Training in Aikido to Create World Peace

Ken McGrew wrote: Another source, Hikitsuchi Sensei, someone close to O Sensei: http://www.aikidokids.hu/eng/media/readings4.htm "The teachings of Aikido are for the purpose of returning to the heart of the Kami and receiving the power of the Kami. Basing our actions on this foundation, we work for the peace of the world." "What I learned directly from O-Sensei is that the spirit of creating world peace comes before waza. Without that spirit, our Aikido cannot progress."

Terry Dobson, in his last classes at Bond Street, made the following assertions:

"No one who wears a hakama knows more about how to live your life than you do."

"We have absolutely nothing to learn from the Japanese about social organization."

Certainly, the statements which you cite are admirable in some respects. However, one must ask what the basis for the citation might be. Certainly, Hikitsuchi Sensei's technical facility was quite high. But aside from his technical facility, awarded rank, and seniority, if we take into consideration these two admonitions Terry provided (which I would suggest should be given additional weight inasmuch as they were proffered at a time when Terry knew he was teaching the last classes he would ever teach at the dojo he co-founded in New York), is there any evidence that this "spirit of creating world peace" informed any particular aspect of Hikitsuchi Sensei's life off the mat in specific ways that we can find helpful in our own lives beyond the merely sentimental?

While I have my own thoughts on this matter, I am more interested in the observations of others, you included.

Best,

FL

This thread discusses the geocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentric models are off topic for this thread and constitute thread hijacking.

Jun, could we have a forum for geocentric threads, please?

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: This thread discusses the geocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentric models are off topic for this thread and constitute thread hijacking. Jun, could we have a forum for geocentric threads, please? Katherine

Katherine, Santa called. He'll be sending his assistant, Black Peter, to drop off a few special items, very, very soon.

Best,

FL

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Heliocentric models are off topic for this thread and constitute thread hijacking.

Helio is not amused.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Helio is not amused.

+1

Nobody would dare argue with Copernicus and Helio.

A discussion of aikido training and world peace focused on sharing personal experience is all fine and well. But trying to limit a more general discussion of O Sensei's words to a few (possibly erroneous) parameters, or prohibiting relevant information (alternate interpretations, context, martial concepts, etc.) from being part of the discussion, is only going to hamper communication and has the danger to perpetuate ignorance.

If we're going to share personal perspectives and take a look at O Sensei's words at face value: All those O Sensei quotes in the first post can find seemingly matching sayings in some 400+ year old koryu, and I wouldn't be surprised if you can find matching sayings in Chinese arts as well. Being one with the universe, training to make better people, victory without fighting, heaven and earth, victory over oneself, defeat the enemy before drawing the sword, yadda yadda, etc., -- it's all been said way before O Sensei did. So if I'm to take O Sensei's words at face value, then I can conclude that he has said nothing new or original and his words aren't even worth discussing in the first place.

What makes O Sensei's words worth discussing? In my opinion, two things:

Context

Discuss the historical, religious and socio-political backgrounds of Ueshiba's words compared to older (or contemporary) sources saying seemingly similar things. Any attempt to find meaning in O Sensei's words should start there. I don't have the academic background to make that analysis so I rather shut up and listen to those who can (I'm weird like that). I mean these more knowledgeable people are giving away information -- what purported student of the arts wouldn't want that?

Martial ability

Discuss the unique power (yes, power) that made it possible for O Sensei to convince a seriously discerning Japanese Budo crowd that what he did worked, and it was a viable way to follow those dreams of harmony and non-violence he talked about. Take away O Sensei's martial prowess and his words are nothing but a bunch of platitudes. It's not an insult. Think about it, if O Sensei's words had any significance in terms of originality and universal meaning, he'd have Gandhi or Martin Luther King status world-wide… but he doesn't, he's a relative unknown outside the Budo world. His words only carry significance when tied to the martial ability that made those lofty dreams of world peace and "non-resistance" possible. So any discussion of his words without a discussion of the methods that can make those words possible is rather disingenuous.

I also want to point out that based on the face value meaning of the O Sensei quotes, any martial art can train for and achieve those goals. It's arrogant and pretentious to keep harping on these O Sensei quotes as if it's the exclusive domain of aikido to make better citizens; this is actually one of the biggest problems in aikido as it has led to delusions (practitioners picking out a few choice words and designing their training around them based on surface-level interpretations) and isolation from the larger Budo world. There's no Budo out there that promotes raising bad individuals. Any koryu, Systema, BJJ, or judo dojo out there produces good people. Unless there are political motivations, if we aikidoka really want to learn to use non-violence and achieve world peace, shouldn't we exhaust ALL the possibilities (information, training) that could make us CAPABLE of non-resistance and dealing with violence through harmony, etc.?

In this interview with Hikitsuchi Sensei we have someone who was with Sensei before and after the war who speaks specifically to the relationship between the physical process or training and it's spiritual connection to creating peaceful people. What is important is that he tells us what O Sensei did and what O Sensei told him personally. I pull quotes of out the whole (http://www.aikidokids.hu/eng/media/readings4.htm) below.

His words speak for themselves, really. But unless anyone miss the arguments he's making, here's a summary of some of the main arguments: 1) Aikido changed after the war, it was deliberate, and improvement over pre-war, 2) Aikido changed to be focussed on creating peaceful people, 3) O Sensei taught a VARIETY of things that were essential to Aikido in this regard, 4) O Sensei taught by a variety of means including hands on and spiritual lecture and all of these were part of his way of teaching, 5) that there was a direct relationship between the way the training changed after the war and this goal of creating peaceful people. We can't simply ignore the words of someone like Hikitsuchi Sensei on these matters. If he was wrong we must reconcile that somehow with his words. I think we should believe him. If we want to follow O Sensei's wishes and use Aikido to train for peace, then this interview provides some good pointers as to how to go about it. I also believe that the usual sources like Stevens are good for this. I have not been convinced that his translations are so bad as to be without value.

I don't see how these two sentences from Dobson Sensei are supposed to contradict or be somehow more reliable than what Hikitsuchi had to say. Is the argument here that Dobson Sensei didn't believe Aikido was for making peace? Or that he would reject the things that Hikitsuchi says here as being mistaken?

The fact that O Sensei could demonstrate his martial ability may prove to a Japanese audience his spiritual claims as the basis of Aikido. It would not prove that his approach can make peaceful people. And if Aikido doesn't produce peaceful people that doesn't mean he was wrong necessarily but only that people didn't take advantage of the potential in Aikido to change themselves. Perhaps O Sensei was arrogant to say that his training process held more potential for peace but please don't attack me for quoting him and those around him. As to the history of statements about peace in other arts, certainly many people had the same goals. Many a sword master laid down the sword when they could not reconcile their martial training with their spiritual beliefs. O Sensei believed he found an ethical way to do both. For those of us who are inclined to trust O Sensei, the question isn't so much proving that he was right be making sure we are respecting his wishes.

"After the war, did O-Sensei also change how he taught?
The method of practice was the opposite of what it had been. We no longer attacked. We looked at our partners’ ki in order to see the whole of them from the tops of their heads to the tips of their toes. Not just external appearances – we needed to become able to absorb our partners’ minds.

Training was way more difficult. We couldn’t wait for a partner to attack. We had to have the ability to instantly perceive our partners’ suki (openings) and intent to attack. Where will they strike? How will they move? We had to train to cultivate these sensing abilities in ourselves.

Now all the techniques I teach are those of the postwar period. They are the true waza of OSensei’s Aikido.

The teachings of Aikido are for the purpose of returning to the heart of the Kami and receiving the power of the Kami. Basing our actions on this foundation, we work for the peace of the world.

It is useless to argue about whether technique is modern or old. Technique is just technique. We cannot understand Aikido without studying its essential spirit, without studying how O-Sensei gave birth to Aikido.

The Way of Aikido exists to create a person who is sincere and kind – a person with a true heart. Waza exists as Aikido discipline. Through waza, we come to learn how things work. But, to put aside the spirit and do only waza will not lead to an understanding of Aikido’s heart and will not even lead to true waza. Just practicing technique will lead nowhere, no matter how often you do it.


In classes with O-Sensei, which was more important – verbal explanation or physical practice?
These things we practice called waza (techniques) – waza themselves spring forth from kototama (word souls). It’s not really possible to understand a waza fully without speaking about its meaning, what gives birth to it. So, O-Sensei would teach by talking about the (kototama) origins of the waza and teach how it came into existence.

How, exactly, would O-Sensei conduct practice?
First we did Shinji (warm up exercises for spiritual purification). We began with Misogi, Furutama, Torifune, Otakei, Omusubi, and Okorobi (stages of Shinji). Then we cleaned the dojo space and began waza practice.

There was no pattern to O-Sensei’s waza. It was kamigoto (divine working). But the keiko sessions themselves always started with Shinji.

After Shinji came suwariwaza (seated technique), which strengthens the hips. Then we would progress to tachiwaza (standing technique). Often, the first waza was dai-ikkajo – what we now call ikkyo. After that, O-Sensei did waza according to his ki of the moment. Nothing was fixed. Every time it was different.

What was his teaching method?
O-Sensei did not usually teach people individually taking their hands and explaining how to move. He just showed a technique once and told us to imitate what he had done. However, on occasion, he did give one-on-one instruction. I know that I sometimes received hands-on instruction from him directly."

Gerardo Torres wrote: Context Discuss the historical, religious and socio-political backgrounds of Ueshiba's words compared to older (or contemporary) sources saying seemingly similar things. Martial ability Discuss the unique power (yes, power) that made it possible for O Sensei to convince a seriously discerning Japanese Budo crowd that what he did worked, and it was a viable way to follow those dreams of harmony and non-violence he talked about.

You're asking too much.

Ken McGrew wrote: I don't see how these two sentences from Dobson Sensei are supposed to contradict or be somehow more reliable than what Hikitsuchi had to say. Is the argument here that Dobson Sensei didn't believe Aikido was for making peace? Or that he would reject the things that Hikitsuchi says here as being mistaken?

The argument is that the simple fact that a high status individual said these things tells us nothing about their truth or falsity, nothing about how or the extent to which that individual did or did not "walk the talk," and nothing about how whether or not behaving like that individual in our own lives will be perceived by either ourselves or those around us with regard to some claim that we are working to create world peace.

I am asking if, aside from Hikitsuchi Sensei's imputed status, there is some reason to credit his apparent belief that he was effectively working to create peace, whether at the level of the individual, the locality, the region, the nation, or the world.

I believe that it is quite fair to say that Terry was being quite adamant that the adoption of faux-Japanese norms of hierarchy and deference of the kind that lead to a sort of automatic presumption of superior wisdom and/or exemplary conduct which should serve us as a model on the part of our temporal and technical superiors is ill-advised. I am extending that critique and asking if these quotes Hikitsuchi's remarks are either useful in some way or have some existential grounding beyond their utility in an argument from authority.

Best,

FL

Fred Little wrote: The argument is that the simple fact that a high status individual said these things tells us nothing about their truth or falsity, nothing about how or the extent to which that individual did or did not "walk the talk," and nothing about how whether or not behaving like that individual in our own lives will be perceived by either ourselves or those around us with regard to some claim that we are working to create world peace.

Indeed. While Ueshiba Sensei and his direct students are generally acknowledged to be experts on the technical side of aikido, their credentials as peacemakers/facilitators are somewhat less clear. Certainly the fractious state of the aikido world (and our own little online neighborhood of it) should, at a minimum, inspire a certain amount of humility about the effectiveness of the peacefulness aspect of our practice.

Katherine

Ken McGrew wrote: In this interview with Hikitsuchi Sensei we have someone who was with Sensei before and after the war who speaks specifically to the relationship between the physical process or training and it's spiritual connection to creating peaceful people. What is important is that he tells us what O Sensei did and what O Sensei told him personally. I pull quotes of out the whole (http://www.aikidokids.hu/eng/media/readings4.htm) below. His words speak for themselves, really. But unless anyone miss the arguments he's making, here's a summary of some of the main arguments: 1) Aikido changed after the war, it was deliberate, and improvement over pre-war, 2) Aikido changed to be focussed on creating peaceful people, 3) O Sensei taught a VARIETY of things that were essential to Aikido in this regard, 4) O Sensei taught by a variety of means including hands on and spiritual lecture and all of these were part of his way of teaching, 5) that there was a direct relationship between the way the training changed after the war and this goal of creating peaceful people. We can't simply ignore the words of someone like Hikitsuchi Sensei on these matters. If he was wrong we must reconcile that somehow with his words. I think we should believe him. If we want to follow O Sensei's wishes and use Aikido to train for peace, then this interview provides some good pointers as to how to go about it. I also believe that the usual sources like Stevens are good for this. I have not been convinced that his translations are so bad as to be without value. I don't see how these two sentences from Dobson Sensei are supposed to contradict or be somehow more reliable than what Hikitsuchi had to say. Is the argument here that Dobson Sensei didn't believe Aikido was for making peace? Or that he would reject the things that Hikitsuchi says here as being mistaken? The fact that O Sensei could demonstrate his martial ability may prove to a Japanese audience his spiritual claims as the basis of Aikido. It would not prove that his approach can make peaceful people. And if Aikido doesn't produce peaceful people that doesn't mean he was wrong necessarily but only that people didn't take advantage of the potential in Aikido to change themselves. Perhaps O Sensei was arrogant to say that his training process held more potential for peace but please don't attack me for quoting him and those around him. As to the history of statements about peace in other arts, certainly many people had the same goals. Many a sword master laid down the sword when they could not reconcile their martial training with their spiritual beliefs. O Sensei believed he found an ethical way to do both. For those of us who are inclined to trust O Sensei, the question isn't so much proving that he was right be making sure we are respecting his wishes. "After the war, did O-Sensei also change how he taught? The method of practice was the opposite of what it had been. We no longer attacked. We looked at our partners' ki in order to see the whole of them from the tops of their heads to the tips of their toes. Not just external appearances -- we needed to become able to absorb our partners' minds. Training was way more difficult. We couldn't wait for a partner to attack. We had to have the ability to instantly perceive our partners' suki (openings) and intent to attack. Where will they strike? How will they move? We had to train to cultivate these sensing abilities in ourselves. Now all the techniques I teach are those of the postwar period. They are the true waza of OSensei's Aikido. The teachings of Aikido are for the purpose of returning to the heart of the Kami and receiving the power of the Kami. Basing our actions on this foundation, we work for the peace of the world. It is useless to argue about whether technique is modern or old. Technique is just technique. We cannot understand Aikido without studying its essential spirit, without studying how O-Sensei gave birth to Aikido. The Way of Aikido exists to create a person who is sincere and kind -- a person with a true heart. Waza exists as Aikido discipline. Through waza, we come to learn how things work. But, to put aside the spirit and do only waza will not lead to an understanding of Aikido's heart and will not even lead to true waza. Just practicing technique will lead nowhere, no matter how often you do it. In classes with O-Sensei, which was more important -- verbal explanation or physical practice? These things we practice called waza (techniques) -- waza themselves spring forth from kototama (word souls). It's not really possible to understand a waza fully without speaking about its meaning, what gives birth to it. So, O-Sensei would teach by talking about the (kototama) origins of the waza and teach how it came into existence. How, exactly, would O-Sensei conduct practice? First we did Shinji (warm up exercises for spiritual purification). We began with Misogi, Furutama, Torifune, Otakei, Omusubi, and Okorobi (stages of Shinji). Then we cleaned the dojo space and began waza practice. There was no pattern to O-Sensei's waza. It was kamigoto (divine working). But the keiko sessions themselves always started with Shinji. After Shinji came suwariwaza (seated technique), which strengthens the hips. Then we would progress to tachiwaza (standing technique). Often, the first waza was dai-ikkajo -- what we now call ikkyo. After that, O-Sensei did waza according to his ki of the moment. Nothing was fixed. Every time it was different. What was his teaching method? O-Sensei did not usually teach people individually taking their hands and explaining how to move. He just showed a technique once and told us to imitate what he had done. However, on occasion, he did give one-on-one instruction. I know that I sometimes received hands-on instruction from him directly."

Very Nice. Well put.

Regards G.

Gerardo Torres wrote: There's no Budo out there that promotes raising bad individuals. Any koryu, Systema, BJJ, or judo dojo out there produces good people.

I'm sympathetic to your entire argument, but I think this is a weak thread worth pulling on. Remember the video that was posted 6 months or so back showing some koryu kata for how to kill your guest while serving him tea? Mores change and are culturally specific, but surely there's a moral dimension to such practice.

That's an extreme example. Closer to home, Daito-Ryu demonstrations, as compared to Aikido demonstrations, are much more focused on doing damage to uke, showing where the bone breaking, joint destruction, and other nastiness comes in. Though good Aikido teachers will show where such strikes are possible, Aikido demonstrations don't focus on that part of the art and it's downplayed in practice. Is there not a moral dimension to these differences? (I'm focusing on demonstrations because they're available, and because though incomplete they are the public proclamation of what the art is about.)

And in addition, there's the teaching that's built into the movement itself--the open, accepting stance on nage's side and free acceptance of the technique on uke's side that train the attitude as well as the body.

The flip side is that in my view, it's not enough to have good intentions and pretty waza. It has to work, too, and if it doesn't work--if it's not martially effective--it's not teaching anything worth knowing. Not either/or but both/and.

Ken McGrew wrote: This discussion had parameters put around it to avoid mere opinions and to avoid distracting arguments about the reliability of Steven's translations. O Sensei said specific things about training and about Aikido training contributing to world peace. A rather ambitious idea for a martial art. Perhaps he meant it literally. Perhaps not. Perhaps Aikido could accomplish what he had in mind. Perhaps not. But we can't even discuss things at the level of the source material.

Well, I can't, certainly, because I don't speak Japanese. That would be a basic requirement for reading the source material, which would in turn seem like a basic requirement for discussing it.

My opinion is that when the sayings of O Sensei are invoked in support of some world view, it's almost always argument from authority. There's a twofold fallacy: first, in believing that we understand what O Sensei was getting at (we almost certainly don't -- most of us on this forum don't speak Japanese, and even if we did, there is that small matter of context); and second, in believing that because O Sensei said it, it is therefore true (or right, or desirable). I say that it's all open to question. Some excellent things have been invented by people who were not admirable in all ways and not wise in all things. Why would aikido be different?

As for world peace, I would look first to someone like Leymah Ghowee if I wanted to learn how to do it.

Final analysis: How's that "wold peace" thing working out for you?

("In your heart you know it's flat." Motto of the Flat Earthers)

Hugh Beyer wrote: The flip side is that in my view, it's not enough to have good intentions and pretty waza. It has to work, too, and if it doesn't work--if it's not martially effective--it's not teaching anything worth knowing. Not either/or but both/and.

Which is where things get tricky, isn't it?

If you don't know how to destroy someone's shoulder, then you are freed from the ethical burden that comes with doing it. But does that make you morally superior, or just inadequately trained?

I agree that an individual's or an art's decisions about what to study and what to teach have moral content. But that includes the decision to study a martial art in the first place, rather than, say, flower arranging. By studying a martial art, we are -- by definition -- seeking the ability to succeed in physical conflict. Choosing a "peaceful" art like aikido does not relieve us of individual responsibility for what we do with our acquired skills.

Katherine

Fred Little wrote: Terry Dobson, in his last classes at Bond Street, made the following assertions: "No one who wears a hakama knows more about how to live your life than you do." "We have absolutely nothing to learn from the Japanese about social organization." Certainly, the statements which you cite are admirable in some respects. However, one must ask what the basis for the citation might be. Certainly, Hikitsuchi Sensei's technical facility was quite high. But aside from his technical facility, awarded rank, and seniority, if we take into consideration these two admonitions Terry provided (which I would suggest should be given additional weight inasmuch as they were proffered at a time when Terry knew he was teaching the last classes he would ever teach at the dojo he co-founded in New York), is there any evidence that this "spirit of creating world peace" informed any particular aspect of Hikitsuchi Sensei's life off the mat in specific ways that we can find helpful in our own lives beyond the merely sentimental? While I have my own thoughts on this matter, I am more interested in the observations of others, you included. Best, FL

Hi Fred,
I have of course no real knowledge of Hikitsuchi Sensei, and while I agree with the sentiments expressed by Dobson Sensei, I wonder if at the least it could be said that Hikitsuchi Sensei "added to the world peace" simply by teaching that it was important to consider...at the least he seems to have promoted the idea among some of his students.
I think it's interesting to note the distinction reportedly made by O Sensei regarding the purpose of budo and why the Imperial Army lost the war. Hikitsuchi Sensei seems well positioned to compare pre- and post-war methodology and intention. Is there any evidence you can think of which would point in some clear direction?
Take care,
Matt

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: If you don't know how to destroy someone's shoulder, then you are freed from the ethical burden that comes with doing it. But does that make you morally superior, or just inadequately trained? Katherine

that's an "or" and not an "and"?

My argument is in no way that because Hikitsuchi Sensei believed something that it must be true. Hikitsuchi Sensei was telling us what O Sensei taught and said to him. If people read the interview they'll see that for themselves.

This discussion is supposed to be about what O Sensei believed regarding Aikido as training for world peace. The interview I posted with O Sensei also are evidence in this direction. This is supposed to be a discussion of O Sensei's ideas on this matter and whether we are doing what he'd want us to do in this direction.

I don't think this has anything to do with whether Nage gets off the line or not. There are situations where getting off the line is essential from a self defense perspective and their are situations when it is not essential. It's the spirit in which things are done that may matter. If Uke flows around Nage, is shaped around Nage, is helped around Nage, then it may be perfectly consistent with training for peace. If Uke is controlled or forced or punished, then it may not be consistent. It seems that part of training for peace is training in Take Musu Aiki, so doing the same thing always may be against the process.

I don't think exercises, though necessary, are probably important to the process of training for peace. For example, Uke simulates a violent attack. Nage resolves this attack doing minimal harm to Uke and without generating negative Karma. The attacks in Aikido bring up all sorts of emotions related to violence and conflict. That's what Dobson Sensei meant when he said, "Uke brings your death." So there must be a sincere attack brought to resolution, waza, to engage in the process of psychological/spiritual conditioning. Martial ability is necessary so that Nage can feel safe enough not to resort to destroying Uke unnecessarily. Mercy comes from self confidence. The training process of Aikido simulates violence on a regular basis in a way that most arts only approach in sparring or tournament competitions. Then it turns it on it's head because Uke and Nage (attacker and defender) must cooperate in class thus training Nage not to hate Uke. A real attacker can be approached with the same attitude eventually.

I have heard and I think read accounts (though I can't find it off hand) of O Sensei being asked what the attitude towards an attacker should be. He is reported to have said, "Like that of a parent towards a child, gentle but firm."

For people who don't do Aikido this may be of little interest. For those who do Aikido but don't believe it was a new art this may be of little interest. For those of us who are trying to follow O Sensei, via our own teachers and lineage, then we should consider his wishes.

Ken McGrew wrote: I have heard and I think read accounts (though I can't find it off hand) of O Sensei being asked what the attitude towards an attacker should be. He is reported to have said, "Like that of a parent towards a child, gentle but firm."

For the sake of discussion, I will accept the premise that this is an accurate rendering of a statement by Ueshiba Morihei.

A number of posters, on a variety of occasions, have pointed out that Ueshiba Kisshomaru notes that he was praised by his father only once in the course of his entire life. One presumes that this conduct fits into his father's notion of what constitutes being "gentle but firm."

While the founder may have thought this perfectly appropriate, in our culture, such conduct by a parent would be regarded as rather cold, at best, and positively abusive, at worst. But it's not at all unprecedented in a late-19th/early 20th century Japanese context.

Certainly, the quotation suggests something that sounds attractive. So here's the nub of the problem with translation, not only in terms of language, but in terms of social and familial conduct:

Does one simply take this idea of "gentle but firm" and strip it from its original context and reapply it in the context of our own norms of child-rearing? Or does one take the actual behavior and conduct of the founder and use that as an appropriate model for child-rearing? Or is there some middle ground?

I would hope that you understand that this is not, to my mind, a merely rhetorical question, nor is it a gotcha question. I would submit that it's precisely the sort of question that must be asked (on multiple levels and occasions) in order to avoid going very badly astray, albeit for the best of reasons.

Best,

FL

Earthquakes, Thunderbolts, Fires, Fathers... in that order.

Fred Little wrote: Does one simply take this idea of "gentle but firm" and strip it from its original context and reapply it in the context of our own norms of child-rearing? Or does one take the actual behavior and conduct of the founder and use that as an appropriate model for child-rearing? Or is there some middle ground? I would hope that you understand that this is not, to my mind, a merely rhetorical question, nor is it a gotcha question. I would submit that it's precisely the sort of question that must be asked (on multiple levels and occasions) in order to avoid going very badly astray, albeit for the best of reasons.

If I'm following correctly, and I know you're not asking me, but I think the short answer is yes. As it relates to an attacker, i think some regard toward guiding and "correcting/helping" could be viewd as an improvment compared to the alternative. Even a stern and cold "father" would be kinder than a person bent on obliterating you for attacking him. Will that work at making a violent person less violent? Maybe. It depends on a lot of factors, but I believe it's more likely than a beat down.
For all I know Kaiso may or may not have been particularly warm toward his son by today's standards, but his wellfare was apparently considered. In my personal case, I consider what I can of his example but figure out the particulars for myself...kinda like with all my heroes and teachers. What Dobson said applies to all people, even the very best.
Take care,
Matt

Doug Walker wrote: Final analysis: How's that "wold peace" thing working out for you? ("In your heart you know it's flat." Motto of the Flat Earthers)

I would say how's that world peace thing going in your own world?

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: I would say how's that world peace thing going in your own world?

You don't live in your own world, and you don't get to have your own peace. You live in the same world as others, and you make peace with them (or don't).

Mary Malmros wrote: You don't live in your own world, and you don't get to have your own peace. You live in the same world as others, and you make peace with them (or don't).

Well, yes and no. I've found that excluding some people from my corner of the world makes it a much more peaceful place.

Katherine

The hippies are back and they are smoking this new stuff they called it "aikido".