PDA

View Full Version : aiki v3.5



The Void
12th September 2001, 02:18
Is there a common thread that binds all aiki arts/techniques together?

Dan Harden
12th September 2001, 02:38
Yes!..........................
No one agrees on what "it" is.


Just train.

Dan

JimmyCrow
12th September 2001, 02:43
Very well put Dan. I asked my aiki teacher the same question and he gave the same answer.

Neil Yamamoto
12th September 2001, 04:03
...One thread to rule them all, One thread to unite them
One thread to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Joseph Svinth
12th September 2001, 07:00
Neil --

Didn't that come from that hojojutsu site you referred me to?

Void --

Please sign your posts using your real name. The easy way is to make it a signature block.

Nathan Scott
12th September 2001, 20:29
[Post deleted by user]

Walt. V Kopitov
8th March 2002, 18:27
Please define Aiki.

I know it translates to being in sync with the energy. I would like a definition that is not subjective so if I see a demo I can make a correct analysis of the art. If what I'm seeing is Daito ryu or an offshoot of it, or not.

Walt

Cady Goldfield
8th March 2002, 19:04
Walter,

You ask the impossible. :)

First, for every system and ryu, there is a different interpretation and definition of what "aiki" is.

Second, those who think they "gots da good stuff" aikiwise will not tell you what it is, because it's not something they generally want to share openly. Nor will they demonstrate it on the mats to outsiders. Even in a public seminar where you might expect to get a taste of what it's about. It will be kept out of whatever techniques are demonstrated on or taught to you.

Four years ago, I found a Japanese art that had something very strange, unique and wondrous within it. I plunged whole-heartedly into the pursuit of this knowledge and skill, and in so doing learned that what I was studying included one of the many definitions of "aiki."

I didn't know what "aiki" was 12 years ago. But one day I had the opportunity to feel first-hand the technique of an old Chinese internal arts expert. With a touch, he sent me flying across the room onto my butt. I had no explanation for what made it happen, and spent years trying to find a comparable art in the US that had that capability. The Japanese art I found produced those effects, and more. In retrospect I realize that I was experiencing a form of "aiki" in that earlier encounter with the Chinese taiji-qigong master -- now having something else called "aiki" with which to compare it.

To learn what the various definitions of "aiki" are, explore the arts that include "aiki" in their syllabus. Feel these things for yourself. And, read a lot about the old arts -- the koryu jujutsu, Daito-ryu and the newer systems such as aikido. You have to study and "comparison shop" to get a balanced idea of what "aiki" is. You won't get the same answer from exponents of different systems.

Walt. V Kopitov
8th March 2002, 19:24
If Aiki has no concrete definetion then how does one know that it exists? If it exists then you should be able to define it.
I have taken uke for Kiyama sensei once and Angier sensei recently. It was two very different experiences. Both are Aiki but felt like opposites of each other. Is there atleast a generic definetion that would include both arts?

Walt

Arman
8th March 2002, 19:25
Walt,

Cady is right, I believe, but from a purely analytical standpoint, "aiki" is difficult to define because it comes to encompass so many different things. This can include, but is not always limited to, a form of unbalancing (kuzushi), a method of application, a type of combative pedagogy, or even a philosophy of an art as a whole. Then, within each one of these categories, every style will have different definitions and understandings about what "aiki" means.

Probably the most generally [mis]understood conception of aiki is a particular type of unbalancing that utilizes different principles than those utilized by typical jujutsu/judo styles. Of course, this isn't very helpful, because you won't find many aiki based schools that agree on what exactly this is. Aikido and Daito ryu don't agree, and within aikido and Daito ryu, you won't find general agreement. What one art will call aiki, another won't, and vice-versa, etc., etc.

You will find this most starkly among the various DR schools. I can promise you that my understanding of aiki will be quite different than those practitioners of DR who also regularly contribute on e-budo. The mainline DR (of which I am a student of), the Kodokai, Takumakai and Roppokai all have different understandings of this enigmatic term. Some of these schools are closer to each other than others, but all are different in regard to their understanding of aiki.

So the real answer to your question, then, is whose definition of aiki are you interested in? You could ask a ki aikido student and get a perfectly fine answer to help you identify their conception of aiki. Same for any other aiki based art. Now, whether we can agree that what they think is aiki is "real" aiki, well, I think we all know better than to ask THIS question on THIS board.:)

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Cady Goldfield
8th March 2002, 19:43
Originally posted by Arman
So the real answer to your question, then, is whose definition of aiki are you interested in? You could ask a ki aikido student and get a perfectly fine answer to help you identify their conception of aiki. Same for any other aiki based art. Now, whether we can agree that what they think is aiki is "real" aiki, well, I think we all know better than to ask THIS question on THIS board.:)


That pretty much nails it. :)
Walt, sorry to sound so circumspect. If you look back at older threads on this forum, you will find stuff that has been hashed and rehashed on the subject. Prior to the infamous E-Budo Crash, some time back, there was even more stuff archived. Nathan, being the Incredibly Good Sport that he is, might even recommend some old threads to read that might help you.

CEB
8th March 2002, 20:11
Maybe it would be easier to define kiai. Then we could define aiki as the opposite of kiai.

Walt. V Kopitov
8th March 2002, 20:52
I thought kiai and aiki are interchangable.

Can you make a definition of Unaiki? What is it that seperates the other systems from the aiki arts? If there is no way of defining Aiki then isn't every art Aiki?

walt

Arman
8th March 2002, 20:53
Ed,

Are you trying to start a brawl, or what?:)

How about we all toss back a few and then I'm sure we can all come to an agreement on what aiki means, or kiai, or the meaning of the universe. Hey, it's Friday. Sounds good to me.

Cheers, :toast:
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Arman
8th March 2002, 21:02
On second thought. . .

Hmmm, anybody notice that Evian bottled water is "naive" spelled backword?

Aiki. Kiai. Very suspicious, my friends.:)

In all seriousness, Walt, I'll give you something Kondo Sensei always tells us. "Touch is unbalance." There are a lot of stories that go along with this, some humorous, some not so funny (from personal, and painful, experience). Now, what you can derive from that statement and its relationship to aiki, I don't know. I know what I get from it because I've been on the receiving end of it. Nuff said.

Ok, now I really am going to have a beer.

Everybody enjoy their weekends.
Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Dan Harden
9th March 2002, 00:06
deleted

Richard Elias
9th March 2002, 02:23
"Second, those who think they "gots da good stuff" aikiwise will not tell you what it is, because it's not something they generally want to share openly. Nor will they demonstrate it on the mats to outsiders. Even in a public seminar where you might expect to get a taste of what it's about. It will be kept out of whatever techniques are demonstrated on or taught to you."

Walter,

To quote my teacher "there are no secrets". As you well know, he (and we his students) have always been more than happy to share and demonstrate what aiki is as practiced in our style.

Cady Goldfield
9th March 2002, 02:46
Well, there you go, Walter. Richard is offering you something you can really sink your teeth into. Why ask for verbal definitions of "aiki," when you have an opportunity to physically experience and learn one of the very legitimate interpretations of it?

Go for it. :)

Chris Li
9th March 2002, 22:14
Originally posted by Walt. V Kopitov
Please define Aiki.


"Belch".

Well, OK, one of the kanji is different... :)

Best,

Chris

Cady Goldfield
9th March 2002, 23:57
:laugh:

Good one, Chris! And, to think that I used to think you were stuffy... :)

Walt. V Kopitov
10th March 2002, 02:07
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Well, there you go, Walter. Richard is offering you something you can really sink your teeth into. Why ask for verbal definitions of "aiki," when you have an opportunity to physically experience and learn one of the very legitimate interpretations of it?

Go for it. :)

I have had the pleasure to host a seminar at my dojo with Angier sensei and Mr. Elias. I hope they are willing to come back again. Just that short weekend has altered the way I train.

I think Aiki can and should be defined as it is used in Aikijujutsu. Without a defenition then no art can be included or excluded. Has anyone tried to define it?

Walt

Nuutti Kotivuori
10th March 2002, 06:51
Originally posted by Walt. V Kopitov


I have had the pleasure to host a seminar at my dojo with Angier sensei and Mr. Elias. I hope they are willing to come back again. Just that short weekend has altered the way I train.

I think Aiki can and should be defined as it is used in Aikijujutsu. Without a defenition then no art can be included or excluded. Has anyone tried to define it?

Walt

How about defining "ki"? And then "reiki"? And a myriad of other terms?

The thing is that the definition of "aiki" is in the scope of that particular ryu - defining it globally - as to say that this art has aiki and the other one does not - is not a fruitful definition, in my opinion. There is no such thing as a correct definition of aiki - just as there are no correct definitions for many other terms either.

But let's assume that we make a global definition of what aiki is. Then some schools can say that they teach aiki - and some can't. What are those schools who can't to say after that? "Oh, we teach Aikido, but according to a recent definition world wide, we do not teach aiki - so we call it, um, blending here. Understood?" The whole notion of doing that sounds ridiculous.



But then, on another note - it is not wise to say that aiki would have no concrete definition. It does - inside the art that says it practices aiki - but it does not have a global definition. In a school, that teaches aiki, or has aiki, there should be a consensus of what aiki is - but most importantly ways how to teach it. "What aiki really is?" is a lot less important question than "What does it do?" and "How do I learn it?". And the latter two questions should have answers if you are learning an art that claims to teach aiki. I guess most DR schools are pretty damn good at defining these things.

But to reiterate. When travelling among schools which have a strong emphasis of aiki (like DR schools) - one easily comes to think that this is aiki, the real aiki. But that school does not "own" the term aiki - nobody does. A different school may have a different definition of aiki. And it is very necessary to keep an open mind in these issues.



And to get back to your current question. Aiki does not require a global definition for some schools to be included or excluded from it - only some defition. As an example "This school does not have aiki as Daito-ryu aikijujutsu defines it." A perfectly sound statement, though ofcourse debatable in content.

But to define aiki globally to mean something is just sillyness.

Nuutti Kotivuori

Walt. V Kopitov
10th March 2002, 13:38
I aggree that there are a variety of expressions of Aiki but there should be a way to come to a definition that will include the wide variety of differences that one sees in the Aiki world. I think we should try to come up with one. This may be challenging but I think its worth the effort.

Walt

Dan Harden
10th March 2002, 17:54
Walter writes
This may be challenging but I think its worth the effort.

*************************


Why?

Dan

Walker
11th March 2002, 16:16
Walter,
:confused:Isnít the art called Nihon Goshin AIKIdo? How do you define it?

Brently Keen
12th March 2002, 07:57
Walter,

I'm also wondering with Dan, why "we" should come up a definition? What for? In my teacher's dojo we don't even have names for most of the techniques, why worry about a definition?

I don't think "we" will ever all agree on a definition - perhaps we might all agree that it's better to just train. I think if you train sufficiently with a good teacher (who has the goods and is willing to share them) then you'll discover the definition(s), and come to understand what it is we're talking about when we we say aiki.


Now, if I may sort of add to this mix by waxing philosophical a bit...

I believe that aiki exists, and where it exists it can certainly be defined. But I do not believe that it exists everywhere or in every art. I also believe that many use and understand the term in different ways (making a global definition difficult to agree on as Nuutti indicated).

However, if aiki does indeed exist, then it's own nature and characteristics will naturally tend to define itself, and any attempts to define it otherwise will simply be the result of misunderstanding the nature and characteristics of it. Hence the widespread misappropriation and misuse of the term. Words do have literal meanings in Japanese too, but they also have multiple meanings, and so the context naturally governs which meaning is correct. I don't believe most people understand the context(s). Nor will I attempt to explain my understanding of it in this forum as it would more likely be taken out of context anyway if I were to do so (at least I think I've learned that much from my time on these boards).

The term "aiki" has been used by a number of traditions including various classical sword schools - it was however, popularized by Daito-ryu & later aikido.

Although many aikidoka understand and define aiki differently, I think it's safe to say they all pretty much view it as a "conceptual" idea. Although granted they may not all agree on what the "concept" is, because there are so many different interpretations, theories and ideas about it.

Likewise my undestanding of "aiki" as used in several sword schools is also conceptual. Although some tend to be more specific about what the concept refers to, they're still conceptual (as far as I'm aware).

Daito-ryu however differs from these, in that aiki is taken from a concept at the beginning and intermediate levels, to actual techniques at advanced levels (aiki no jutsu). The application and/or infusion of these particular aiki techniques into other jujutsu techniques results in the characterization of "aikijujutsu", which is the result of applying the 'secret essence' of the tradition.

The secret essence in Daito-ryu is aiki. You might say the essence is at once the operating system, and the technique(s), and while it's all based on principles, aiki is not defined as principles per se. It seems to me that principles are generally universal - but aiki seems to be rather particular. At any rate, it is no coincidence (imo) that it is Daito-ryu's unique and mysterious (but not mystical) aiki that people tend to be captivated and intrigued by.

When Don and the Yanagi-ryu folks say, "there are no secrets" I personally think that refers to Don's open and non-secretive approach to teaching and demonstrating "the goods" of Yanagi-ryu in the sense that information and/or knowledge is not intentionally guarded and held back or away from students. Don has (in some respects) built his reputation on teaching and disclosing what were once "secrets". Strictly speaking though, there have been (and always will be) secrets. As long as there is knowledge and skills that are not widely known, understood, or disseminated, secrets will remain.

For generations Daito-ryu has developed it's aiki in secrecy - and it was Sokaku who first began to open the door to his many students giving them a glimpse into the mysteries of aiki, and then his successors also gradually (in varying degrees), have begun to reveal more about this wonderful art. Some are more open than others, and perhaps it's just as well, for there are still many secrets to be disclosed (and/or kept) as is appropriate. Likewise, there are even more yet to whom those secrets can be disclosed, transmitted, and kept for future generations to discover and be initiated into.

Brently Keen

Chris Li
12th March 2002, 08:07
Originally posted by Brently Keen
For generations Daito-ryu has developed it's aiki in secrecy - and it was Sokaku who first began to open the door to his many students giving them a glimpse into the mysteries of aiki, and then his successors also gradually (in varying degrees), have begun to reveal more about this wonderful art. Some are more open than others, and perhaps it's just as well, for there are still many secrets to be disclosed (and/or kept) as is appropriate. Likewise, there are even more yet to whom those secrets can be disclosed, transmitted, and kept for future generations to discover and be initiated into.

According to Kimura Tatsuo, Yukiyoshi Sagawa was of the opinion that Sokaku Takeda had developed aiki on his own (despite claims to the contrary). However, his opinion appears to have been based more on a gut feeling than anything else.

Best,

Chris

Brently Keen
12th March 2002, 08:33
Chris,

"According to Kimura Tatsuo, Yukiyoshi Sagawa was of the opinion that Sokaku Takeda had developed aiki on his own (despite claims to the contrary)."

That is a legitimate theory, and I do not dispute that Sokaku further developed and put his own unique stamp on Daito-ryu aiki, however, how much he did so is pure speculation at this point. I personally am not convinced that he created or invented it entirely himself.

I'm curious about the basis for this theory in general - is it merely because of a lack of Daito-ryu densho or other documentary evidence pre-dating Sokaku? Or is it because earlier mokuroku were marked "Daito-ryu Jujutsu" and then later mokuroku added the term "aiki" (aikijujutsu)? Or some other reason altogether?

As for Sagawa's alleged gut-feeling & hunch, consider the context/source from which that opinion comes. For starters, his was the most secretive and exclusive of all Daito-ryu branches/dojos.

Brently Keen

Greg Jennings
12th March 2002, 13:30
Originally posted by Brently Keen

<snip>
The term "aiki" has been used by a number of traditions including various classical sword schools - it was however, popularized by Daito-ryu & later aikido.

Although many aikidoka understand and define aiki differently, I think it's safe to say they all pretty much view it as a "conceptual" idea. Although granted they may not all agree on what the "concept" is, because there are so many different interpretations, theories and ideas about it.

Likewise my undestanding of "aiki" as used in several sword schools is also conceptual. Although some tend to be more specific about what the concept refers to, they're still conceptual (as far as I'm aware).
<snip>


FWIW, I've encountered a range of ideas about what "aiki" is even in aikido dojo in the aikikai even in my less-than-one decade in the art.

My instructor's instructor's teaching of "aiki" is an entire cosmology. I don't think he used the term "blending" even once. I don't want to go further than that as I don't want to mis-represent it.

Regards,

Richard Elias
12th March 2002, 15:29
When I said "there are no secrets" I was indeed referring to our art and the manner in which it is taught, specifically. Others can "keep secrets" if that's what makes them feel special. My teacher's take on it is if you've got the talent and the time you'll most likely figure it out eventually, if you were meant to. Most "secrets" are just guiding principles anyway. If your talking specific "secret" techniques, that's a completely different subject.

Brently Keen
12th March 2002, 18:17
Richard,

Agreed. For the record, I think my teacher also has had a similiar approach to Don in that he's more than willing to show and share the "secrets" he's learned with whoever comes sincerely to learn.

It should be noted that their openess is a generous and gracious gift to those of us who have had the pleasure of learning from them. Their confidence to share openly (often in the face of criticism) also speaks volumes about their character as individuals as well as testifies to their unique and exceptional abilities.

Brently Keen

Chris Li
12th March 2002, 20:20
Originally posted by Brently Keen
That is a legitimate theory, and I do not dispute that Sokaku further developed and put his own unique stamp on Daito-ryu aiki, however, how much he did so is pure speculation at this point. I personally am not convinced that he created or invented it entirely himself.

Neither am I.




I'm curious about the basis for this theory in general - is it merely because of a lack of Daito-ryu densho or other documentary evidence pre-dating Sokaku? Or is it because earlier mokuroku were marked "Daito-ryu Jujutsu" and then later mokuroku added the term "aiki" (aikijujutsu)? Or some other reason altogether?

As I said, Sagawa seems to base that opinion mainly on his own gut feelings. He lists two basic reasons:

1) Sagawa believed that aiki was too difficult a technical concept to have been passed down over the years from the past.
2) He saw photographs of Hoshina Chikanori and didn't believe from looking at them that he had developed any kind of aiki (the eyes are different in someone with aiki, according to Sagawa).

He didn't address the possibility that aiki came via Sokaku Takeda's father, or some other route. In any case, as you can see, it seems to be pretty much just a feeling on Sagawa's part. Still, I found it interesting considering the source.

Best,

Chris

Dan Harden
12th March 2002, 22:41
Richard Writes
When I said "there are no secrets" I was indeed referring to our art and the manner in which it is taught, specifically. Others can "keep secrets" if that's what makes them feel special.

********************************

Richard
I don't think that of those who choose to teach behind closed doors (start counting Koryu as well) any of them see themselves as "feeling special" or needing to feel special.
Of the men I have met who eschew the limelight and teach more or less in secret, and of the many reasons they gve for their viewpoint; "feeling special" is not among them...not by along shot.
They were among the most humble guys I know.
I take openness as a gift and closed doors requiring a relationship as being completely understandable.
I think of it more in terms of not wanting to cast pearls before swine.
Don has been critisized (wrongly) for having a waiting list and artificially keeping the art small. He also does not show everything to everyone according to several of the exponents who have written here.
I think that's sublime.
No matter anyway-only those who stick it out and sweat get anything anyway.

People are complicated sometimes.

Cheers
Dan

Richard Elias
13th March 2002, 01:04
Hey Dan,

Just a few comments...

"I don't think that of those who choose to teach behind closed doors (start counting Koryu as well) any of them see themselves as "feeling special" or needing to feel special."

True enough, but they are also not on the net writing about the stuff. My teacher too has no interest in the things being said and would keep to himself and ignore even those who demean him and his art. There are those, however, who will profess privileged or "secret" teachings and learnings, and will use them as support for their arguments yet never tell what they are really talking about. It just makes me curious why they would bring it up if they are supposed to be secret in the first place. I wasn't speaking of everyone out there, just an observation of some that are outspoken in their writing.

"Don has been critisized (wrongly) for having a waiting list and artificially keeping the art small. He also does not show everything to everyone according to several of the exponents who have written here."

I would have to say that after training with him for the past seven years I understand completely why he limits the number of students in the art. It is by no means artifitial, it's necessary.
The process of learning Yanagi ryu does not lend itself to being taught en masse. Their are too many exacting details and my teacher himself is too much of a perfectionist, if that is at all possible. He has in the past had a a public dojo and taught larger groups of people there. He even had a belt system at one time. But he found it was having a detrimental effect on the integrity of the art and quality and skill of the practitioners because he was not able to give each student the attention they required. Thus there are many who do not believe that anyone can do what he is able to do because in the past there were few students that got the attention and scrutiny that he expected of himself.

In regards to showing everything to everyone. If you are speaking of seminars in particular... My teacher generally demonstrates what he thinks the majority of people are interested in and their to learn. He has always focused on the teaching of the principles to the public, rather than the specifics of Yanagi ryu. To be honest it would be too much and too boring for those attending a seminar to try to learn things as we do them. They would spend the whole weekend just learning how to turn over their hand. There are some that think that just because he doesn't demonstrate everything the art entails that it is kept secret and just for his personal students. That's not true. There's just too much involved in the art and my teacher believes attendees are there to learn not just watch a demonstration of things they won't get a chance to play with because there just isn't enough time.

If you are speaking of actual students of the school... Some are there to learn a specific aspect of the art, for instance only the kenjutsu. And then there are others who just didn't have the patience to stick around long enough to learn all the art has to offer. Like you said "only those who stick it out and sweat get anything anyway", all too true. Things are not taught quickly but very slow and methodically.

Ultimately I can only speak in regards to how things are in our school. How things are taught and disseminated by other schools and teachers is not mine to speak of with any authority.

Ok, that was more than just a few comments. I either don't write at all or get carried away and want to put everything I have in my head.
Sorry for the rant.

Jeff Hamacher
13th March 2002, 02:11
i suspect i'm covering well-worn territory with these questions and i don't mean to annoy anyone who's answered them too many times already, but i hope that they might stimulate further discussion on this point.

before looking at aiki, what perception do you have of ki itself? as i've learned through other exchanges on E-Budo, the japanese version of the concept can be traced back to the Indian root of prana or "life force", if you will. now, beyond some kind of direct experience such as those mentioned upthread, how might one go about "understanding" ki or its application in aiki? even more difficult, how might one go about explaining it in words? to my way of thinking, it's very similar to the challenge of "explaining" the experience of zazen. it can really only be referred to in oblique terms and not through hard and fast definitions; you really just have to sit for yourself to "get it". i believe that aiki is likely the same sort of thing.

the other issue revolves around the question of aiki as abstraction or concrete reality. some aikido teachers from whom i've learned speak unequivocally of this life energy flowing in and out of the body like the breath. perhaps for them, ki is very real. others may argue that aiki is a conceptualization which covers certain principles of physics in action. i know i've felt what might be called aiki during training. for example, i've had the experience of feeling the beginning of a partner's attack without seeing it while moving swiftly and effortlessly to counter and break my partner's balance. i've also had partners, usually advanced teachers, throw me in such a way that i would go sailing through the air in a huge breakfall and yet there was no pain on landing nor any sensation of concentrated pressure on any point of my body during the throw, just an incredible, overwhelming force swinging my body around. is it a mysterious mastery of aiki, or is it a very finely-tuned ability to intuit a partner's movements and respond in complete harmony with simple physical principles?

regardless of the responses, i think you may have a hard time distilling a definition for aiki, Walter. and as some others have already said, why not simply be content with the experience rather than the words? the experience is where all the good stuff is anyway.:)

Dan Harden
13th March 2002, 13:06
Richard
I get all that-I understand it completely bud. That was not my point.
My point was- I try to understand the Yanagi ryu reasons for the way it teaches (no not the art just why he teaches that way) or any other art.I thought you were dismissing others who were more private-I now see what you meant.
no biggy.

Dan

Tom Douglas
18th March 2002, 14:33
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
,

Four years ago, I found a Japanese art that had something very strange, unique and wondrous within it. I plunged whole-heartedly into the pursuit of this knowledge and skill, and in so doing learned that what I was studying included one of the many definitions of "aiki."

I didn't know what "aiki" was 12 years ago. But one day I had the opportunity to feel first-hand the technique of an old Chinese internal arts expert. With a touch, he sent me flying across the room onto my butt. I had no explanation for what made it happen, and spent years trying to find a comparable art in the US that had that capability. The Japanese art I found produced those effects, and more. In retrospect I realize that I was experiencing a form of "aiki" in that earlier encounter with the Chinese taiji-qigong master -- now having something else called "aiki" with which to compare it.

[/B]


Cady:

What is the Japanese art that you refer to above? And who was the Chinese taijiquan-qigong master that you refer to?

I'm very interested in comparing training methodologies between Chinese and Japanese martial arts. Not for the purpose of setting up one art as "superior" to another, but simply to examine how the arts are taught and what the results of the teaching are. I'd be very appreciative of any information you can provide.


Thanks.

Cady Goldfield
18th March 2002, 16:23
Hi Tom,

If you send me your contact info via a private message I'll drop you a line with info about the Chinese taiji/qigong person. I don't have his name, but do have some background on him.

Cady

MarkF
20th March 2002, 11:54
Arman, et alia,
I just tossed back a couple so let's see, what is the secret of the universe, better known here, as aiki!?

Mark

Disscssering that is good for the SOUL-er panel.

txhapkido
2nd April 2002, 17:21
My explanation for the "amazing" power of ki in the martial arts is: Ki is the result of a trained relaxed body and empty mind which allows for the free flow of energy for optimal results.

You can see an actual true photo of my famous ki generating technique at http://www.laughinghara.com/Hapkido/hapkido_pics.htm

He,he.

Walker
3rd April 2002, 03:13
Yeah, definitely an empty mind