikido so it's rather sterile.

So who was talking to you anyway? Don't quote yourself and then pretend you're speaking to me.

Sorry Mary. Since it looked like you didn't read or understand the original post I was just clarifying things. I wrote it.

Hi Hanna,

Thanks for your reply.

Speaking of metaphors/parables, have you run across Chiba's analogy between Aikido and a Tree? It seems consistent with what I hear you expressing about the relation between offshoots and the main "trunk" of the art (which, not incidently, he represented).

I'd wager a lot of people look at the definition question in ways similar to the way you expressed. Chiba's analogy at least creates a "big canopy," even as it reenforces a certain catholicism, I suppose.

Regards,

Cherie Cornmesser wrote: O'Sensei once said, "I am the universe",. I'm pretty sure he believed that he was. I can even understand exactly what he meant by that and based on the same idea aikido is indeed everything.

You're stepping into a morass. a quagmire. A mess of a situation. In all seriousness. Even though I post things about the "spiritual" side of Ueshiba Morihei, I have no doubts that I am missing a lot. I side with Peter Goldsbury on this issue. There is soooo much to that time, his life, that religion, his changing, the war, etc that it is very hard to get a solid grip on exactly what Ueshiba Morihei meant when he spoke on his spiritual ideology.

I would strongly suggest taking a step back and looking at this from a view, that perhaps, you do not know exactly what Ueshiba Morihei meant and doing the research to truly understand.

Just as a very small example:

---
Black Belt 1984 Vol 22 No 10. An article by Gaku Homma.

In the dojo, after greeting a few students, he would lecture on the essence of aikido in Omotokyo teachings, which few students could understand completely. After a short, puzzling moment, he would continue by saying, "What I meant was …" or "For example ..." In one class, he called the instructor to the front and placed the teacher's hands on his hip, commanding the man to push him over. "My body is joined with the universe and nobody can move me," the founder said. The young instructor tried to push him but couldn't.
---

Can you stand there, have someone forcefully push on your hips, and be umoved? If not, then I would, respectfully, suggest that perhaps you do not know what Ueshiba Morihei meant when he talked about the Universe.

Mark

many things.

Potentially:
.. Aiki
..a wonderful,fun practice
..genius in the biomechanical solutions to movement and energy conundrums
..a lunatic magnet
...a source of bullshit
..a mirror (or curse) in which you find what you seek

Russ Qureshi wrote: Have you all heard of a fellow named Amit Goswami? He's a physicist who posits that the primacy of reality is consciousness. ie all reality springs from consciousness. He's an interesting person to listen to...(much available on the web from him so I will try not to get over my head explaining second hand here). Taken with this POV I can understand and even believe what Cherie is saying....it's acceptable without quantifiable explanation. It may not be something I would say to my students but it is a valid POV. Mary, I would guess, has a materialist world view (sub atomic matter makes up atomic matter which makes up......and so on) and our conscious experience is epiphenomenon of the function of our brain. This POV clearly doesn't allow for Cherie's POV. It simply doesn't compute on any level for someone with a materialist POV.... Anyway, what I'm saying is, accepting the statement "I am the universe" depends on the paradigm you operate from. Food for thought or just too much? Russ

I disagree. Completely. There is no "depends on the paradigm" at all in regards to Ueshiba Morihei. He meant very specific things when he talked about his spiritual ideology. He didn't wax philosophical. In an interview, he even denied being focused on religion or philosophy. He was strictly budo. However, his vision of budo was interlaced with his spirituality. But it wasn't the "I am the Universe" chanting, mental high, meditative definition. That came later as Modern Aikido flourished throughout the world.

You want to apply "depends on the paradigm" to Modern Aikido? That's fine. It probably will fit in just fine with some adherents.

But, in regards to Ueshiba Morihei or his aikido? No. It will not.

Cherie Cornmesser wrote: Both. I believe he said it. And I believe that those who quoted him on this, more than once, would have no reason to put words in his mouth.

Then not "both".

Mark Murray wrote: You're stepping into a morass. a quagmire. A mess of a situation. In all seriousness. Even though I post things about the "spiritual" side of Ueshiba Morihei, I have no doubts that I am missing a lot. I side with Peter Goldsbury on this issue. There is soooo much to that time, his life, that religion, his changing, the war, etc that it is very hard to get a solid grip on exactly what Ueshiba Morihei meant when he spoke on his spiritual ideology. I would strongly suggest taking a step back and looking at this from a view, that perhaps, you do not know exactly what Ueshiba Morihei meant and doing the research to truly understand. Just as a very small example: (...) Can you stand there, have someone forcefully push on your hips, and be umoved? If not, then I would, respectfully, suggest that perhaps you do not know what Ueshiba Morihei meant when he talked about the Universe. Mark

Hi Mark,

of course I totally agree with you and others that a reconstruction of the details of the spiritual world of O Sensei is probably impossible for us.

However, I do not think push tests are a criterion for it in any way either. As much as I respect and admire the IS approach, I would even argue they have little to do with it at all. I do not think making IS a vaguely metaphysical activity helps the approach.

There are, of course, different theoretical positions as to the cultural specificity of experience. If you take a universalist view, however, why not argue that "I am the universe" is actually an experience that everybody can have? Casually speaking, if you sit and face the wall for some time, with all you have, under the guidance of a qualified teacher, you are likely to have the experience. (There are other methods of course.) What you do with the experience, and how you express its context in your own cultural system, is a different matter.

It baffles me how many people in aikido, and especilly here on the forum, seem to find the idea that O-Sensei's physical practice can be replicated or reconstructed (based on the idea of the universality of the body) so much more persuasive than the idea that we can have similar experiences on the base of a universal human mind.

(Of course I would even much prefer to be a non-dualist, as O-Sensei probably was, but a lot of conditioning is in the way there... )

Or am I misinterpreting you?

Best wishes!

Nicholas Eschenbruch wrote: Hi Mark, of course I totally agree with you and others that a reconstruction of the details of the spiritual world of O Sensei is probably impossible for us. However, I do not think push tests are a criterion for it in any way either. As much as I respect and admire the IS approach, I would even argue they have little to do with it at all. I do not think making IS a vaguely metaphysical activity helps the approach.

Hello Nicholas!

Hope you are doing well.

When I look at what Ueshiba actually did, I find that "push tests" were a common theme for him. I created a thread for various bits of info regarding this.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14991

When you also read from various sources that Ueshiba Morihei trimmed the Daito ryu syllabus, you have to look at what he *kept* as something important to him.

As noted from various sources, Ueshiba's "push tests" were fairly common. I don't think it's a far stretch to say that those push tests were integral to Ueshiba's aikido.

And then, we have

In one class, he called the instructor to the front and placed the teacher's hands on his hip, commanding the man to push him over. "My body is joined with the universe and nobody can move me," the founder said. The young instructor tried to push him but couldn't.

Notice the words attributed directly to Ueshiba. "My body is joined with the universe" and what is happening while this is going on? He is using a "push test".

(Note: We find Tohei replicating "push tests", however, we also must note that Tohei never strayed into the "I am the universe" spirituality as did Ueshiba.)

From there, let's take a step backwards. What are the skills necessary to a successful "push test"? Looking at Ueshiba's peers, Sagawa and Horikawa (Kodo), we can find that they, too, used similar "push tests" throughout their lives. The common theme among them? Takeda. Daito ryu aiki.

The core body skill, aiki, builds a martial body such that these exemplary martial artists could exhibit an "unmovable" body in a demonstration. That is *not* to say that aiki is spiritual. In fact, just looking at Sagawa and Kodo, we find similar skills as Ueshiba. However the former two never approached the level of spirituality as Ueshiba.

We, then, have to look at what Ueshiba states, is recorded as saying, or by second hand recollections. As the example I noted, we have Ueshiba giving us, on a platter, the direct correlation between "joined with the universe" and the aiki body skills.

If anyone wants to discuss "I am the universe" in relation to Modern Aikido, I'll bow out and have no disagreements. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case here. The discussion turned to Ueshiba's aikido and spirituality. Ueshiba's aikido is very, very different from Modern Aikido. The two should be discussed separately as they are world's apart.

Back to the topic, Ueshiba's spirituality was so intertwined with his aiki, that I do not believe, in regards to Ueshiba, one can discuss his spirituality without discussing his aiki. Again, that is not to say that aiki (Daito ryu aiki) is spiritual in any way. (I should define that as I am not wanting to detail aiki in a spiritual way. I believe that it is -- just not in the same manner as Ueshiba's spiritual ideology. And that's a whole different thread.)

And so, I personally don't think one can begin to understand Ueshiba's definition/explanation of "I am the universe" or "joined with the universe" without at the very least having a body that is rebuilt by Daito ryu aiki. And even then, having that, leaves out a very hard task of understanding Oomoto kyo, kami, spirituality, and Ueshiba's vision of them all.

Nicholas Eschenbruch wrote: There are, of course, different theoretical positions as to the cultural specificity of experience. If you take a universalist view, however, why not argue that "I am the universe" is actually an experience that everybody can have? Casually speaking, if you sit and face the wall for some time, with all you have, under the guidance of a qualified teacher, you are likely to have the experience. (There are other methods of course.) What you do with the experience, and how you express its context in your own cultural system, is a different matter. It baffles me how many people in aikido, and especilly here on the forum, seem to find the idea that O-Sensei's physical practice can be replicated or reconstructed (based on the idea of the universality of the body) so much more persuasive than the idea that we can have similar experiences on the base of a universal human mind. (Of course I would even much prefer to be a non-dualist, as O-Sensei probably was, but a lot of conditioning is in the way there... ) Or am I misinterpreting you? Best wishes!

I think that if anyone uses their religious, spiritual, etc lifestyle/views/ideology and combines that with Daito ryu aiki, then they would be well within Ueshiba Morihei's views/vision of aikido. They would not be doing exactly Ueshiba Morihei's personal aikido, but who really could? It would be enough to accomplish the former and be within the boundaries. So, if one had Daito ryu aiki and then had an experience of "I am the universe", one would, by Ueshiba's own words, be doing his view of aikido. Noting again that one would not be doing exactly Ueshiba's personal aikido.

However, without the Daito ryu aiki, one will not be doing Ueshiba's view of aikido, not matter how many, how strong, or how expansive an experience of "I am the universe" one has. As Ueshiba said, "My body is joined with the universe and nobody can move me".

Of course, there are various places where Modern Aikido training is well within the "I am the universe" experiences but without the Daito ryu aiki, instead opting for the ai(love)ki. But it should be understood that the Japanese love using play on words. Ueshiba did not use the aiki where ai is love as his primary underlying usage. He used the aiki where ai is love as a play on his primary Daito ryu aiki body skill intertwined with his spiritual ideology. Hence, Modern Aikido lacks the martial "secret" of aiki to have that void replaced by the wordplay of spiritual aiki (love energy/harmony).

Does that help explain my views better? I'm horrible at writing/conveying my ideas.

Mark

Hello Mark,

You seem to be in the know enough about what Ueshiba was saying/thinking that you are making very clear black and white statements about what he meant if and when he said "I am the universe". Beyond reading the popular books out there about him I am really not able to comment so I will, at this point, defer to you. However, intuitively, it seems a little cut and dry.

But it wasn't the "I am the Universe" chanting, mental high, meditative definition.

This is not what I meant in my post either (I don't know how you got that.....) The "monistic idealist" world view has been around for some time.....again "Aikido is..." pretty much sums it up as any further elucidation is based on the writer's conditioning and desire....and therefore can easily be picked apart or shot down but others with differing conditioning and desires.

I

t baffles me how many people in aikido, and especilly here on the forum, seem to find the idea that O-Sensei's physical practice can be replicated or reconstructed (based on the idea of the universality of the body) so much more persuasive than the idea that we can have similar experiences on the base of a universal human mind.

Nicholas, this baffles me too....

Best,

Russ