Training in Aikido to Create World Peace

I have placed this topic in the training section intentionally.

O Sensei came to believe that training in Aikido could help to bring about world peace. He asked that those of us training in Aikido spread the art for this reason.

Because of the controversy around translating O Sensei's writing, I provide two sources in which the translations are less likely to be incorrect:

http://www.aikidofaq.com/interviews/interviews.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Sugag-Ncs

In these the following quotes are found:

"Aikido is a path to self-perfection for human beings."

"Aikido is Ai (love). You make this great love of the universe your heart, and then you must make your own mission the protection and love of all things. To accomplish this mission must be the true Budo. True Budo means to win over yourself and eliminate the fighting heart of the enemy... No, it is a way to absolute self-perfection in which the very enemy is eliminated. The technique of Aiki is ascetic training and a way through which you reach a state of unification of body and spirit by the realization of the principle of heaven."

"The ultimate goal of Aiki is creation of heaven on earth. In any case, the entire world must be in harmony. Then we do not have a need for atomic and hydrogen bombs. It can be a comfortable and pleasant world."

The question that come to mind are whether O Sensei meant these things literally. For the purposes of this discussion we must assume that he did mean these things literally.

The next question that comes to mind is how a martial art can lead to world peace. For the sake of this discussion let's assume that he meant that Aikido training could create people who would pursue forgiveness, compassion, and mercy rather than revenge and anger. As such these people would bring this state of mind into their communities and even politics. All martial arts have the ability to cultivate in an artist a willingness to avoid fighting as there is nothing to prove. O Sensei seemed to believe that Aikido held potentials beyond that.

If the assumptions we are following are correct, and they seem correct given the statements attributed to O Sensei, then we must ask ourselves if we are training in the manner necessary to cultivate these desired traits in ourselves and others. The question then becomes, how should we be training to create world peace.

Traditionally the idea was to disable or kill an opponent, so any move away from this was a move towards non-violence. From the interview linked to above we can see that this process O Sensei was describing was not without martial affect or even some injury to the attacker. As he stated, regarding the way he taught Irimi Nage at the time in 1957, one should strike the attacker two or three times after entering. Later he moved towards more leading and less atemi, but the point here is that the martial side is not neglected and the art does not protect the attacker at all costs.

At the same time, O Sensei stated that:

"In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost. We adhere to the principle of absolute nonresistance, that is to say, we do not oppose the attacker. Thus, there is no opponent in Aikido. The victory in Aikido is masakatsu and agatsu; since you win over everything in accordance with the mission of heaven, you possess absolute strength."

"...continuing the direction of his movement. Then, holding your opponent's hand you move it in a circular motion around his head. He then falls with his hand wrapped around his head .... This, too, is the flow of Ki There are various sophisticated theories about this point. The opponent is left totally powerless, or rather, the opponent's power is led in the direction you want to take him. So the more power the opponent has, the easier it is for you. On the other hand, if you clash with you opponent's power you can never hope to win against a very strong person."

"Also, in Aikido you never go against the attacker's power. When he attacks you striking or cutting with a sword, there is essentially one line or one point. All you need to do is avoid this."

In the radio interview O Sensei described Aikido as a healthful way to train.

If the changes in people that O Sensei believed were cultivated by Aikido occur not in the ability to perform the techniques of Aikido but rather in the training process between Uke and Nage, then the training process holds the potential to train people to create world peace.

A picture emerges from these two sources alone that gives an indication of what this training process is supposed to look like. Even the atemi that is described is not meant to destroy but distract Uke. The ability and knowledge needed to harm Uke allow for survival and mercy. Nage and Uke cooperate in a "free type of ukemi." Nage looks at the world from Uke's point of view. Rather than destroy Uke, Nage feels compassion for Uke. Nage is does not submit to victimization. But Nage does show mercy. Rather than dominate or clash with Uke, according to Kisshomaru Ueshiba, we "constantly train to control our partner's Ki freely through the movement of our own Ki, by drawing the partner into our own movement." The focus is not on destroying Uke but on studying, according to O Sensei, "every phenomenon in the universe" as reflected in the movements of Uke and Nage.

If we don't follow the training process to create peaceful people we may create great martial artists, but will we do as the founder desired? If Aikido spreads a different process and goal, will we betray his vision?

Kukutai no hongi revisited + proto new age = Aikido's world peace

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Kukutai no hongi revisited + proto new age = Aikido's world peace

I started this thread not to prevent people from disagreeing. So feel free. But please could you base your argument in examples from what he said? Or put another way, why do you suggest we should ignore the things he said?

I'm not disagreeing. I simply did the short version of your post.

In any way I am suggesting to ignore the things he said, on the contrary, I believe we should do something more than a superficial reading.

Dig deeper in his words so you'll find from where they came and what he was talking about.

Buddhism is a teaching of compassion, a teaching for living beings. Therefore, fighting on behalf of living beings is in accord with the spirit of compassion. In the event hostilities break out between Japan and Russia, it is only natural that Buddhists should fight willingly, for what is this if not repaying a debt of gratitude we owe the Buddha? it goes without saying that this is a war to protect the state and sustain our fellow countrymen. Beyond that, however, it is the conduct of a Bodhisattva seeking to save untold millions of living souls throughout China and Korea from the jaws of death. Therefore Russia is not only the enemy of our country, it is also the enemy of the Buddha... [O]n the one hand this is a war of politics and on the other hand it is a war of religion . . . If theirrs is the army of God, then ours is the army of the Buddha. -- Inoue Enryo on the eve of the Russo-Japanese war

They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace. -- Tacitus, tr. Loeb Classical Library edition

Welcome to Manchuko! We hope you enjoy your stay in the fastest growing and most remunerative region of the Empire to which a loyal subject can be dispatched! We are proud of the leading role Japan is taking to free our Chinese brothers and sisters from the yoke of Western Imperialism. We must all do our best in this noble undertaking!

Ken McGrew wrote: If we don't follow the training process to create peaceful people we may create great martial artists, but will we do as the founder desired? If Aikido spreads a different process and goal, will we betray his vision?

IMO, part of his vision was that we also build some of the skills he had. It is with and through those skills that his vision of peace and non-resistance via aikido is realized. So I'm not sure that the process alone, as it exists today, would be enough. It may be as much of a betrayal of his vision as anything else.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I'm not disagreeing. I simply did the short version of your post. In any way I am suggesting to ignore the things he said, on the contrary, I believe we should do something more than a superficial reading. Dig deeper in his words so you'll find from where they came and what he was talking about.

Of course I am digging deep into his words and trying to understand them. If you believe they mean something different then please show us so we can learn.

Oh...and one more phrase from Inoue comes to mind: gokoku airi

Rough translation: "Protect the nation and love the truth."

FL

Ken McGrew wrote: Of course I am digging deep into his words and trying to understand them. If you believe they mean something different then please show us so we can learn.

They mean what they mean in Ueshiba's socio-political-historical context.

The issue is the meaning you are giving to them because you are from a different country and era.

"In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost. We adhere to the principle of absolute nonresistance, that is to say, we do not oppose the attacker. Thus, there is no opponent in Aikido. The victory in Aikido is masakatsu and agatsu; since you win over everything in accordance with the mission of heaven, you possess absolute strength."

Just pulled this out as an example to comment on since there is alot of material there.

1. I'm not a scholar, nor do I care to, but what is the citation of this statement and when was it said? or is it attributed to him or interpreted by a third party?

2. I'll assume he did indeed say this word for word in spirit and intent for sake of discussion. What did he mean by "attack"? When is it acceptable to defend yourself? ....if at all?

3. Absolute non-violence. To me, this would mean absolutely (duh!). So what IS absolute non-violence? does that mean you must abstain from defending yourself or preserving life absolutely...no matter what. Is this not open for interpretation at all? Would non-violence accept some sort of "middle ground" in which it is okay to do some stuff and not others things? who gets to decide that? Is there such a thing as justifiable violence based on a set of values/mores/ethics? (just war argument).

4. If Absolute means absolute....then why do we need to address the issue at all with studying a martial art? why waste your time.

5. Irimi nage could be viewed as both violent and non-violent...who gets to be the judge to decide where that line is drawn. Is there an ethics committee that says that it is okay to knock someone over in a "non-violent" way...but to do "more" than that means you are using violence? Who indeed is the judge and jury? Who gets to decide this?

6. Is it possible that he meant this "problem sets" and paradoxes to be unanswered to cause people to simply explore the roots, cause and effects of violence and the responsibility and power we have as people in order to expand our perspective? Might he never have intended for aikido to be looked at so fundamentally and taken so literally that we have people that get to decide what is right and wrong for us.

Might it really have been intended to be a open book that makes us think hard, deep, and have discussions and might it be that there really is no "right" answers.

the Dali Lama on the concept of "just war"

I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess al such matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not.

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/wo...reality-of-war

what I get out of this is that he "gets" the dilemma and paradox of use of force and violence and understands that we do not live in a perfect world. I would imagine that O'Sensei and the Dali Lama would be good friends today and agree on this issue personally.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Just pulled this out as an example to comment on since there is alot of material there. 1. I'm not a scholar, nor do I care to, but what is the citation of this statement and when was it said? or is it attributed to him or interpreted by a third party? 2. I'll assume he did indeed say this word for word in spirit and intent for sake of discussion. What did he mean by "attack"? When is it acceptable to defend yourself? ....if at all? 3. Absolute non-violence. To me, this would mean absolutely (duh!). So what IS absolute non-violence? does that mean you must abstain from defending yourself or preserving life absolutely...no matter what. Is this not open for interpretation at all? Would non-violence accept some sort of "middle ground" in which it is okay to do some stuff and not others things? who gets to decide that? Is there such a thing as justifiable violence based on a set of values/mores/ethics? (just war argument). 4. If Absolute means absolute....then why do we need to address the issue at all with studying a martial art? why waste your time. 5. Irimi nage could be viewed as both violent and non-violent...who gets to be the judge to decide where that line is drawn. Is there an ethics committee that says that it is okay to knock someone over in a "non-violent" way...but to do "more" than that means you are using violence? Who indeed is the judge and jury? Who gets to decide this? 6. Is it possible that he meant this "problem sets" and paradoxes to be unanswered to cause people to simply explore the roots, cause and effects of violence and the responsibility and power we have as people in order to expand our perspective? Might he never have intended for aikido to be looked at so fundamentally and taken so literally that we have people that get to decide what is right and wrong for us. Might it really have been intended to be a open book that makes us think hard, deep, and have discussions and might it be that there really is no "right" answers.

I haven't seen the original Japanese, but I will say that the more abstract the concepts the more problematic the translation becomes, because it is essentially out of context of the original speaker.

Also, absolute statements in Japanese are rarely absolute in the Western sense - in practice things usually proceed on a case by case process, and Japanese actually tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic. This is the same thing that caused so many problems for Western businessmen in the 70's and 80's.

Best,

Chris

Thanks Chris!

I think it is fine to discuss idealism. I would certainly love to have a world in which there was no need for violence. The problem comes when it goes from a visionary discussion of ideals, to a fundamentalist discussion about practice and HOW you should do this literally.

What is war for in Kokutai no Hongi:

HARMONY When we trade the marks of the facts of the founding of our country and the progress of our history, what we always find there is the spirit of harmony. Harmony is a product of the great achievements of the founding of the nation, and is the power behind our historical growth; it is also a humanitarian Way inseparable from our daily lives. The spirit of harmony is built on the concord of all things. When people determinedly count themselves as masters and assert their egos, there is nothing but contradictions and the setting of one against the other; and harmony is not begotten. In individualism it is possible to have cooperation, compromise, sacrifice, etc., so as to regulate and mitigate this contradiction and the setting of one against the other; but after all there exists no true harmony. That is, a society of individualism is one of clashes between groups of people…and all history may be looked upon as one of class wars. Social structure and political systems in such a society, and the theories of sociology, political science, statecraft, etc., which are their logical manifestations, are essentially different from those of our country which makes harmony its fundamental Way…. Harmony as in our nation is a great harmony of individuals who, by giving play to their individual differences, and through difficulties, toil and labor, converge as one. Because of individual differences and difficulties, this harmony becomes all the greater and its substance rich. Again, in this way individualities are developed, special traits become beautiful, and at the same time they even enhance the development and well-being of the whole. THE MARTIAL SPIRIT And then, this harmony is clearly seen also in our nation’s martial spirit. Our nation is one that holds bushido in high regard, and there are shrines deifying warlike spirits…. But this martial spirit is not something that exists for the sake of itself but for the sake of peace, and is what may be called a sacred martial spirit. Our martial spirit does not have for its objective the killing of men, but the giving of life to men. This martial spirit is that which tries to give life to all things, and is not that which destroys. That is to say, it is a strife which has peace at its basis with a promise to raise and to develop; and it gives life to things through its strife. Here lies the martial spirit of our nation. War, in this sense, is not by any means intended for the destruction, overpowering, or subjugation of others; and it should be a thing for the bringing about of great harmony, that is, peace, doing the work of creation by following the Way….

http://books.google.es/books?id=DsAL...page&q&f=false

Mark,

I will tell you this, as I was there about 15 years ago in the DC dojo said this and I remember it well and have said it before on Aikiweb.

Ivan, the dojo cho at the time in Takoma was telling sensei to be careful when going out on the front porch as crack heads had been using it to light up. (those in Takoma Park know what the front porch of the dojo is like). and of course, the house is not occupied at night when Sensei is down in Florida.

Sensei thought for a second and then said in his thick Japanese accent. "oh....guess I should bring shotgun back from florida"

I don't mind at all if people disagree here or take things in a somewhat different direction.

I would only say that I personally see no conflict between defending your home with a shotgun if you have to and using Aikido training as a way to develop world peace. A peaceful loving person would have no desire to shoot the dangerous people, or at least would suppress that desire, but only to protect themselves and their home if necessary.

If we take O Sensei as meaning the things he said in these interviews, and don't try to dismiss the things he said as translation problems, then I think we should consider whether we are respecting his wishes and what it would mean to do so. I am not trying to be absolutist or suggest that we shouldn't engage in a variety of training at times for various reasons. I'm saying that it looks to me like the cooperative training process was for him a big part of what he was asking us to do. How many arts encourage the defender to see things from the point of view of the attacker? It's revolutionary.

When necessary, use the proper tool, efficiently, to do the job, as humanely as possible. It's what's in your heart/mind/spirit that's important. I know, I know... easy to say, but not so easy to do. That's the highest purpose of training in budo for me. I've been to war, I've seen and experienced both opposites. I know the difference. It can be done.

"If we eat hamburgers for 1000 years, we will become blond. And when we become blond, we can conquer the world." Den Fujita

You're halfway there Ken! Banzai!

Ken McGrew wrote: If we take O Sensei as meaning the things he said in these interviews, and don't try to dismiss the things he said as translation problems,

Do you speak Japanese? If you do not speak Japanese how do you know what he said?

Thanks for clarifying this Ken.

I think most martial arts are cooperative in nature and if you look at the basic code in all of them, they really profess the same message. I can understand how people in aikido feel drawn towards the message and vision of O'Sensei's philosophy. It resonates with many and means something to them.

However, just because one finds great meaning and significance in this message does not mean that it is unique or holds a moral high ground over other arts.

BJJ, for example is very cooperative and it resonates with me as a practice, and frankly it has provide me with some very good and relevant skills that have allowed me to have many more options that I feel enable me to reach people in the dojo and also in conflict. So in that aspect, I feel BJJ does the same.

For many in aikido though, the typical young BJJ player can be looked at as being "competitive", war like, and not having the same, strong desire for peace and harmony than the aikidoka. I find it no different really at the base level.

I think there are definitely MORE people in Aikido that would like to align themselves with the message than maybe in BJJ, but in reality and practice I don't see it as being any more in practice.

It is sort of like saying because I go to a particular church on sunday...I am closer to God than another. YMMV, it may be true or not.

So, I don't see it as being revolutionary...just that the practice and message has resonated with many that may not have considered Budo or a martial art as a way of life.

In fact, I would venture to say that there are many hypocrites and VERY passive/aggressive tendency that are latent in many in Aikido. I have found a level of complete BS that seems to be prevalent in many dojos.

I mean you go to a dojo and the most senior students will not even introduce themselves to you. You go to a seminar and there are people that won't train with you or even acknowledge your presence because you are not part of the "inner circle".

I RARELY have experienced this in a BJJ dojo, and I am usually completely surprised at the level of authentic sincerity and honesty that is present there.

IMO, if there is one criticism I have of aikido and the methodology is it's lack of true accountability for skill and cooperation. There is alot of room for BS that people can hide behind. So it is RIPE, IMO, for the wannabees and folks that want to hide behind something that the really WISH they could be a part of but really lack the moral courage to let go of their egos.

So, no, I do not think it is revolutionary at all..with the exception of the proliferation of the art into the US in the late 60's and 70's when we had droves of people looking for something to hang a hat on for meaning, afinity, and identification. so in that sense, Aikido was revolutionary, as it was the PERFECT art for many to get board with.

I am sorry and I hope I do not offend those that find meaning in aikido and I think it has definitely opened the eyes of many to a different way and a different perspective. In that sense, it is a good thing and it WAS revolutionary.

However, in the grand scheme of things, it is NOT special, not is it unique it what it does.

However, if you strip all this new age and philosophical stuff out....which BTW, I LOVE it...what do you have left at the core of the practice that has meaning?

Really what do you have that sets it apart from say meditation, forms of yoga, or anything else?

You have a training methodology that is designed to impart physical knowledge that is useful in someway. So, to me, this is what SHOULD make it special and unique in it's approach, AND make it revolutionary. So, how well are we doing in that area?

Not meaning to convert your thread over to the IS argument, but really once you strip all the other stuff away...what is left that makes it special and unique?

How does the physical practice of aikido transcend the ordinary and empower us on a very basic and real level to do things that are exceptional?

It is easy IMO to link a bunch of movements and techniques to a philosophy and say it is "special" and revolutionary. Too easy to do. All we really need to do is get a group of people together that agree on stuff and then set the ground rules and write the doctrine...too, too easy to do.

But what at the core is holding it accountable?

To me, there in lies the problem and the hypocrisy that is prevalent in many martial arts.

These interviews have been around for a long time, as have other sources. If the translations are wrong people are free to point out how they are wrong. Some people say Stevens and others had troubles translating O Sensei's writings, which is understandable, but spoken Japanese is much easier to translate (as I've been told by people fluent in Japanese). I don't think there's much dispute about what he said in these interviews. However, if you think there is it would be fine if you pointed them out to us. Do the things in the interviews strike you as being contrary to your understanding of Aikido?

Hi Kevin,

This discussion was really directed towards people who consider themselves to be doing O Sensei's art and to explore if we are doing what he asked us to do. I appreciate the polite tone of your post and have read others by yourself that I found helpful. That is, those of us who already feel we should listen to what O Sensei said, are we listening to him as we should. I guess this topic requires accepting, for the sake of this discussion, that Aikido is a unique martial art.

So I think the issue is less what we think about Aikido as an art and more what O Sensei said about the art as a way to train for peace. The only objective common denominator are the words.

Your point is a good one, if off topic somewhat, in that there is always a sort of ukemi in anything that isn't actual combat. Training partners don't want to seriously injure each other.

My reading of the quotes from O Sensei in this interview are that the effort to see things from the attackers perspective and resolve the conflict without fighting were the heart of his art. I don't know that we need to be exceptional to train for peace. From the peace training perspective the only reason to be capable at self defense is to understand the violence that you are avoiding. Or perhaps the notion of peace was closer to the notion of Karma for Sensei, as some have argued, and by defending yourself you actually protect the attacker from his own bad Karma.

It's fine with me that people want to be able to defend themselves. After the war it seems that this became a secondary objective for O Sensei. Most martial arts are built around the notion of revenge. You try to hit me and I hit you back. Or I injure you in some way. This is part of Aikido as well. But Aikido also contains the possibility of minimizing the harm to the attacker more so that other arts in a larger variety of situations. If you can wrestle someone to the ground and hold them for the police then grappling arts have part of this potential as well. The potential for them be merciful evaporates more quickly, however, in multiple attack type situations than it would appear to with Aikido.

O Sensei seems to be saying that the philosophy is not somehow separate from the way the art itself functions for self defense. It is actually part of the technical functioning of the art.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Thanks for clarifying this Ken. I think most martial arts are cooperative in nature and if you look at the basic code in all of them, they really profess the same message. I can understand how people in aikido feel drawn towards the message and vision of O'Sensei's philosophy. It resonates with many and means something to them. However, just because one finds great meaning and significance in this message does not mean that it is unique or holds a moral high ground over other arts. BJJ, for example is very cooperative and it resonates with me as a practice, and frankly it has provide me with some very good and relevant skills that have allowed me to have many more options that I feel enable me to reach people in the dojo and also in conflict. So in that aspect, I feel BJJ does the same. For many in aikido though, the typical young BJJ player can be looked at as being "competitive", war like, and not having the same, strong desire for peace and harmony than the aikidoka. I find it no different really at the base level. I think there are definitely MORE people in Aikido that would like to align themselves with the message than maybe in BJJ, but in reality and practice I don't see it as being any more in practice. It is sort of like saying because I go to a particular church on sunday...I am closer to God than another. YMMV, it may be true or not. So, I don't see it as being revolutionary...just that the practice and message has resonated with many that may not have considered Budo or a martial art as a way of life. In fact, I would venture to say that there are many hypocrites and VERY passive/aggressive tendency that are latent in many in Aikido. I have found a level of complete BS that seems to be prevalent in many dojos. I mean you go to a dojo and the most senior students will not even introduce themselves to you. You go to a seminar and there are people that won't train with you or even acknowledge your presence because you are not part of the "inner circle". I RARELY have experienced this in a BJJ dojo, and I am usually completely surprised at the level of authentic sincerity and honesty that is present there. IMO, if there is one criticism I have of aikido and the methodology is it's lack of true accountability for skill and cooperation. There is alot of room for BS that people can hide behind. So it is RIPE, IMO, for the wannabees and folks that want to hide behind something that the really WISH they could be a part of but really lack the moral courage to let go of their egos. So, no, I do not think it is revolutionary at all..with the exception of the proliferation of the art into the US in the late 60's and 70's when we had droves of people looking for something to hang a hat on for meaning, afinity, and identification. so in that sense, Aikido was revolutionary, as it was the PERFECT art for many to get board with. I am sorry and I hope I do not offend those that find meaning in aikido and I think it has definitely opened the eyes of many to a different way and a different perspective. In that sense, it is a good thing and it WAS revolutionary. However, in the grand scheme of things, it is NOT special, not is it unique it what it does. However, if you strip all this new age and philosophical stuff out....which BTW, I LOVE it...what do you have left at the core of the practice that has meaning? Really what do you have that sets it apart from say meditation, forms of yoga, or anything else? You have a training methodology that is designed to impart physical knowledge that is useful in someway. So, to me, this is what SHOULD make it special and unique in it's approach, AND make it revolutionary. So, how well are we doing in that area? Not meaning to convert your thread over to the IS argument, but really once you strip all the other stuff away...what is left that makes it special and unique? How does the physical practice of aikido transcend the ordinary and empower us on a very basic and real level to do things that are exceptional? It is easy IMO to link a bunch of movements and techniques to a philosophy and say it is "special" and revolutionary. Too easy to do. All we really need to do is get a group of people together that agree on stuff and then set the ground rules and write the doctrine...too, too easy to do. But what at the core is holding it accountable? To me, there in lies the problem and the hypocrisy that is prevalent in many martial arts.

Ken McGrew wrote: These interviews have been around for a long time, as have other sources. If the translations are wrong people are free to point out how they are wrong. Some people say Stevens and others had troubles translating O Sensei's writings, which is understandable, but spoken Japanese is much easier to translate (as I've been told by people fluent in Japanese). I don't think there's much dispute about what he said in these interviews. However, if you think there is it would be fine if you pointed them out to us. Do the things in the interviews strike you as being contrary to your understanding of Aikido?

The interviews are fairly simple and straightforward, and don't go into much depth, but in Ueshiba's case spoken Japanese is much more difficult, because he often used odd readings for characters - that was one of the known headaches with transcribing his stuff.

The main problem with taking any translated material and analyzing it in detail is that the analysis takes part outside of the cultural and linguistic context of the original. Really, you have to rely on the translator to place that correctly, so it's already heavily filtered.

So it's not just a simple black and white issue of right or wrong, but rather an issue that has to be considered - and weighed more heavily the more abstract and complex the material is. Of course, there are instances where translations are just mistaken, or when they miss the original meaning, but that's just an extreme.

Best,

Chris

Do you believe the translations have distorted his meaning?

Otherwise you are simply going off topic. Can we ever have discussions about what O Sensei said unless we are experts on translating the Japanese?

If you accept the translations, but think they mean something different than what I have suggested, then please show us why you feel that way. I guess depth is a subjective term at times. I found sufficient depth both in terms of describing the philosophy as well as discussing how to perform specific techniques given the philosophy.

Ken McGrew wrote: Do the things in the interviews strike you as being contrary to your understanding of Aikido?

No.

Which is the point people have been trying to make. You seem to be utterly convinced that the IS training some people are doing is completely incompatible with aikido as Ueshiba Sensei intended it to be. The (aikido) people who are actually doing that training see no such contradiction, and indeed believe that what they are doing brings them closer to what Ueshiba Sensei intended.

So how to resolve the issue? As has been suggested before, one place to start would be to actually get on the mat with some of these people and see what they are actually doing, rather than speculating based on what you believe they are doing. If you still see the training as misguided at that point, then at least you'll be able to argue from knowledge, rather than ignorance.

Katherine