Spiritual Principles Applied

Hi everyone,
I have now come to terms with the various views on the various aspects of Aikido on this forum and have found when I say certain things like 'Spiritual' then others think they know what I'm saying and yet I find they have no idea of what I'm saying for it is down to that word and me not explaining what I mean by it.

Firstly let me state what I mean by principle: A rule to be adhered to and followed based on a truth.

So when I talk about spiritual principles I am thus saying there are some spiritual rules to be followed.

Now I have taken it as a responsibility over the years to translate spiritual principles into words and concept that can be understood and applied and thus tested.

So let's look at principles for a minute here. Keeping to, following and applying them is DISCIPLINE. The discipline of sticking to these principles instead of reverting to force or fighting is what I call the true martial aspect of Aikido.

So my first principle I give to you is the principle which relates to center in Aikido. In fact if you discipline yourself to apply this principle in life and living and during your Aikido practice then you will experience more and more the truth of center.

This principle is ACCEPTANCE.

When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?

Now when I say center I am talking about what Ki Aikido may call One Point which is situated a bit below the navel, outside the body.

Everything has a center, spin a chair or whatever and you will see it turns around it's center and thus the center is always the calm point around which everything turns.

Energy goes out from center and energy goes in to center and thus we have centrifugal and centripetal force and thus we have tai sabake. Energy also goes around a center no different to one planet or satellite in orbit and thus we have circles in Aikido and they are REAL.

So back to acceptance. If you completely accept the hold on your wrist for example the you will be letting the opponents energy go to your center and meanwhile you will find your own energy or Ki is free to flow through your body, through your wrist and hands and out to the universe. You are still free. If you go against the hold then you are blocking your own flow and not only that you are trapping youself by your own resistance and thus are left with no alternative but to believe in fighting.

Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center.

Enjoy. G.

Very nice post, thanks Graham.

Graham Christian wrote: Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center. Enjoy. G.

I really like this. I remember getting into a long discussion with someone once when I said, "one has to accept one's faults." He was incredulous, and we went off into a long debate each of us with our supporting arguments/examples on why this was or wasn't correct. Finally I saw what he was thinking. He translated what I said as, "one must give in to their faults." The "debate" was finally settled when I said, acceptance can also mean something akin to recognition and had to go to the dictionary to prove I had used the word correctly.
To my mind it has always served as a good example for most common disagreements people have. Rather than accept there might be even a kernal of truth or validity and see what that might be, they often resist...and get caught up in the fight rather than actually dealing with the essence of the thing itself, wasting time and energy and who knows what else.

I agree with that Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center. and also what Mathew said one has to accept one's faults, it does not mean either agreement nor that one gives in to their faults.
I must accept my faults to reflect about them and if necessary correct them to be a better person. When I went to yoga there was a meditation about to accept everything as it comes, the heat in the sommer, the rain, the wind, the coldness in the winter, enjoy good things... and bad or negative things must also be accepted,perhaps we can change them or just find the positive side.
One must confront sad, bad and negatives things to grow up and to get mature.

Well said. Compliments and appreciation.

May I add the idea of congruence?

How can we make spirituality congruent with our psychology and sociology (and every other ology)?

How can we make principles congruent with application?

When we are reminded to "move from our one point", how can we congruently all move in one direction?

"When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?"
How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it?
Mary

Mary Eastland wrote: "When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?" How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it? Mary

It depends on the kind of grab, if it is aggressive don't resist and don't fight just go ahead and try to break his balance.

Carina Reinhardt wrote: Very nice post, thanks Graham.

You're welcome. P.S. Nice photos!

Graham Christian wrote: You're welcome. P.S. Nice photos!

Thanks, it is most of the days like that,of course not with the Santa hats. Now we are planing a trip to Tenerife, another of the Canary Island when our collegue will open his new dojo.I'll put the photos for sure in my blog, everybody of the dojo like to see himself. Also in Facebook

Matthew Gano wrote: I really like this. I remember getting into a long discussion with someone once when I said, "one has to accept one's faults." He was incredulous, and we went off into a long debate each of us with our supporting arguments/examples on why this was or wasn't correct. Finally I saw what he was thinking. He translated what I said as, "one must give in to their faults." The "debate" was finally settled when I said, acceptance can also mean something akin to recognition and had to go to the dictionary to prove I had used the word correctly. To my mind it has always served as a good example for most common disagreements people have. Rather than accept there might be even a kernal of truth or validity and see what that might be, they often resist...and get caught up in the fight rather than actually dealing with the essence of the thing itself, wasting time and energy and who knows what else.

Well said Mathew. I like how you saw it is something akin to recognition for I would say that acceptance along with recognition and perception are all interdependant and together make up that all desired thing--- Understanding. (mental center)

Carina Reinhardt wrote: I agree with that Acceptance isn't agreement it is the way to spiritual stability and center. and also what Mathew said one has to accept one's faults, it does not mean either agreement nor that one gives in to their faults. I must accept my faults to reflect about them and if necessary correct them to be a better person. When I went to yoga there was a meditation about to accept everything as it comes, the heat in the sommer, the rain, the wind, the coldness in the winter, enjoy good things... and bad or negative things must also be accepted,perhaps we can change them or just find the positive side. One must confront sad, bad and negatives things to grow up and to get mature.

Hi again Carina. May I validate what you are saying by adding this:
When it comes to true spiritual principles you find that they enhance the good and render the negative powerless. Thus when you truly accept something negative it's power dissipates and the same with a problem. This gives you space and time to comfortably 'see through it' to a better solution.

Cheers. G.

Lynn Seiser wrote: Well said. Compliments and appreciation. May I add the idea of congruence? How can we make spirituality congruent with our psychology and sociology (and every other ology)? How can we make principles congruent with application? When we are reminded to "move from our one point", how can we congruently all move in one direction?

Hi Lynn.
Your idea is welcome. To make spirituality congruent with our psychology etc. I would say that first you have to practice a principle and when finding the efficacy of it then to introduce it into our psychology and sociology and promote it.

The root meaning of the word psche always makes me smile for it means spirit and somehow got changed to mean the mind. The best psychologists and counsellors I have ever met were actually down to earth spiritual people.

Now in Aikido making these principles congruent with application once again takes someone firstly being able to translate them in to simple terms and then demonstrating them and getting students then to try their usual methods and then to compare to the method you are now showing. Once again allowing people to test for themselves to see the difference and the result.

When we move from one point and all move congruently in one direction? Do you mean in Aikido application?

Hope I've understood what you mean by congruent. Please let me know. G.

Mary Eastland wrote: "When someone grabs your wrist do you accept it or do you resist it or fight it or go against itin some way?" How about receive it...welcome it...embrace it? Mary

Hi Mary.
Having given the principle of acceptance as equating with center I like your question, especially as you mention three separate things.
I planned to deal with these in separate posts as parts of other spiritual principles so for now I'll keep to acceptance and center here and just for you I'll quickly differenciate what I mean.

Welcome I have as a principle which translates as Hara in Aikido and results in a pure softness that invites, welcomes and embraces.

Receiving you could say is inherent in both of these and yet I use the principle of 'letting go' as the spiritual action of Koshi or what I would call spiritual Koshi. Following this principle leads to weight underside and a reality of receiving completely.

Thanks for your response. G.

Good thread.
I have long thought that both on and off the mat acceptance of reality, including the attack, is the healthiest way of being in the moment and not battling reality. In dealing with my chronic pain and counseling clients with chronic pain or other longterm issues I stress accepting it as simply being. Creating a mental construct of it as something large and Other just gives it more power.
Now about "inviting"...I do also use that in training. 13 or 14 yrs ago I watched a woman do the randori portion of her fukushidoin test. She took the "own the mat" idea one step further; in moving towards an attacker her extending hand/arm was so graceful I would not have been surprised to have seen opera length gloves appear on her. I am short, round, older and slower but continue to cultivate that attitude in randori - the gracious hostess welcoming her guests (and ushering them in and showing them the door :-) )

Graham Christian wrote: Hi everyone, Now when I say center I am talking about what Ki Aikido may call One Point which is situated a bit below the navel, outside the body. Everything has a center, spin a chair or whatever and you will see it turns around it's center and thus the center is always the calm point around which everything turns. Enjoy. G.

Are you sure you mean "outside the body"? When I spin a chair it usually rotates around an axis, not a point. So, do you mean center of mass, the intersection of the rotational axes or something else?

Regards,
Mark

Graham Christian wrote: Hi everyone, I have now come to terms with the various views on the various aspects of Aikido on this forum and have found when I say certain things like 'Spiritual' then others think they know what I'm saying and yet I find they have no idea of what I'm saying for it is down to that word and me not explaining what I mean by it. Firstly let me state what I mean by principle: A rule to be adhered to and followed based on a truth.

Firstly, let me ask: how you define "truth"?

Energy also goes around a center no different to one planet or satellite in orbit and thus we have circles in Aikido and they are REAL.

BTW, have you ever heard about 1st Kepler Law.?

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Firstly, let me ask: how you define "truth"? BTW, have you ever heard about 1st Kepler Law.?

Hi Demetrio,
No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting.
As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law. Thus a truth cannot be physically seen but it can be tested and thus seen to be true. The subject of physics has physical universe laws or principles. Mathematics has it's own principles from which all those fancy calculations can then be made.

In fact I would go as far as to say that whereas mathematics is basically the subject that deals with Quantities and therefore all of it's sub-divisions ie: triganometry, geometry etc. are all still to do with quantities. Physics is also to do obviously with physical things including energy. But there is another area just as real as quantity and that area is Quality. From this I would venture to say that truth comes under quality and thus all quantities follow the laws of qualities.

Anyway, hope that answers your question. G.

Mark Gibbons wrote: Are you sure you mean "outside the body"? When I spin a chair it usually rotates around an axis, not a point. So, do you mean center of mass, the intersection of the rotational axes or something else? Regards, Mark

Hi Marc.
When you spin a chair or whatever you will find it has an axis around which it is turning, in fact I would relate this axis line to center line in Aikido. However, the center of that line is of course one point.
Let's take a ball. If you spin it you will see what you have just described. Now see the ball spinning say vertically or from north to south and you will find the axis is now horizontal. As you change the direction of the spin the axis changes accordingly but there is one point which doesn't change at all and that is where all those axis meet and that is the center point.

So center is the point around which all things turn, from which energy goes out and comes in and turns around as I said earlier.
Throw a pebble in a pond and you will see the effect of this energy motion.

Now in Aikido I purposely get people to create a point outside the body in order to get them to see it is something they have to create, to do, to take responsibility for and not think it is just a physical thing. The body of course has it's own center but you have to put your spiritual center aligned with it and the body is most comfortable when you put it there rather than under your foot or in your pocket.

A foreward ukemi is indeed extending Ki and projecting and turning your body around center is it not? If you put one point inside your body and let energy go to it you will feel one feeling. Now put it just outside the body and let energy go to it and you will not only feel a different feeling but you will feel more enlivened and centered. So yes I do mean outside the body.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi again Carina. May I validate what you are saying by adding this: When it comes to true spiritual principles you find that they enhance the good and render the negative powerless. Thus when you truly accept something negative it's power dissipates and the same with a problem. This gives you space and time to comfortably 'see through it' to a better solution. Cheers. G.

Thanks Graham it is a good thought, I'll try to remember.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi Demetrio, No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting. As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law. Thus a truth cannot be physically seen but it can be tested and thus seen to be true. The subject of physics has physical universe laws or principles. Mathematics has it's own principles from which all those fancy calculations can then be made.

Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

Graham Christian wrote: Hi Demetrio, No I hadn't heard of 1st Keplar Law but I just looked it up. Interesting.

So the planets move in elliptical orbits or in circular ones? Is 1st Kepler
Law untrue?

As to Truth I define it as an operating principle or law.

Then a Truth is a Truth based on a Truth, isn't it?

Anyway, hope that answers your question. G.

In the sense you have provided a definition of "truth" then yes, you have answered my question. Thanks.

Mary Malmros wrote: Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

You should read the appropiate books.

There are Twelve Spiritual Principles and Laws

Hahaha, "the appropriate books"...hee hee hee, that was great!

"The Dark Forces have experts that know spiritual hermetic laws since they penetrate good mystic and esoteric organizations such as the Masons and Rosicrucians, to study those laws and to make use of this occult science for their selfish purposes —to create “The Matrix”— although they make you believe they are atheist and materialistic in thinking and that all that esoteric “garbage” of the New Agers is but hocus-pocus, but..."

Oh my, that's heady stuff indeed.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Then a Truth is a Truth based on a Truth, isn't it? (...) In the sense you have provided a definition of "truth" then yes, you have answered my question. Thanks. (...) You should read the appropiate books.

Appropriate book: Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What?
p. 21:
"... we need to take note of a group of words that arise by what Quine calls semantic ascent: truth, facts, reality. Since there is no common way of grouping these words, I call them elevator words, for in philosophical discussion they raise the level of discourse."
He goes on to say that they tend to be circularly defined in reference to one another.... I find that funny, but then... well, end of break, back to work.

Mary Malmros wrote: Do you think that spirituality, then, also has these laws or principles? I ask because I was reading a book on Buddhist teachings yesterday that would seem to argue the opposite.

Hi Mary.
The basis of buddhism is indeed meant to be four noble truths so I don't understand what you mean. However, everything you study, every field of study has certain principles which thus lead to the facts, the mechanics, the reality. Those who go away from this, especially in the field of spirit end up all 'mystical' and 'magical' and to me quite lost.
It reminds me of a story of a great mystic who taught how you must do this and do that and pray to this and that and follow certain proceedures. He taught the great mystery that you could never know. Well if that's true then how does he know?
The principle I gave here in this thread is the principle of acceptance. I gave it as a spiritual principle so yes I do think spirituality has principles to be understood.
Regards. G.

Nicholas Eschenbruch wrote: He goes on to say that they tend to be circularly defined in reference to one another.... I find that funny, but then... well, end of break, back to work.

Also,he points (p. 23) these words have undergone substantial mutations of sense and value.