PDA

View Full Version : aiki v2.0



gato
21st August 2000, 22:03
I know now that "aiki" can mean a lot of things to a lot of arts/people.
I know too that many times you can´t explain things the way you want only in words. You have to experienced or felt it yourself , and even with that "the point of view" comes in to play .
For that reason , I want to be more specific .
I'm very interested in the concept of "aiki" inside the context of conf¨lict/mortal combat as applied by Don angier an Okamoto sensei ( i know they have some differences , but i think that their essences are very similar).
Please..
What's the nature and importance of subtle application in the interaction with the opponent?
What are your views about today's aikido strategie?Can you make a comparison between the former and your strategies?
what do you think about the rule of uke in today's aikikai aikido training?

Just curiosity ,
Thank you
Nelson Sanz



By the way, thank you very much for all your post in the aiki(s)'s forum , it was great...
and excuse me if i do mistakes, because my first language is spanish...
Mr. Elias, do you speak spanish??
Thank you

Richard Elias
21st August 2000, 23:44
Nelson,

Again I will give my disclaimer that I can only speak from my limited experience in our school, and what I have been taught thus far.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by
"the concept of "aiki" inside the context of conflict/mortal combat"

As has been noted before, the application of subtle "aiki" techniques and/or principles in the midst of high-stress situations is different than in the more sterile and controlled enviroment of the dojo.
The training can only be done so realistically without injuring or killing your partner.
"We allow you to roll out so that we can use you again"

If your speaking from a basic theory type stand point that's easy.

Subdue and control the opponent.

If you are talking strictly a mortal combat situation. Our style is greatly influenced by the sword which is (without getting into the katsujin ken-satsujin ken thing) designed to kill.
Let's just say that it was once said by a certain intructor I know, in a class I was observing
"f*** him, he's the enemy".

For the most part we are not concerned with reaching enlightenment or becoming one with the universe. Not that I think that's bad, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It's just not the focus of our training.

The idea of
"becoming one with the opponent" is viewed in our school as making him apart of your body, creating a connection and dependency, so that by controlling your own body you can control his.

As far as Aikido is concerned. My personal experience has been that their strategies and motivations vary a great deal from school to school, style to style. There isn't a whole lot of continuity. Some, such as the school I trained in, are very pragmatic, others are very spiritual. Some start as one and end up another. The effectivness of the applications varies just as much. As far as the "not harming the opponent" thing, I feel that such things are highly situational. The legal ramifications of doing some of the things we practice in the dojo, are just not worth it. Again it becomes a control issue.

As I stated above our primary motivation, in the application of technique, is to control the opponent. Though many of the techniques shown at seminars are more subtle and "high level" most of what is practiced at the dojo is more pragmatic and not necessarily nice. The Aiki applications are used to distract and confuse or mislead the opponents senses. In our school the subtle movements and body mechanics are not really viewed as the "Aiki" part. That's just the body control reduced down to the lowest common denominator, so to speak. Much of the advanced stuff is just the same as the larger movements, but done with the least amount of movement possible. Minimum movement-maximum result. Though I wouldn't say minimum effort just because it does take a great deal of body control and practice. When you reach that level though it really does feel like nothing. It's kinda weird.

As far as the uke is concerned. Personally, I think that is the hardest part. Being a "blank uke" and responding as though you don't know what's comming when you actually do, and not over-doing it, is not easy. I personally don't like the "cooperative" nature of some of the Aikido practices. Though some of those I have spoken to do not believe they are being cooperative, and are honestly being lead and controlled.
In the Aikido school I trained in we had a saying.
"one blend, one throw"
But our style was made fun of for not being "flowy enough".

Sorry Nelson, but my Spanish is very limited. It's mostly conversational/slang Mexican spanish, I picked up from working in kitchens for 12 years. I don't know it well enough to be able to describe things as I do here. I wish I did.

I hope this helps a little, if you can elaborate or be even more specific. I can give you a better answer. Aiki in our school isn't really a combative concept as it is an applicable principle.

Mark Jakabcsin
22nd August 2000, 02:45
Nelson,

I don't know if this will answer your question or not but here goes.

Okamoto Sensei always says that the three elements (or principles) of aiki are: 1) circular motion, 2) controlled breathing & 3) conditioned response. To break each of these down and look at them in a meaningful way would take several long winded posts and I would probably still fail to adequately cover them. I have heard that later this year a short introductory video to these concepts might become available. I'll let you know if I hear anymore or get a release date.

Lately I have been thinking alot about the concept of aiki and how best to give a basic description. The best I could come up with (as if anyone cares :) ) is: Aiki is the ability to change your enemy's intent/focus to the target or area of concern of your choosing thereby controling their movements and response. Rather bland but as I try to get more specific I continually find exceptions that invalidate the definition. Probably not much help but perhaps tomorrow after I spend most of the day driving I will have more input.

mark

Mark Jakabcsin
23rd August 2000, 00:57
Richard wrote: "As far as the uke is concerned. Personally, I think that is the hardest part. Being a "blank uke" and responding as though you don't know what's comming when you actually do, and not over-doing it, is not easy. I personally don't like the "cooperative" nature of some of the Aikido practices. Though some of those I have spoken to do not believe they are being cooperative, and are honestly being lead and controlled. "

So very true and important. Rich, have you noticed that the people that are naturally good uke's (attack with intent and realism) generally learn the art much faster than those how don't get the role of uke? Personally, I feel that the vast majority of learning an aiki art occurs while being uke. When a student becomes tori they are only given the opportunity to demonstrate what they hopefully learned while being uke and discovering what else they need to learn the next time they are uke.

Along the same lines I feel that a skilled and knowledgeable uke CAN learn by attacking a skilled tori or an unskilled tori. Attacking the skilled is obvious so enough said. By attacking a person of limited skill uke can feel and learn what doesn't work and what not to do. Also they can compare the tactile data they collect from the person of limited skill with that they collect from the tori of higher skill and learn what the difference is and what is important in each technique. I only bring this up because I have seen many students get frustrated when they must train with a person of lesser skill and feel they are wasting their time. Really they have an excellent opportunity to learn and study, IF they are smart enough to take advantage of it.

mark

MarkF
23rd August 2000, 01:01
Oiga, Gato.
Yo hablo espanol pero no soy aikidoka, ni aikijujutska. En que le puedo servir? Escribame por email o aca si le gusta.

gato
30th August 2000, 02:41
Thank you guys. I enjoyed reading your posts. All this debate about aiki is really helping me out. Right now I am evaluating my practice's situation here .
I like samurai arts a lot. I became an aikikai's aikidoka because of this , I thought that aikido could teach want i want to learn , but now i'm thinking that maybe i was wrong.
i don't have to explain here what aikido "point of view" is ,about dealing with conflict and the ways and goals of practice, because i know that you have a lot more expreince than me on the subject.
Searching for peace, love, harmony and enlightment are wonderful goals , but is not what I look for.I want to learn the arts that the samurai actually use and live with as military science , not because i like violence or killing (i often heard that kind of arguments at my aikido dojo), just because i find the subject fascinating (please, don't ask me why).
But, i have a big problem ... it's me only choice here in Peru , and right now i can't go anywhere because i have to finish my studies
I'm interested in kenjitsu and aiki/jujitsu.
Now... here comes the question...
Do you think that aikikai's aikido can give me what i'm looking for?
If not, Do you think that i should continue training until i get something better?, or this would result in getting misleading/wrong physical and mental habits
What do you think about aikido in comparison with a traditional bugei?

Thank you in advance... sorry for the bunch of question but i have a lot to ask..


By the way ...i recently got a very interesting definition of aiki from a friend... i want to share it with you:

"The intent of the mind is manifest in your form (posture and movement) Aiki is to blend with the opponents mind (intent) so that your form can blend with his form in this way you can be extremely sensitive to changes in movement and intent that your opponent might exhibit, thus you would be a step or two ahead of your opponent when in a conflict. You go with the flow of the fight, but you actually control the flow and make the opponent thinks he is in control! In this way you can lead him to a position with minimal or no resistance because he doesn't know what's happening until it is too late. You have applied aiki...you tricked his mind by tricking his senses."

Thank you again

Nelson Sanz

gato
30th August 2000, 02:44
Thank you guys. I enjoyed reading your posts. All this debate about aiki is really helping me out. Right now I am evaluating my practice's situation here .
I like samurai arts a lot. I became an aikikai's aikidoka because of this , I thought that aikido could teach want i want to learn , but now i'm thinking that maybe i was wrong.
i don't have to explain here what aikido "point of view" is ,about dealing with conflict and the ways and goals of practice, because i know that you have a lot more expreince than me on the subject.
Searching for peace, love, harmony and enlightment are wonderful goals , but is not what I look for.I want to learn the arts that the samurai actually use and live with as military science , not because i like violence or killing (i often heard that kind of arguments at my aikido dojo), just because i find the subject fascinating (please, don't ask me why).
But, i have a big problem ... it's me only choice here in Peru , and right now i can't go anywhere because i have to finish my studies
I'm interested in kenjitsu and aiki/jujitsu.
Now... here comes the question...
Do you think that aikikai's aikido can give me what i'm looking for?
If not, Do you think that i should continue training until i get something better?, or this would result in getting misleading/wrong physical and mental habits
What do you think about aikido in comparison with a traditional bugei?

Thank you in advance... sorry for the bunch of question but i have a lot to ask..


By the way ...i recently got a very interesting definition of aiki from a friend... i want to share it with you:

"The intent of the mind is manifest in your form (posture and movement) Aiki is to blend with the opponents mind (intent) so that your form can blend with his form in this way you can be extremely sensitive to changes in movement and intent that your opponent might exhibit, thus you would be a step or two ahead of your opponent when in a conflict. You go with the flow of the fight, but you actually control the flow and make the opponent thinks he is in control! In this way you can lead him to a position with minimal or no resistance because he doesn't know what's happening until it is too late. You have applied aiki...you tricked his mind by tricking his senses."

Thank you again
Gracias mark, ya te voy a escribir un montón de dudas que tengo , en espanol

Nelson Sanz

30th August 2000, 17:16
Nelson,

Your friends description was very good but demonstrates a bias commonly found in aikido. It is a more modern definition with variations that differ from the definition of an older truly "martial" art. It demonstrates a defensive bias and is reactive in nature. Ueshiba intended this bias and instituted it due to his philosophical yearnings for the concept of aiki to be reborn as a passive archetype. He called this "Takemasu Aiki".

Older samurai arts are technically similar but more active or offensive in mindset. The old saying "a master of aiki can defeat you with just a glance" actually contains an important okuden concerning this.

In Shindo Yoshin ryu there is a similar concept although it has it's own peculiar manifestations. It is called Myojinken.

szczepan
31st August 2000, 05:05
Originally posted by Toby Threadgill
Nelson,

Your friends description was very good but demonstrates a bias commonly found in aikido. It is a more modern definition with variations that differ from the definition of an older truly "martial" art. It demonstrates a defensive bias and is reactive in nature. Ueshiba intended this bias and instituted it due to his philosophical yearnings for the concept of aiki to be reborn as a passive archetype. He called this "Takemasu Aiki".


Would you mind explain why it is passive archetype? I personally didn't find any defensive bias in aikido, contrary, if aikido technique start in the moment of born the idea of attack it is not very clear to me from your dualisme(defensive/offensive) come from?




Older samurai arts are technically similar but more active or offensive in mindset. The old saying "a master of aiki can defeat you with just a glance" actually contains an important okuden concerning this.


How old could be this saying? Like 100 years or more? :bandit:

regardz

MarkF
31st August 2000, 08:27
Nelson,
Andele, pues. Me da chance de utilizar mi espanol.:)

Actually, Mark J's definition is a good one, although I think it can be simplfied to "misdirection" as seen while doing sleight of hand. Possibly this is the "magic" which as been argued so much? But possibly "misdirection" in this sense is a misnomer, as it is, as is sleight, more of a "direction" of uke by tori into what you want him to do, thus knowing what he will do.

As Mark said, it is difficult to translate, but doesn't it basically come down to this? Many speak of closing h/her eyes while taking ukemi, but blindfolding tori for attack drills may work even better. In this way, it should matter not whether you learn to be uke or tori first, as I have found it is an unknown, and something which can remain an unknown, and therefore teach proper technique, and to feel and trust the same.

Anyway, it is something which can be done in any art with similar results, and this may lead to an awareness of something which Mark describes. It may not lead to this, but I've seen experienced judoka look absolutely terrified when this type of "misdirection" or direction is used.

Mark

31st August 2000, 17:38
Sczcepan,

You asked:

"Would you mind explain why it is passive archetype?"

In reference to this I believe:

"Ueshiba intended this bias and instituted it due to his philosophical yearnings for the concept of aiki to be reborn as a passive archetype."

Aikido isn't a passive archetype yet but I believe it is obvious that Ueshiba hoped it would become one in the future. The philosophical influences of the Omoto Kyo and Onisaburo Deguchi make this pretty obvious.


Next you stated,

"I personally didn't find any defensive bias in aikido, contrary, if aikido technique start in the moment of born the idea of attack it is not very clear to me from your dualisme(defensive/offensive) come from?

I would argue that if you didn't find any defensive bias then you weren't truly doing Ueshiba ha aikido / takemasu aiki. Aiki in the context of Ueshiba's modern aikido is stated to be defensive in nature. It is therefore by definition reactive. Any art based on self defense is also reactive. Defense is by definition a reaction to a perceived threat or danger.

The samurai of the Warring States Era were essentially paid mercenaries. Their concept of aiki did not really embrace defense as a tool of war. Remember that the samurai were using aiki with swords to kill their enemy ( offensively / active as opposed to defensively / reactive). Aiki in the older concept would perhaps be better defined as mind control.... making the opponent mentally and physically do what you want him to do without his conscious knowledge so he was easier to defeat. Mental and physical harmonizing maybe... but far from the concept of peace and love as the words meaning was redefined by Ueshiba in the post WW2 era.



Next, In reference to this:


"a master of aiki can defeat you with just a glance"


You asked:

"How old could be this saying? Like 100 years or more?"

Probably a little less as this is I believe attributed to Takeda Sokaku. But, similar statements concerning the concept at work in aiki go back very far. I will quote one from our school that is part of our Chuden Ura Waza. It is attributed to a Shinkage ryu Sensei and was told to my teachers teachers teacher (sheesh) Ishikawa Goto.

"Be careful when looking into the eyes of your enemy. You may find in his eyes your own defeat"


I hope I answered your questions,

szczepan
1st September 2000, 05:32
Thanks Toby,

Your argumentation seems very logical.
yet, when I'm attacking my teacher, I don't feel at all any defensive nature of his technique.Funny thing,I feel as attacking him is kind of useless.Ever attacked concret or fog?this kind of feeling...

regardz

Brently Keen
1st September 2000, 07:46
Szczepan,

If I can jump in here, I've been away for while (my computer's been in the shop after a nasty lightning storm fried my modem and keyboard).

I guess I have a different idea of what "defensive" is. In my mind both concrete and fog are "defensive". One is hard and resists attacks while the other is soft and avoids attacks. Both resisting against and avoiding are defensive actions in my mind.

Brently Keen

szczepan
1st September 2000, 16:55
Originally posted by Brently Keen
Szczepan,

If I can jump in here, I've been away for while (my computer's been in the shop after a nasty lightning storm fried my modem and keyboard).

I guess I have a different idea of what "defensive" is. In my mind both concrete and fog are "defensive". One is hard and resists attacks while the other is soft and avoids attacks. Both resisting against and avoiding are defensive actions in my mind.

Brently Keen

You mean because it's not active?Has no innitiative and not attacking me?

well..... may be my comparison wasn't good.I wanted to say that there is any special intend "defensive".Attack happens and he do what it's appropriate, taking innitiative isn't rare, however not neccesserly physically.

regardz

Henry Cawilan
1st September 2000, 16:57
The idea that something is either offensive or defensive is really relative. It just depends on your point of view (what your mind perceives). One is always half of the other, they are inseperable. So what if the wall of concrete is moving at 100 miles an hour would you still consider the concrete offensive or defensive. hhhmm...what if I'm running through a door way you and you are chasing me. As I enter the doorway I slam the a concrete door in your face. Is that offensive or defensive? Is a tank offensive or defensive...I guess it depends if it's moving or not. What if you were if a fog of corrosive gas? You are wearing a chemical suit, but the suit had a little crack that the gas can seep into. What happens? The gas starts attacking your skin and then you die. Is water offensive or defensive? It yields and moves out of the way...what happens when it becomes a wave? What happens when it just surrounds you and sticks to you and eventually drowns you?

HHHMMM a master of aiki can defeat you with just a glance. Interesting. So a big wall of water in front of you(a wave)is like a master of aiki. I doubt you would want to fight a 20 foot wave! If there's a big wall of concrete in front of you I doubt you would try to punch, kick or throw it. And it would be equally stupid to fight a fog or steam. So If you see these in front of you it would be stupid to fight. You are already defeated. I guess a master of aiki is like a wall or a fog...
Whether you perceive things as being offensive or defensive is all relative! It depends on your mind! In truth we really don't know anything outside our own minds.

Like I always say defeat the mind first.

Henry Cawilan
1st September 2000, 18:46
One more thing...

If you don't know what the nature of someones intent is how could you possibly expect to win against him. Is he on the offensive or is he on the defensive? How do you know? How can you attack if you really don't know? Would you even believe your own senses? Hah! You've just been defeated with a glance if that's the case.

Offensive and defensive are one!

pgsmith
1st September 2000, 19:15
Offensive and defensive are only one if living through the encounter is your main objective. If the objective is to kill as many of the enemy as possible regardless of your own life (as has been postulated concerning the warring states era) then anything defensive is counterproductive. Everything would be done with an offensive bent. This is what I understood Mr. Threadgill's earlier post to refer to. I don't think it had anything to do with waves or concrete or mind over matter, just in how you approach the techniques. Sorry, had to add in my 2 cent's worth. I'll go back to lurking now!

Paul Smith

Ron Tisdale
1st September 2000, 19:45
I believe that Dr. Karl Friday had some interesting observations on passive vs active swordmanship in his tome Legacies of the Sword. How many think

passive = defensive
active = offensive?

If you accept that map, his discussion becomes very interesting, and would seem to support Toby's point of view.

"Aikido isn't a passive archetype yet but I believe it is obvious that Ueshiba hoped it would become one in the future. The philosophical influences of the Omoto Kyo and Onisaburo Deguchi make this pretty obvious. "

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that there are many accepted masters of aikido who made every effort to divorce Aikido from the religeon mentioned. Gozo Shioda being one of them. Ueshiba still seemed to think that what the Yoshinkan did was aikido, even separated as it was (and is) from the religeous context.

I guess I get confused sometimes on whether or not aikido is defensive or offensive. A strong irimi movement timed at the very beginning of commitment in an attack seems pretty offensive...especially if you pound your attacker's head into the ground with iriminage ichi. Likewise, a strong pivot when applying jujinage ni can be really devestating...I'm not sure that that tenkan movement can be classified as passive...you just grabbed someone's arms, twisted them up, pivoted and threw them on their head, with little or no chance to breakfall (you're holding their arms!). And the setup for this technique usualy (in my experience) envolves a ridge hand strike to the face...(you are kind of hoping he blocks it though...). I guess we need some definitions.

Ron Tisdale

Richard Elias
1st September 2000, 20:33
Nelson,

"Do you think that aikikai's aikido can give me what i'm looking for?
If not, Do you think that i should continue training until i get something better?, or this would result in getting misleading/wrong physical and mental habits
What do you think about aikido in comparison with a traditional bugei?"


I'm not sure aikikai aikido, of any aikido, can give you all that I think you are looking for. Aikido is, I think, very different than traditional bugei. The basic philosophy is similar, the resolution of conflict, but the method is different. Most of the classical arts resolve conflict by eliminating the cause the conflict, the opponent.

If you have no traditional bugei available to you, then I think you should keep training. At least you're getting greater familiarity with your body and how to move with another's. And as long as you keep an open mind and allow yourself to be exposed to other arts and ideas (as you are here) I think you'll be OK. You'll have to start from the very beginning when you join a traditional school anyway, so it won't make much difference. And at least you'll be doing some sort of training until you can get what you want. And what you want will probably change as you learn more. It's been my experience that the reason people begin training in martial arts, and the reason why they continue training, is usually very different. As long as you know the difference between what you're doing and what you want, that's half of it. You probably won't be satisfied with your current training as long as you know that what you really want is out there.
Settle for nothing, just do what you can until you can get what you want.


"Searching for peace, love, harmony and enlightment are wonderful goals , but is not what I look for.I want to learn the arts that the samurai actually use and live with as military science"

From what I've read of many "enlightened masters" they didn't obtain enlightenment by searching for it. Or by studying pacifistic arts. It was usually obtained through hardship, suffereing, and battle. They gained their respect for life because they knew how fragile it is, and how easily it can be taken away. This kind of knowledge doesn't come from learning how to love your opponent, but from learning how to kill him.

I used to get into heated debates with some of my aikido "seniors" about this.

Ueshiba himself studied old-style no-nonsense martial arts. Based on what I've seen of him on film versus what is performed by his students and their students, there are things he did and qualities to his movements that you just don't seen in any of them. I would venture to say that Ueshiba "taught" aikido, but "did" aikijujutsu. I think that is a major factor in why none of his student have, nor probably will, ever reach his level of ability. They simply didn't(don't) have his experience, and can't obtain it by only doing what he taught. He wasn't trying to teach them his martial arts. Aikido was a vehicle to teach his philosophy.

The definition your friend gave doesn't really apply to the school in which I study.

In our school we don't really blend with the opponent's motion as it's done in aikido. We don't try to conform to the opponent's intent, form, or motion. We don't "go with the flow" so to speak. And we don't let the opponent believe he's in control. Rather, we cause him to conform to our technique and take away any sense of control he might have. We change his intent. We may sometimes let him feel as though he's got us, or the his strike will land its intended target, but then we take away his control of the situation and leave him feeling crowded or trapped, unbalanced or dependant on the one he would have harmed.

We use counter-offensive techniques. That is, we attack him, or his technique, as he is attacking us. This can take on many, often very subtle, forms. It doesn't mean we are just attacking him physically, as in hitting or grabbing him, although that's done also. But by disrupting his mind-set, nullifying his attack, making his own strike take him off balance, changing his priority from attacking to keeping his balance or holding on so he won't fall. We don't try to stay ahead of the opponent, we make him have to keep up. Some of this is purely psychological. We cause him to feel he has less control than he might actually have, if he was given the opportunity to think about his situation. We try to assume control over him at the moment of contact, and though the opponent often determines what technique will be applied to him, we give him no choice but to conform to the technique.

I think it is what Ueshiba meant by "capture the opponent's mind and enter directly".

Anyone who has experienced my teacher's technique can attest to the helpless feeling you get when you attack him, and the confusion when you can't figure out how you ended up on the floor.

MarkF
2nd September 2000, 10:06
A very nice description, Ron, but is it written somewhere that one cannot do ukemi if his hands/arms are blocked? Good ukemi, at least a good protective ukemi is not necessarily done with the arms, rather it is spread along the entire body. Throwing someone on the head is a good way of doing it, though. I won't argue that. The arms/hands are not necessary to do ukemi.

Mark

Ron Tisdale
5th September 2000, 15:26
Hi Mark,

No, hands and arms aren't necessary, but they certainly do help, especially if the intent is to place you on your head:). Yoshinkan has the haiyaku(sp) ukemi, where you don't use hands or arms for the break fall.

But what of the definitions I asked for? As I said, I get confused sometimes with the offensive/defensive question. I know that when I practise freestyle with strong 2nd and 3rd dan shotokan practitioners, if I back up *at all* I end up in a bad place. I must go forward to have a chance, or they plow the earth and plant me. And I must also move as soon as I sense their attack. Yet the techniques I use when going forward are aikido techniques. I'm not sure if they qualify as someone else's "offensive" though. More like Richard Elias's description of Ueshiba's "capture the opponent's mind and enter directly", but not nearly so nicely done, I'm sure.

People make much of aikido being defensive, and Daito ryu being offensive, but I'm not always sure why. I have also heard several people say that they never see Ueshiba's "enheritors" moving they way he did. Well, they have different bodies. I have a hard time believing that Shioda "didn't get" what Ueshiba was teaching. Or Shirata. Or several other top students. And I've seen their students do similarly amazing things that their teachers may or may not have done. I don't think this is a cookie cutter kind of thing. I'm not sure that the higher level students of any generation should be moving in exactly the same way as their teachers. That's why they are higher level students...isn't it?

Ron Tisdale



[Edited by Ron Tisdale on 09-05-2000 at 09:29 AM]

Cady Goldfield
5th September 2000, 16:49
[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 09-13-2000 at 12:54 PM]

MarkF
6th September 2000, 08:48
Hi, Cady,
I did notice your question for Mr. Obata, so are you here to "shugyo" e-style, or is it behind the scoreboard at 3:15? Not the same excuse this time.:toast:

Hi Ron,

Yes, sorry I didn't give my opinion before. It is a good question. I have taken my lumps against a few shotokan people, and that is a simple answer to a problem as such. Distance is what you do not want against them, unless it is around the block, but style makes the fight, and since judo and aikido are basically the same thing, you take a little to get a lot.

So since you are waiting on them, and you know you must get through the guard, of any situation really, it may be said that you are on the offensive, as if you don't get inside, you will have a rather unpleasant day.

With aikido, or aiki jj, the claim is that it is passive, as many have said that both are done with no attack, as aiki jj has no offensive posture, and depending on what style, or indeed, what dojo, passivity is just that, not going to get involved because you know you can, but don't. But then when do you take the offensive intiative? My experiences with aikido are shodokan ryu and not a lot of that, so I speak more as a person trained than as a person trained in anything special.

But one does, after so many decades, get a feeling as to which is the choice and what it means. Is it passive to wait on uke to decide the attack you use, or is it tori who is going to be defensive by taking the fight away? Good question. My definition of passivity is to de-escalate when humanly possible, even if it means taking a shot. By that, I simply mean that a person is passive when the situation builds and then, decides to end this peacfully, passing up what you know.

What I think I am saying is that one never takes the initiative, but that good defense is an offensive behavior, no matter what it is. To remain passive, is to trust a feeling that you may believe is the way out without violent intent, but once that is decided, neither side is being defensive, as all moves are counter reactions, and therefore are offensive in nature. So I would call it passive aggression.

I used to believe that there was always a way out without the need for a violent action, and that remaining "defensive" IS a passive action which cannot be helped. Today, I believe somewhat the same, but I also feel that no matter what you do, you must take an offensive posture. Any attempt to remain safe by countering is still offense.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that I have the same problem. In your own dojo, a defensive reaction may be just that, but in the real world, sometimes inaction could get you hurt. So even the counter moves you use, say, against your shotokan friends, is an offensive reaction, getting on the inside, as you know when you get there, you have the advantage, and if you do, are you to remain passive? I am still battling that one, as I had always believed judo to be one-hundred per cent self-defense, but after analyzing my reactions, I find them to be offense-based, as the guy who just caught you with a fist in the eye, or at least coming from that direction. If you don't move, that may be passive, but it doesn't help you in the long run. The statement "for every move there is a counter move" says that even if waiting to counter, you are setting up an attack of your own.

So this is basically what I believe.

Passive = setting up your attack, if need be, but not going there even if you know you can.

Offense = same thing only having no other choice. In other words, one knows what s/he needs to do, and does so without making the first move. When it comes, I think that you will know, but you will not remember what happened, only what the ends were. This is perfect *go no sen,* but even in self-defense, there is offense. The only passivity is the realization of what you can do, but not doing it. This is what we strive for, but when it is your ball, only you can decide whether to pass or play it safe.

Mark

Ron Tisdale
6th September 2000, 14:42
Mark,

Excellent post! Thank you. It may sound a little muddled to some, but what you said rings true to me. I think defining offensive as just who punches or who seems to initiate can be a little short sited.

Cady,

Thanks for the response...you probably know that I was kind of refering to posts I've seen on other boards (aikidojournal) as well.

"Aikido waits for the attacker to give energy so the aikidoka can redirect it."

At the risk of countering my earlier statements, where did you get this idea? Yoshinkan aikido has a whole series of techniques in our basic waza that have shite strike first. Where you aware of that? Check out some of Steven Miranda's posts (the latest one in the technical area on aikidojournal.com). I think he describes some of what I'm saying much better. For examples of techniques, the new yoshinkan training manual is good, as are Gozo Shioda's books, of course.

"...and you will see that he moves and accomplishes things
differently from his students -- just as Ueshiba moved differently than his students. "

Well, I must admit, I haven't been big on tapes. I just can't seem to get from them the details that others do. I think I'm video challenged or something. I am going to make a point of getting some tapes of both Ueshiba and Shioda though, just because I've heard this statement so often. Question: Have you seen Inoue S.? Terada S.? Utada S.? Payet S.? Mustard S.? If not, then I'm not sure you can say what their movement is (all top students of yoshinkan). I'm not going on tapes here, but having seen them in person, and having felt the technique of most of them (I seem to remember pre-crash statements of [you must feel it, you can't get it from a video] or words to that effect).

I'm glad for your contribution here again. We've missed you! You always inject some realism into our discussions, as well as a very well defined point of view.
Ron Tisdale

Cady Goldfield
6th September 2000, 22:23
Hiya Ron.
Thanks for the welcome back. I appreciate that.
I've actually kinda already answered your questions here, except that it's over on the Aikido Journal forum (where we were discussing kiai).


[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 09-13-2000 at 01:18 PM]

MarkF
7th September 2000, 10:26
Ron,
I have a tendency to ramble a bit, but thanks for taking the time to read my congested thoughts. For some, there is no choice, and for others, the choice is there.


Mark

Aikikiai
7th September 2000, 20:38
I personally don't feel that Aiki or Kiai are some mystical thing that some people can't develop. I think Aiki and Kiai can be explained with physics. Kiai, to me, is the producion of linear force. It just makes sense that if you are going to produce as much force as quickly as possible, it must be linear. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line so any punch, kick, grap, restraing, etc. is best done very quickly in a straight line. I have seen guys try to throw a punch by swinging way outward in a circle. The problem is it takes too long and produces less power. That is why jabs can be so devastating in boxing.

Aiki, on the other hand to me, is the absorption of linear force with circular movement. You can disrupt a linear force by combining with it in a circular fashion. Centripetal and centrifugal force aspects of physics explain Aiki pretty well to me.

That is my understanding of Aiki and Kiai. Maybe not everyone else feels this way, but I chose to keep it simple so that I understand what they both me and how they work.

Cady Goldfield
7th September 2000, 20:44
Originally posted by Aikikiai
I personally don't feel that Aiki or Kiai are some mystical thing that some people can't develop. I think Aiki and Kiai can be explained with physics. [/B}{QUOTE}

I'm with ya there, bud.

[QUOTE] [i] Aiki, on the other hand to me, is the absorption of linear force with circular movement. You can disrupt a linear force by combining with it in a circular fashion. Centripetal and centrifugal force aspects of physics explain Aiki pretty well to me.
Well, my interpretation is a quite a bit different than yours, but I still agree with you that it's totally mechanical/physical in nature and most certainly can be learned.

Nathan Scott
7th September 2000, 21:06
Hi,

In re-reading comments made by various Daito ryu exponents in "Daito ryu Aikijujutsu" (Aiki News), I'm getting the impression that the Jujutsu waza is generally considered to be the real core of the art, with the Aiki waza being perhaps the highest level of perfection.

While I would agree with Brently-san that once an exponent has learned "aiki", that they would apply varying amounts to their Jujutsu waza as well, there is still a strong case that there is generally a clear seperation made between the two (at least for the purposes of catagorizing techniques and principles).

T. Takeda Soke talks alot about the "violent" methods of Daito ryu in his interview, and even Inoue Yusuke Sensei - current head (Menkyo Kaiden) of the Kodokai branch states (on pg. 101):


Inoue: Before that it was called Daito ryu Jujutsu. Actually in Daito ryu there is Daito ryu Jujutsu, and then there is also Aikijujutsu.

(interviewer)WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?

Inoue: Aikijujutsu is comprised of Oshikiuchi techniques, in other words, techniques to be used inside the palace. Daito ryu Jujutsu consists of techniques for use in actual combat. There is a fundamental difference between these techniques.

This quote is interesting, because it comes the head of a branch that is focused more on Aiki techniques, and Horikawa Sensei was known to have focused primarily on aiki (though he had apparently later learned some Jujutsu from Sagawa Sensei as well). So it is not just the heads of the "Jujutsu" focused branches that make this seperation.

Also, Sagawa Yukiyoshi Sensei states:


The term aiki is a very old one. It was used as early as the Meiji period. This is a memo book from my father used to take notes on techniques he learned from Takeda Sensei. Here you see the phrase "...execute aiki [written in katakana]" in several places. This entry was made on May 14, 1913.

...It seems that Takeda Sensei made a distinction between aikijujutsu and jujutsu when he taught.

The term Aiki appears to be much older than that, but it's interesting that katakana was used to write aiki as opposed to the common kanji used now. Perhaps the exact meaning (kanji associated with it) was unclear at the time.

Anyway, I just found these quotes interesting. Comments welcome...

Regards,


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 09-07-2000 at 03:12 PM]

Aikikiai
7th September 2000, 23:41
Can you tell me, since you are part of Obata sensei's art, how Yoshinkan Aikido differs from other taijutsu in Aikido?

Thanks

Aikikiai

Nathan Scott
8th September 2000, 00:19
Hello Aikikai,

Welcome to e-budo!

Please post with your real, full name per forum policy.



Yours is a very good, but difficult question.

First off, our "Aiki Buken" is strongly influenced by Yoshinkan (still), but has branched away substantially from it's methods - especially in the more advanced techniques. So my experience in this style is probably not relevant enough to justify a comment to your specific question.

However, I have a little personal experience with both Yoshinkan proper and various Aikikai/Aikikai affiliates that may be of limited benefit.

The answer in any event is complex, and varies to some degree from instructor to instructor regardless of the branch.

Aikikai is generally thought of as being on the "softer" side of Aikido. But, some Aikikai affiliates are not as much (read: pretty motivating, convincing technique).

Two Aikikai affiliates I can speak of in this regard are Matsuoka Sensei (ex-Tenshin Bugei Gakuin chief insructor under Mr. Seagal) and Phong Sensei (Tenshinkai Aikido).

Saotome Sensei and Ikeda Sensei have their own brand of Aikikai affliated Aikido (ASU), and even they have a slightly different approach (or focus) between themselves.

The Yoshinkan instructors also vary quite a bit in application, development and focus of technique. There are some older, senior instructors, like Kimeda Sensei that are quite good. Kushida Sensei is an ex-senior instructor under the Yoshinkan, but seperated some years ago. He does his own Aikido now, and his methods are *very strong* and effective.

Obata Sensei (ex-Yoshinkan) has been regarded by those that have been thrown by him as being extremely proficient. Joe Thambu Sensei from Australia is quite good (Yoshinkan) in his own right, and has said very complimentary things about Obata Sensei's Aikido.

So I guess my point is that there are significant differences of talent and application of principles within the Yoshinkan as well as the Aikikai and it's affiliated groups.

On a very general level, you can think of Yoshinkan as being pre-war "hard style", and Aikikai as being post-war "not-as-hard style". Yoshinkan follows the methods of Daito ryu Jujutsu much closer than any of the Aikikai I've seen.

Also, the Yoshinkan curriculum was structured by two of it's senior instructors in order to facilitate instruction to large groups (like military and police). Shioda Kancho approved the step-by-step training methods developed, but didn't seem to have much influence on the methods himself. As such, most of his students do not resemble his movements very closely!

Other styles of Aikido tend to teach in a much less structured, "military" fashion.

There is typically much more of the Omoto religion influence in the post-war styles. Shioda Kancho and many other pre-war students, however, seem to have not cared much for the mixing of religion with Aikido! :)

I know this comparison is not all that helpful in answering your question, but perhaps you will at least get a better idea of how to judge these kinds of things for yourself!

Regards,

MarkF
8th September 2000, 09:24
Originally posted by aikikai



I personally don't feel that Aiki or Kiai are some mystical thing that some people can't develop. I think Aiki and Kiai can be explained with physics. Kiai, to me, is the producion of linear force. It just makes sense that if you are going to produce as much force as quickly as possible, it must be linear. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line so any punch, kick, grap, restraing, etc. is best done very quickly in a straight line. I have seen guys try to throw a punch by swinging way outward in a circle. The problem is it takes too long and produces less power. That is why jabs can be so devastating in boxing.



I think most would agree with you, and if you want proof, and in great detail, try entering the search word "Feigenbaum Constant" (no relation as far as I know).

This is the newest of constants by mathematically proving that linear time/energy does not exist, that it is non-linear and that chaos is indeed the way of the universe, as is Einstein's theorum. If you are good at math, it is downright frustrating:)

So physiological aiki? Of course. How it is applied is simply a matter of doing the math.


Mark

Walker
8th September 2000, 18:12
Nathan,
Just to flesh out your characterization of Omoto influence in various groups of students, while Shioda is an older student viewed from our perspective, he was preceeded by many deshi who were actual Omoto believers. Omoto influence may in fact be stronger in the “Aiki Budo” days than in the immediate prewar period when O Sensei had moved to Tokyo and distanced himself after the second Omoto incident.
Just grist for the mill.

Nathan Scott
8th September 2000, 18:30
Hello Mr. Walker,

That could well be. I'd have to go through some books and check. But if you look at the kind of technique that was being transmitted, and the fledgling development of Aikido at that time, there is clearly less Omoto influence in the instruction and methods than what was taught post-war.

This could also be a result or Ueshiba S. attitude before the war. He appeared to be very patriotic (repeated references to "Yamato Damashii" in his writings), had taught the Imperial Army, the Nakano spy school and allowed his dojo to be used for meetings by the Sakurakai activist group. Not to mention his instruction to law enforcement.

Before the war, his focus of instruction was far more military. I rarely take such a factual stance on issues that "I wasn't there for", but in this case these types of things have been well documented both in writings as well as evidence seen in earlier techniques and (most of) those students that trained with him at that time.

Personally, I don't believe Ueshiba S. incorporated the Omoto religion into his methodology in Aikido significantly until roughly after the war.

This would also be logical because the techniques would have needed to appear less "martial" since martial arts were banned for several years after Japan's defeat, and national moral was low.

But your points are well taken regardless! :)

Regards,



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 09-08-2000 at 12:35 PM]

gato
13th September 2000, 19:11
Thank you very much for your replies!
I think that Ueshiba did a big estructural mess with his art
thru time
no one knows what really is all about.

Just some ideas ,

Nelson Sanz

Nathan Scott
13th September 2000, 19:19
Hmmm.... I guess that's one way of looking at it!

Regards,

Walker
14th September 2000, 20:29
I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the history of Aikido buy, borrow, or steal (just kidding) “The Two Pillars of Aikido” lecture by Stanley Pranin. Absent access to the back issues of his AJ (that I don’t have) I don’t know of any better presentation of O Sensei’s history.
My understanding of the history at present points to two pre-war periods in Aikido’s history. The first during O Sensei’s stay at the Omoto headquarters in which he taught mostly Omoto believers and Navy officers (nearby base) and had many of his significant spiritual experiences (many of the “miracle stories” of later years). He seems to have been steeped in Omoto thought and it has been reported by friends that his budo really changed around this time. The second period is the Tokyo pre-war period which is the more familiar pre-war period. He had developed his military (particularly Naval) contacts and had distanced himself from Omoto (and was called by some the “Judas” of Omoto) after the second Omoto incident. This is not to say that he was not a believer any more, but was less overt. This would have made it easier for the police and military to have him as an instructor. Many of the deshi who started during this period were not Omoto believers and the network of Omoto dojos and seminars died out.
Of note it seems that O Sensei never tried to convert any of his budo students, but did use Omoto concepts and cosmology in his speach, talks and teaching. I don’t believe that anyone really understood what he was saying especially in the post war period and he made no effort to explain himself in plain terms.
This was compounded by Doshu’s removal of all Omoto terminology in Aikido - correct, in my opinion, in that no one understood it anyway. You really end up with a secular art that was taught in a secular manner by a man lost in spiritual matters and talking about related, but incomprehensible, spiritual concepts.