Ueshiba on the future of Aikido

Christopher Li wrote: Without a doubt, Daito-ryu comprises the physical pillar of Ueshiba's creation, but the other pillar, which is no less important when defining "Aikido", is composed of the concepts that he elaborates on in "Take Musu Aiki" - a good read if you can slog through the Japanese. "Aikido Shinzui" is also a good source, but maybe a little tamer.

Chris, I've got Aikido Shinzui at the local library. What exactly is "Takemusu Aiki"? Is that the full Japanese title? Do you have any publication info?

Dan Harden wrote: Hence his words "Takeda opened my eyes to true budo."

Actually the exchange was thus:

O Sensei (tr.- Stanley Pranin) wrote: B: Did you discover Aikido while you were learning Daito-ryu under Takeda Sokaku? O Sensei: No. It would be more accurate to say that Takeda Sensei opened my eyes to Budo.

He began to see budo with Takeda. Seeing his "true budo" -- Aikido -- came later, in a personal revelation he described as spiritual and transformative.

Dan Harden wrote: It was Ueshiba's decision to stop drawing in, to stop such damaging forms of jujutsu and to continually cast away with aiki, that made the shift towards the safer Ukemi we see. It was this that allowed his Budo to match his vision and create something new with his Aiki. Learned from his teacher-Takeda.

I don't quite agree with the "cast away" part. That is an incomplete description. Too many interactions end up with uke "sucked in" to this gaping hole that has opened from a small crack the middle of his balance.

Joshua Reyer wrote: Chris, I've got Aikido Shinzui at the local library. What exactly is "Takemusu Aiki"? Is that the full Japanese title? Do you have any publication info?

Hello Josh,

武産合気 is the main title, but on the front cover there are the names of the 'author' : 合気道開祖植芝盛平先生口述 and editor: 高橋英雄編著. The publisher is 白米真宏会出版本部.

Christopher Li wrote: I think that it is a common misconception that Ueshiba's vision was a martial art that would be able to stop attackers without harming them. At the very least, that is a vast over-simplification of what his vision really turned out to be. True, that was the seed of his experience in 1925, but the actual vision is much more complex and developed than that. If you look at "Take Musu Aiki", in which Ueshiba spends the first chapter defining what Aikido is, "stopping an attacker without hurting them" is not mentioned at all, not even once. Without a doubt, Daito-ryu comprises the physical pillar of Ueshiba's creation, but the other pillar, which is no less important when defining "Aikido", is composed of the concepts that he elaborates on in "Take Musu Aiki" - ... it is clear that when he talks about his "aiki" being different than in previous generations that he is absolutely correct. ... In relation to the "harder road", I will note that Sagawa (in "Tomei na Chikara") seems to have been of the opinion that real personal transformation (which is primarily what Ueshiba harps on in "Take Musu Aiki") on any significant scale is so difficult as to be almost impossible .

O Sensei was nothing if not eclectic in his spiritual sources, so let me make a relevant point, given the season of the year, and from the standpoint of Christian spiritual understanding.

Love does NOT mean that destruction and death can be avoided. That is one of the necessary lessons of the Passion and Easter. Death and destruction are not to be avoided. Not even God Himself avoids them when he enters our sphere. They are an inevitable part of this mortal existence.

Death and destruction can, however, be transcended. They can only be transcended by love. Surpassing love -- even of one's enemies. This was O Sensei's revelation of his True Budo. It is of one thought with that of Jesus on this point.

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment;...

He who takes the sword may die by the sword. But Jesus explicitly told his followers to buy a sword, if they did not have one. So, neither taking the sword, nor living, nor dying are the point. For the record, his twelve chief followers after Easter, all died violently. "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."

The key question is: What is in your heart when you wield it? Katsu jinken -- or satsu jinto?

With or without it the sword in your hand, which sword is in your heart?

Joshua Reyer wrote: Chris, I've got Aikido Shinzui at the local library. What exactly is "Takemusu Aiki"? Is that the full Japanese title? Do you have any publication info?

Peter already answered, but you can find it by searching at http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/

Best,

Chris

Fantastic. Thanks, Messrs Goldsbury and Li!

Erick Mead wrote: O Sensei was nothing if not eclectic in his spiritual sources, so let me make a relevant point, given the season of the year, and from the standpoint of Christian spiritual understanding. Love does NOT mean that destruction and death can be avoided. That is one of the necessary lessons of the Passion and Easter. Death and destruction are not to be avoided. Not even God Himself avoids them when he enters our sphere. They are an inevitable part of this mortal existence. Death and destruction can, however, be transcended. They can only be transcended by love. Surpassing love -- even of one's enemies. This was O Sensei's revelation of his True Budo. It is of one thought with that of Jesus on this point. He who takes the sword may die by the sword. But Jesus explicitly told his followers to buy a sword, if they did not have one. So, neither taking the sword, nor living, nor dying are the point. For the record, his twelve chief followers after Easter, all died violently. "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently." The key question is: What is in your heart when you wield it? Katsu jinken -- or satsu jinto? With or without it the sword in your hand, which sword is in your heart?

Outstanding! It is by this basic "Philosophy" that one may reconcile the paradoxical problem of how to "deal" with violence as a man of "peace" since violence is a part of the natural world. What O'Sensei did IMO was to clarify how to "express" this paradox through Budo.

Our purpose as Aikidoka is clear to me. It is up to us to discover for ourselves how best to understand and express this paradox.

Shoji Nishio once said about Aikido, "people who practice Aikido, should be recognized as the best artists in the world. It is easy to create something good with good materials, however, we perform a martial art that is designed to destroy and kill people which is something people dislike.
With these poor materials, we cultivate a society of friendship and build peaceful minds, that people desire.

Every Aikido technique has that mind/heart."

Since both O'Sensei and Shoji Nishio along with the other giants like Saito Sensei have passed on the "future" belongs to us and to me the message is clear about what my responsibilities are to "pass it on" to the next generation. "There is no time to lose."*

William Hazen

*With heartfelt thanks to Pema Chodron.

Dan Harden wrote: Interview-Takeda Sokaku- "This technique is a perfect self-defense art where you avoid being cut, hit or kicked while at the same time you don't hit, kick or cut. As the attack comes you handle it expediently using the power of your opponent. So even women and children can execute these techniques. But I make it a rule not to teach the techniques to anyone without proper references because they are frightening if misused. .....

Dan,

This goes back to some vital points in the discussion.

How many times have people insisted on this topic that aikido does NOT involve "avoiding" the attack?

And this also goes to the idea of "blending" with the attack.

AND the relation between children and aiki technique.

Clearly, avoiding the attack is prime. That's why Sokaku mentioned it first. You avoid being hit or cut while at the same time not hitting or cutting in return.

Next, you handle the attack using the opponent's power and not your own. This is said in the context of avoiding the opponent's attack, which requires movement and is well accomplished by "blending".

I am still very interested in your methods and abilities, but the point I guess I have never managed to make in all my mentions of "when the other guy has equal abilities" is that, in that case, you must blend and you must apply superior technique. It's always been said that when size and strength are on your side, no technique is necessary. But where the opponent's size and strength are equal or greater (up to a point), technique can still prevail.

Where he has the size, the strength and the technique, we are SOL (unless we are very lucky, indeed) [or if we have God on our side, a la King David v. Goliath].

This does not attempt to dismiss your frequent statement that technique alone is not the means, but it does assert that technique is a necessary and vital component of budo training and development.

After all, Sokaku says, "...even women and children can execute these techniques" and "...I make it a rule not to teach the techniques to anyone without proper references..."

What "even women and children" means is that "the techniques of aiki" will work even when one is not highly developed or very strong.

I have elsewhere cited an example of a young woman who, after only a few days of aikido lessons in college, did aiki-nage on a guy who grabbed her from behind in a bear hug. Someone (who could it have been? [not you]) reduced this example to "Oh, you've just said that aiki is nothing more than techniques."

What I was saying was that aiki can be picked up quickly and applied with very little preparation or strength. That's why Sokaku would not teach the techniques without references--because anyone can pick them up quickly--even children.

Which brings me to my final point of this post: Sokaku does not specify a lowest-age limit to what a "child" is or how early they can be taught. In fact, he does not say that children "can be taught" the techniques, but that "... children can execute these techniques."

My assertion all along has been that children demonstrate the roots of "these techniques" from birth. Children begin to show root aiki before it is possible actually to "teach" them anything--when they are only developing the nerve connections from the brain to the limbs and while they are learning (independently and only semi-consciously) to orient themselves to gravity.

Chris Moses and I went back and forth on this matter. He "firmly" asserted that children have no innate aiki ability. I asked him "Can a rabbit eat an oak tree?"

Chris took that as a facaetious question, but it's actually a kind of "aiki trick" in itself. The answer is simple. A rabbit can eat an oak tree if it catches it right after it emerges from the acorn. It may be very small, but if left alone, it will become a huge tree. So a rabbit can eat it when it's small. The trick works because people naturally think of an "oak tree" as a mighty thing. But it's already an oak tree when it comes out of the acorn.

And we think of a "martial art" as something invented "outside" human nature and "reprogrammed into" people from outside, rather than something that capitalizes on their natural movement and abilities.

Likewise, toddlers have an innate aiki ability. They can only execute aiki techniques because the techniques are already very close to their innate nervous responses. That's the deepest genius of aiki.

Best to you.

David

The ans

David Orange wrote: How many times have people insisted on this topic that aikido does NOT involve "avoiding" the attack?

I'm curious what actual word is translated as "avoid." He says that you avoid being hit by an attack, which I consider to be different than saying you avoid the attack in its entirety. I can avoid being hit while not avoiding the attack. That's kind of critical actually.

David Orange wrote: Clearly, avoiding the attack is prime. That's why Sokaku mentioned it first. You avoid being hit or cut while at the same time not hitting or cutting in return.

I interpret this to be his making a distinction between Daito Ryu and systems like karate that were quickly gaining popularity around this time in Japan, rather than an emphasis on avoidance itself.

David Orange wrote: What I was saying was that aiki can be picked up quickly and applied with very little preparation or strength. That's why Sokaku would not teach the techniques without references--because anyone can pick them up quickly--even children.

I didn't see anything in the quote about the fact that these techniques can be picked up quickly by children. He specifically says that he's selective because of how *dangerous* the techniques can be, not how easy they are to learn. Besides, why would he need to teach children, since they all have the innate ability to use aiki?

David Orange wrote: Chris Moses and I went back and forth on this matter. He "firmly" asserted that children have no innate aiki ability. I asked him "Can a rabbit eat an oak tree?" Chris took that as a facaetious question, but it's actually a kind of "aiki trick" in itself. The answer is simple. A rabbit can eat an oak tree if it catches it right after it emerges from the acorn.

That's not a tree, it's a seedling, and I still think that has nothing to do with this conversation.

It's clear we have a different idea of what ‘aiki' is David, to be honest, it sounds like you're talking about ‘ju' rather than ‘aiki' most of the time. I've seen a lot of kids, and watched a lot of children doing Aikido, and I've never seen what you're talking about. As for the ‘root' movement stuff, it all depends on what you consider the root movements, something which, again, I think we disagree about completely, and which has been covered multiple times elsewhere…

I also have issues with David's interpretation of the word avoid in Dan's quote. I'd be interested in hearing the japanese word used, and the different meanings of that word.

Does anyone know if "avoid" was originally written as yokeru?

Best,
Ron

Christian Moses wrote: I'm curious what actual word is translated as "avoid." He says that you avoid being hit by an attack, which I consider to be different than saying you avoid the attack in its entirety. I can avoid being hit while not avoiding the attack. That's kind of critical actually.

Sounds like irimi to me.

Christian Moses wrote: I interpret this to be his making a distinction between Daito Ryu and systems like karate that were quickly gaining popularity around this time in Japan, rather than an emphasis on avoidance itself.

The emphasis is that he used aiki instead of what all those other systems (including common jujutsu) used, which was kiai. Aiki is nothing more nor less than the "ura" of kiai. But since kiai is to plow through the opponent, the ura of that is to "avoid" the strength of the attack, giving it no place to land and making it waste itself on nothingness.

Christian Moses wrote: I didn't see anything in the quote about the fact that these techniques can be picked up quickly by children. He specifically says that he's selective because of how *dangerous* the techniques can be, not how easy they are to learn.

No. He doesn't say they can be "picked up quickly by children. He says that "children can execute these techniques." He doesn't mention "teaching" them to children at all. Further he does NOT say anywhere in that quote that the techniques are "dangerous." He "specifically says that they are "frightening."

Christian Moses wrote: Besides, why would he need to teach children, since they all have the innate ability to use aiki?

As I said, he doesn't mention "teaching" children. He says "...children can execute these techniques." Of course, I assume that he "means" they can execute the techniques "after" he "shows" them how to execute the techniques, but again, they could not even learn to execute the techniques if they were not very close to children's natural movements from the beginning.

Christian Moses wrote: That's not a tree, it's a seedling, and I still think that has nothing to do with this conversation.

A seedling is everything a tree is. All it needs is time to develop. Same with baby martial artists. All we have to do is let them grow naturally and their innate powers will develop into what an ordinary over-civilized modern man would consider super-human.

Christian Moses wrote: It's clear we have a different idea of what ‘aiki' is David, to be honest, it sounds like you're talking about ‘ju' rather than ‘aiki' most of the time.

As I said above, and as Minoru Mochizuki explicitly defined it for me, aiki is the ura of kiai. It is related to ju, but it is specifically different.

Christian Moses wrote: I've seen a lot of kids, and watched a lot of children doing Aikido, and I've never seen what you're talking about. As for the ‘root' movement stuff, it all depends on what you consider the root movements, something which, again, I think we disagree about completely, and which has been covered multiple times elsewhere…

Well, that's why you've never observed it in children. Even a 100-foot-tall bamboo, 12 inches in diameter, comes out of the ground the size of a pencil point. You can kick it over or crush it without even knowing you'd just stepped on it. If you don't know what to look for, you'll never see it until it gets much bigger. But it's the same thing when it's the size of a pencil point as it will be when it's 100 feet tall and a foot across.

Best wishes.

David

Ron Tisdale wrote: I also have issues with David's interpretation of the word avoid in Dan's quote.

Well, it means that the other guy tries to hit you and you move so that he misses. In some limited applications, this can be done without moving, but that's not usually the case when the other guy is trying to "cut" you--especially with a sword. In other words, it relies on irimi tai sabaki.

Those who mince too much on the words get minced by the sword.

David

David Orange wrote: Those who mince too much on the words get minced by the sword.

I'll try not to go mincing around when there are swords in the vicinity

If you read the other thread where "avoidance" was used, the context was completely different. Evasion is the word commonly used for what you are describing, which is why I asked for the specific term used in the quote, since yokeru is the japanese word I know for that...

Not mincing words is fine in a sword fight...but this is an internet board. Words ARE our swords here, and if mis-used, someone gets hurt.

Best,
Ron (usually the meaning)

David Orange wrote: A seedling is everything a tree is. All it needs is time to develop. Same with baby martial artists. All we have to do is let them grow naturally and their innate powers will develop into what an ordinary over-civilized modern man would consider super-human.

No, no it's not. It shares the same genetic code, but there are a huge number of differences between a seedling and a tree.

I insist that you're reading way too much weight into very specific details of a translated text. Further, it's a very brief excerpt of that text, and we don't know the context or the intended audience.

I will believe your speculation about the naturally grown super-human martial artist when they can throw me. Until then, it's all just speculation.

Ron Tisdale wrote: If you read the other thread where "avoidance" was used, the context was completely different. Evasion is the word commonly used for what you are describing, which is why I asked for the specific term used in the quote, since yokeru is the japanese word I know for that...

Ron,

I don't see an important difference. Evasion is avoidance.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Not mincing words is fine in a sword fight...but this is an internet board. Words ARE our swords here, and if mis-used, someone gets hurt.

I agree with you there, especially if a sword strike is involved and someone is trying to "avoid" the attack without "evading" it. In either case, the body must move out of the line of the attack or it's going to be cut in half. That has been a prime principle of aikido since I first heard of the art. It was the way Mochizuki Sensei taught it and had me teach it. You must avoid the attack, as Sokaku said, not be hit by it, and use the attacker's strength against him. Any other end meaning doesn't "avoid" the truth but misses it completely.

Again, a nice rubber sword tends to end the argument forever.

Best to you.

David

Best,
Ron (usually the meaning)[/quote]

Christian Moses wrote: No, no it's not. It shares the same genetic code, but there are a huge number of differences between a seedling and a tree.

The main difference is time. Anyway, you will never get an oak tree without the seedling and you will never have an oak tree that was not once a seedling. The seedling is still there in the full-grown tree.

Christian Moses wrote: I insist that you're reading way too much weight into very specific details of a translated text. Further, it's a very brief excerpt of that text, and we don't know the context or the intended audience.

I'm not reading into it. It's more like "highlighting" what's there. First, ""This technique is a perfect self-defense art where you avoid being cut, hit or kicked..." So aiki is "technique" in which avoidance of the attack is prime, according to Sokaku.

Next, aiki is very simple and easy: you use the opponent's power and "even women and children can execute these techniques" so it doesn't require vast development beforehand. How else can a child execute the techniques? They have to be simple, easy and close to the child's inborn nature. Otherwise, the child could not execute them.

Further, the techniques of aiki require no special qualifications to learn and Sokaku had to have "references" to ensure that any old person he might show the techniques would not misuse them--indicating again that they are very easy to learn and gain control of.

Christian Moses wrote: I will believe your speculation about the naturally grown super-human martial artist when they can throw me. Until then, it's all just speculation.

Unlike a tree or bamboo, a human being will never develop to his full potential without guidance and education. So the "wolf baby" will never become a super martial artist and wouldn't even learn to speak. So of course, he wouldn't develop "aikido" as we know it, but he probably would be able to snap you or me in half if he grew up climbing the hills and mountains and chasing the deer through the woods. Look at the Native Americans and the hell they gave the big old white men who came to their land. If the Europeans hadn't had guns, it's unlikely they would have gotten far in this land.

Best to you.

David

David Orange wrote: I don't see an important difference. Evasion is avoidance.

To evade is to slip away from, to elude, or to escape by means of avoidance (from a Latin verb meaning to go, walk).

To avoid is to make legally null, to keep away from, or to prevent the occurance of (from a Latin verb meaning to empty).

They are similar, nearly synonymous, but--a poet, etymologist, or translator may argue--not always identical. One person might use them interchangeably, but another might not. There's always room for miscommunication.

Sorry, but to me, avoidance and evasion have very different connotations...maybe it's just me and Chris...Oh, and apparently Tom...

As for rubber bokken...ah...no. Sensei just uses the wooden one. If you get hit...oh well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Oh, and apparently Tom...

I'm the kind of word-geek that edits his post from "One person ... but someone else" to "One person ... but another" because I think it's easier to read.

Staying out of trouble is avoidance.

Getting yourself out of trouble, when you're already a target, is evasion.

I think.

David Orange wrote: The main difference is time. Anyway, you will never get an oak tree without the seedling and you will never have an oak tree that was not once a seedling. The seedling is still there in the full-grown tree.

Well, time, genetic specialization, development of mature cell walls, mass, structures for moving fluid against gravity... Actually, seedlings don't even usually have leaves that are recognizable to a particular plant, so those structures would be different too. Not to mention the fact that none of the organic material present in the seedling would still be there once it had become a tree, or even the electrons for that matter. So no, I'm going to still disagree with you there.

David Orange wrote: I'm not reading into it. It's more like "highlighting" what's there. First, ""This technique is a perfect self-defense art where you avoid being cut, hit or kicked..." So aiki is "technique" in which avoidance of the attack is prime, according to Sokaku.

Unless you translate it say as, "This technique is a perfect self-defense art where you a keep from being cut, hit or kicked.."

David Orange wrote: Further, the techniques of aiki require no special qualifications to learn and Sokaku had to have "references" to ensure that any old person he might show the techniques would not misuse them--indicating again that they are very easy to learn and gain control of.

You're making a huge logical jump there, that because he didn't want to teach people of low character, the techniques are simple. I don't see how you can actually make that leap in a logical fashion.

David Orange wrote: Unlike a tree or bamboo, a human being will never develop to his full potential without guidance and education. So the "wolf baby" will never become a super martial artist and wouldn't even learn to speak. So of course, he wouldn't develop "aikido" as we know it...

So what good is your theory then if it can't be produced in the real world?

Appologies to all for thread-drift. I'm ducking out of this one. In my view there's nothing to be gained along this line of discourse.

Two things...
1) Aikido is not about avoiding or evading an attack. It is about joining with an attack. That is one of the meanings contained in the "aiki" of Aikido.

2) There seems to be a recurrent idea that, merely being relaxed and natural in ones movement, one is using "aiki". This is simply not the case any more than "aiki" has anything to do with ones behavior. In terms of waza, "Aiki" constitutes a set of methods for energizing ones own body and mind, for mentally and physically joining with another's intention and movement, for understanding how to create movement in the mind of another to get him to move his or her body...

It is intentional and it must be taught. Children do not do this naturally. What children do have is a lack of fear which manifests as a lack of physical tension. This may be required to utilize the principles of "aiki" in ones technique but it is not the same as "aiki"; it is merely a prerequisite.

George S. Ledyard wrote: It is intentional and it must be taught. Children do not do this naturally. What children do have is a lack of fear which manifests as a lack of physical tension. This may be required to utilize the principles of "aiki" in ones technique but it is not the same as "aiki"; it is merely a prerequisite.

Way back when my memory worked better than it does now, I remember Tohei Sensei saying that we are all born with an understanding of ki that we un-learn as we mature. He went on to say that we have to relearn it in order to learn Aikido effectively.

It always bothered me, that comment. It didn't seem to fit in with a lot of other things he said. Until I started teaching Aikido to both kids and adults. Then the comment started to make sense.

It's more than kids having a lack of tension, they have a naturalness of movement which is easily guided into correct movement. To say that it is correct movement already would be misleading, at best. But they have no concern over whether swinging their arm in an arc makes sense, they just know it feels good and Sensei just told them they should.

I think this is what Tohei was talking about. Part of this particular lecture was about us having to learn to move in more "mature" ways in order to function in the world and that un-learning our natural ki was an unfortunate consequence of this. This is an important aspect of the issue, I think.

Kids are very natural in their movement, but "aiki" - at least in my mind - implies intent and control on some level. "Ki" not so much. So natural movement may be correct, but it may not be. Even when it is, the intent is not there. Learning control means you will lose some of the natural movement and have to learn to be relaxed in that way with a new intent.

I think this is where people get confused. A child's ki may be powerful and natural, but it is undirected and undisciplined and so - I think - not aiki. That natural ki, though, combined with the fact that children are hard-wired to learn can make it surprisingly easy to teach children very complex things in Aikido.

Although it must be said that said naturalness can backfire in the learning process as well. When stuff comes to easily to a child, he or she may be easily discouraged upon encountering something that doesn't come easily.

George S. Ledyard wrote: Two things... 1) Aikido is not about avoiding or evading an attack. It is about joining with an attack. That is one of the meanings contained in the "aiki" of Aikido. 2) There seems to be a recurrent idea that, merely being relaxed and natural in ones movement, one is using "aiki". This is simply not the case any more than "aiki" has anything to do with ones behavior. In terms of waza, "Aiki" constitutes a set of methods for energizing ones own body and mind, for mentally and physically joining with another's intention and movement, for understanding how to create movement in the mind of another to get him to move his or her body... It is intentional and it must be taught. Children do not do this naturally. What children do have is a lack of fear which manifests as a lack of physical tension. This may be required to utilize the principles of "aiki" in ones technique but it is not the same as "aiki"; it is merely a prerequisite.

There are many examples of this in religion, martial arts, and popular culture. Thanks again Sensei for "cutting through" the Gordian knot of symantic mumbo jumbo over the meaning of the word "avoidance".

If Aikido is about anything it is about "creating a connection" through breathing, relaxed movement, and technique.

Perhaps folks are confusing off the line movement like tenkan as avoidance. To us it is the exact opposite. It means to enter.

Very enjoyable thread.

William Hazen