PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy And Aikido



Yamantaka
30th March 2001, 11:45
Hello, All!

What do you think?
a) is philosophy and theory a part of martial arts' study?
b) should it be studied apart from training or just the training will give you an insight?
c) philosophy is useless in the study of a martial art?
d) it's enough to practice with a good teacher and not worry about philosophy?
Waiting for your answers
Yamantaka

Daniel Pokorny
30th March 2001, 13:57
Questions originally posted by Yamantaka, Reply by Dan P. - Mongo

One view;

a) is philosophy and theory a part of martial arts' study?

< YES >

b) should it be studied apart from training or just the training will give you an insight?

< They are actually one and the same. One cannot be fully understood without the other >

c) philosophy is useless in the study of a martial art?

< Is the foundation useless to the house that sits upon it? >

d) it's enough to practice with a good teacher and not worry about philosophy?

< If it truly is a good teacher, you need not worry, for you'll be learning it anyway >

These are my answers

Dan P. - Mongo

szczepan
30th March 2001, 19:54
Originally posted by Daniel Pokorny


c) philosophy is useless in the study of a martial art?

< Is the foundation useless to the house that sits upon it? >



Dan P. - Mongo

Hi Dan P. - Mongo,

So am I undersatnding you right, a fundation of martial art is philosophy?
You mean, I read a book and hoooop, fondation is built? :D

Den
30th March 2001, 20:45
Szczepan,
Are you suggesting a dichotomy between the physical and the intellectual that doesn't exist in Asian martial arts?

Japanese martial arts in particular utilize a methodology that trains the mind through training the body. Whether the form is book, video or class instruction, there is no division between the body and the mind. This is what made such arts so valuable in the post Meiji era.

Western history reveals a similar affinity between chivalry (philosophy) and warrior arts. So much so that that both are deeply engrained in European mythology and current day story-telling.

-Anthony

PRehse
30th March 2001, 22:25
Originally posted by Yamantaka
Hello, All!

What do you think?
a) is philosophy and theory a part of martial arts' study?
b) should it be studied apart from training or just the training will give you an insight?
c) philosophy is useless in the study of a martial art?
d) it's enough to practice with a good teacher and not worry about philosophy?
Waiting for your answers
Yamantaka

Hi Ubaldo;

The path (do) is revealed through training hard not by endless discussion. Yeah I know that means I should stay away from mailing lists and forums.

Philosophy has its place but the primary source is the physical training. Reading books may put what you come to understand in context but it is impossible to understand Aikido through just the written word.

A good teacher will educate you properly. Apart from the physical they will on occaision nudge you in the right direction but only sparingly.

I agree completely with Szczepan - the foundation is the physical training. Don't talk do.

Now I just have to go and listen to my own advice. ;)

MarkF
31st March 2001, 10:46
I don't think the question[s] asked are necessarily the opinions of the poster, but four statements which all may have some element of truth to them.

IE:
Originally posted by Yamantaka
What do you think?


There are principles [philosophy] in the doing and the living. Everyone does it for a separate reason and believes differently than any single idea, thus I believe many more questions must be asked to align oneself in the direction of any of the choices given, at least that is my philosophy.
*****
Some are of the opinion of "just train" and others need reinforcement in which the assistance of a trusted person is necessary to make the correct decisions on down the line. The foundation is only as strong as the people who build upon it.

Perhaps many foundations are needed.

Yamantaka
1st April 2001, 11:37
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PRehse
[B]

Hi Ubaldo;

The path (do) is revealed through training hard not by endless discussion. Yeah I know that means I should stay away from mailing lists and forums.

YAMANTAKA : So your philosophy is training, not studying or discussing also (endless discussion seems to me to be quite another thing). I also observe you sense the paradox there, between what you think and what you do...:)

Philosophy has its place but the primary source is the physical training. Reading books may put what you come to understand in context but it is impossible to understand Aikido through just the written word.

YAMANTAKA : So you put the physical practice as the more important thing...

A good teacher will educate you properly. Apart from the physical they will on occaision nudge you in the right direction but only sparingly.
I agree completely with Szczepan - the foundation is the physical training. Don't talk do.

YAMANTAKA : Again you seem to imply that any theory or philosophy is useless. The teacher is the only thing really needed. At least, that's your philosophy, I presume...

Now I just have to go and listen to my own advice. ;)

YAMANTAKA : For sure...Best regards, Peter San! ;)

Joseph Svinth
1st April 2001, 12:37
Philosopher: "One who seeks wisdom or enlightenment... A person whose perspective enables him to meet trouble with equanimity."

Philosophical: "Calm in the face of trouble."

Philosophy: "A pursuit of wisdom... A theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity of thought... calmness of temper and judgment."

So, if there is no philosophy, then what is left?Credulousness, panic, and Internet road rage?

Admittedly such a non-philosophical interpretation would explain much of what I see at Bad Budo, but for myself, I would prefer a world in which people training in mayhem had a modicum of wisdom and a touch of calmness of temper and judgment.

As for reading a book, yes, the foundation can spring from that. Think the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah. Are those not books, and do not philosophical foundations spring from them? But the reason that this so rarely happens on an individual basis is that most people are passive readers. That is, they just look at the pictures and turn the pages. But, if you interact with the book, sometimes learning comes: "'Tis the good reader that makes the good book."

szczepan
1st April 2001, 19:25
Originally posted by Den
Szczepan,
Are you suggesting a dichotomy between the physical and the intellectual that doesn't exist in Asian martial arts?

Japanese martial arts in particular utilize a methodology that trains the mind through training the body. Whether the form is book, video or class instruction, there is no division between the body and the mind. This is what made such arts so valuable in the post Meiji era.

Western history reveals a similar affinity between chivalry (philosophy) and warrior arts. So much so that that both are deeply engrained in European mythology and current day story-telling.

-Anthony

well, I believe in facts, not in words.That's mean, if martial arts has, as one of their goals, refine human nature, their must use efficent tools for that. In the other hand, refinning contains many things,change character included.

Changing one's character it's not an easy task, I believe you need very powerful stimulus especially when one's character (and values system) is build, formed AND forged by many difficulties in one's life.
Now, there are few optimists (Hi Joseph!) who think is possible to do by words - may be in some veeeeeeeeeery rare cases.....But in general beautiful words will rest in books and acts in reality will be not so beautiful. Or words create only superficial layer, simulation of a change, coz in extremal situations(i.e: when personal emotions are hurt) good old habits will make surface.

That's why, I think simple physical practice is only efficient solution. You don't need a tons of books, in real practice one will meet a tons of difficulties, also spiritual difficulties, and will be forced to find his very own, personal, physical and not intelectual solution.

This solution will be written in his body and mind for ever.
For real.
Thats how one can overcome body/mind dichotomy.

Yamantaka
1st April 2001, 22:18
Originally posted by szczepan


well, I believe in facts, not in words.But in general beautiful words will rest in books and acts in reality will be not so beautiful.
That's why, I think simple physical practice is only efficient solution. You don't need a tons of books, in real practice one will meet a tons of difficulties, also spiritual difficulties, and will be forced to find his very own, personal, physical and not intelectual solution.
Thats how one can overcome body/mind dichotomy.

YAMANTAKA : Szczepan has presented his philosophy of Aikido. What does everybody else thinks? Is he right or wrong? Aikido is just practice and nothing else? The solution of problems is practice, not intelectual?
Curious

PRehse
1st April 2001, 22:37
Hi Ubaldo;

I think we could get lost in quote and counter quote. :(

Needless to say and I do think Szczepan is essentially saying the same thing that the primary focus is the physical with the philosophy growing from that. That does not mean that there is no room for philosophical discourse in the correct setting (mailing lists, forums and the local bar) and a bit of reading is not going to hurt. What is does mean is that if you are using books or opinions voiced in cyber space as the primary source of your Aikido you are missing the boat.

Again I think you are misrepresenting (all in the interests of provoking discussion of course) Szczepan. It is not a matter of only books or no books but is it possible to read too much and too soon.

PRehse
1st April 2001, 22:41
ALERT: Huge sweeping generalizations to follow.


I noticed that there seems to be a division in Aikido which revolves around the physical and the philosophical.

The practice of Aikido can be quite tame physically or not depending very much on the student. In my view this is one of the major attractions of the art because it is something anyone can start, gain benefit, and continue to a ripe old age. However I do notice that there really seems to be two types especially in the mudansha levels although the phenomenon permeates across the board. The less physical the character of the person the more concern there is with the philosophy. At the higher levels, as the body ages, the shift in types of technique and an understanding of the way seems quite natural but I find in many cases the philosophy acts as sort of a safe haven from the rigors of training.

I must admit in this regard my actions are perhaps middle of the road although I sit firmly in the through training we gain understanding camp.

I know there are several people who went through quite a brutal time before they came to Aikido - and it was the philosophy which attracted them. However, it is the average person off the street I am talking about and a feeling that it is possible to have too early an emphasis on the intellectual side of our little thing.

Neil Hawkins
2nd April 2001, 01:19
Hey Joe, not to be pedantic or anything, but what came first, the philosophy or the book?

I would say that first there was an idea, then after a time people found it hard to explain and so wrote about it to ensure it would always be passed on in the same manner (look where that got them! ;)).

I don't think philosophy can spring from a book, as the person that wrote the book already had the germ of the idea. What a book does is cause an interaction that used to be rhetorical discussion in the days of Greece, it allows ideas to be expanded upon and rationalised. As my sig says, "the one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding", philosophy is understanding, or at least the search for understanding.

All a book will give you is knowledge, it is up to the individual to use what ever processes they have to develop understanding. That comes from within and will happen regardless of how the knowledge is achieved in the first place. Knowledge without understanding is like being in the best library in the world, but discovering the books are all in a language you can't read. The answer is there, but it doesn't help you much.

To get back on track, the value of a good teacher (in any art, let alone Aikido) is that he can spoon feed you knowledge and give you exercises to help you understand. He gauges the level of understanding and teaches accordingly. Some people will never understand, others understand quickly, both can perform the motion, but the one who understands will get more out of the experience and will value it higher. Philosophy is intrinsic in all activity, but may not always be apparent.

Heavy huh? :)

Regards

Neil

MarkF
2nd April 2001, 07:12
Originally posted by Neil Hawkins
Heavy huh?

Regards

Neil



Hey, dude,
Like, yeah it's heavy, but it ain't my brother.:)
****

The search is eternal, at least until you die. Then you are on your own.:cool:

Mark

Joseph Svinth
2nd April 2001, 10:16
Well, if it is all physical, then what's with all this mumbo-jumbo that Ueshiba used to spout? And even he made sense occasionally. Have you tried to read John Stevens? There's a man who never let facts stand in the way of a good story.

As for the book, actually, the idea tends to come as you write. Writing requires interaction with the page, and with the sources, both human and literary. Reading without writing, however, tends to be passive, much like attending a class and always expecting to have the teacher tell you what to do next.

In this regard, forums such as this can be valuable, as they force you to codify your own ideas, and then defend or change them as required. Of course, as we see every day in other parts of this site, "Many scholars choose to remain ignorant even after being given the facts… To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle." (Oscar Muscarella, *The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,* 2000)

Yamantaka
2nd April 2001, 15:07
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PRehse
[B]

ALERT:
I noticed that there seems to be a division in Aikido which revolves around the physical and the philosophical.

YAMANTAKA : Dear Peter,
It seems you are a bit confused. In your previous post you stated that our discussion was beginning to be nothing more than a "quote/conterquote war" and you read my mind, saying that I was misinterpreting Szczepan's observations.
Then, all of a sudden, you begin another thread on the same subject, not just in here but in Aikido-L also.
That's what I answered you in Aikido-L :

"Dear Peter San,

We have discussed those points quite a few times. I believe you are
wrong in two things :
a) I propose that theory and practice are two sides of the same coin. One
can't really exist without the other. Anyone who proposes that practice is
foremost and doesn't really need theory is denying every martial book ever
written since the dawn of MA by the late masters, including Tomiki Sensei.
The same thing applies to your idea that physical incompetency leads to
interest in philosophy - not always; and
b) there's no age limit to begin to study theory, strategy and history. Life
is very short. If anybody had to wait 30/40 years and rokudan level to begin
studying, many people would be dead before they could study these things.
Also, Ueshiba Sensei began to study very young (Shingon and Mikkyo Buddhism
and the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, even before he met Deguchi and converted
himself - sort of - to Omotokyo). Harmony, you know...Bun Bu Ryo Do, said
others - the martial and the cultural, just the same - the need to study
simultaneously practice and theory. In samurai schools of the Edo Period,
nobleman studied, side by side, the martial arts and the Arts of the
Pen(philosophy, strategy, history, and the like). They both grow together.
I met many martial artists that followed your advice : to practice
before studying theory. After 30/40 years, they're still "practicals" with
no wish to study further. And they have stagnated...Became lazy and
uninterested in learning more.
Anyway, to be against philosophy, is really to philosophize. And we
should not forget many, many, people who behave that way and are not "weak
in practice", such as Stanley Pranin Sensei(who studied theory since his
early days with Saito Sensei); Peter Goldsbury Sensei(who writes magnificent
articles on theory and philosophy and studied with masters such as Yamaguchi
Sensei); Karl Friday Sensei of Kashima Shin Ryu; Funakoshi Sensei(of Karate
fame), who wrote many books; Tomiki Sensei (many books); Kano Sensei (who
began to study theory before reaching 22 years of age, at which time he
created Judo and who wrote a lot about theory and philosophy) and so, so,
so...
Let me conclude : I do not favor divisions and I do not believe there
are just two types of Aikido practitioners. I believe the two things (theory
and practice) are very important and should be studied at the same time.
It's just that, as in the case of the Founder, sometimes you have to have
two teachers - one martial, the other theoretical (Takeda Sensei and Deguchi
Sensei). As Brian Kennedy says (Ch'i - the X-Factor), the problem, many
times, is another one : the teacher does not know and the students are
forced to just practice as this is all their teachers know. Of course, if
your teacher just knows practice, you should learn what he has to teach and
in no way question him about things he does not know. That's respect. But no
one says you shouldn't look elsewhere for it.
As our friend Shari Dyer said : "My point is this. We all have truths
to share, and valuable insights to make..."
Always important to share ideas with you
Best regards and good keiko
Ubaldo."

P.S. By the way, I don't think I'm misinterpreting Szczepan. That's what he said :
"...rest of us mortals need simply much more practice on the tatami and not building fantasy land."
"So having a good teacher and practicing seems to be a best solution."
"this kind of behavior happens if beginners start to ask themself questions about aikido philosophy, religion and others useless things."
"You, heavy intelectualists, you can`t existe without reading books and such? "
"Now I clearly see it was completly useless.A waste of time. "
"But in general beautiful words will rest in books and acts in reality will be not so beautiful. Or words create only superficial layer, simulation of a change, coz in extremal situations(i.e: when personal emotions are hurt) good old habits will make surface. "
"That's why, I think simple physical practice is only efficient solution. You don't need a tons of books, in real practice one will meet a tons of difficulties, also spiritual difficulties, and will be forced to find his very own, personal, physical and not intelectual solution. "

In my opinion, not much chance for misunderstanding. You cay what you like about SZCzepan minus he's cheating. He says what he thinks.
And, please, Peter San : do not say that our discussion is useless, a mere "quote/counterquote war" and immediately after that start again in the same thread. That's not fair! This is a discussion List. It's main objective is to discuss theory since practice is done at the dojo. If you participate in it, you can't dismiss theory and philosophy too much. And remember : Practice will get you only THERE. Theory AND practice will get you everywhere.
Let's relax. :shot: :D
Yamantaka

PRehse
2nd April 2001, 15:30
Hi Ubaldo;

The quote/counter quote statement had more to do with the format of one of your replies. If I had continued in the same way it would have become unreadable. That is why I wrote the answer as a paragraph. Did not mean the discussion was useless - if I was bored by it I would have stopped replying.

That last post I wrote for Aikido-l but latter realized that it fit in with what is being discussed here just as your answer fits in both places.

My complaint is that you seem to want to believe that I have said there should be practice and no philosophy. Again I have said no such thing. My only point is that practice should have primacy (not exclusivity) over philosophy. The written word provides context for what you discover through practice. I believe that there is a tendency to rely too heavily on what's published.

Yamantaka
2nd April 2001, 18:55
Originally posted by PRehse
Hi Ubaldo;

My complaint is that you seem to want to believe that I have said there should be practice and no philosophy.

YAMANTAKA : Sorry, that's what I understood. See here :

"Peter Rehse said :
I agree completely with Szczepan
Szczepan said :
"So having a good teacher and practicing seems to be a best solution."
"this kind of behavior happens if beginners start to ask themself questions about aikido philosophy, religion and others useless things."
"You, heavy intelectualists, you can`t existe without reading books and such? "
"Now I clearly see it was completly useless.A waste of time. "
"That's why, I think simple physical practice is only efficient solution. You don't need a tons of books, in real practice one will meet a tons of difficulties, also spiritual difficulties, and will be forced to find his very own, personal, physical and not intelectual solution. "
Since you agreed completely with SCZzepan and since Szczepan considers Aikido just physical and not intelectual, I presumed (right or wrong) that you believe in the same things.

P.R. : Again I have said no such thing. My only point is that practice should have primacy (not exclusivity) over philosophy. The written word provides context for what you discover through practice. I believe that there is a tendency to rely too heavily on what's published.

YAMANTAKA : Do you know, Peter : your words remind me very much of a problem we have here in Brazil. There are what we call "Practitioners" and "Theoreticians". The first ones debunk the last ones saying that they're incompetent, with poor techniques and that they're afraid of fighting. The problem is, generally the practitioners are, for the most part, ignorant and they're jealous of the theoreticians' intelligence and the positions they hold in MA's organizations. the theoreticians, on the other side, resent certainly from a lack of practice.
But the important point is : the practitioners are always belittling theory and philosophy, as if afraid of them. Why emphasize body, strength, physical practice AGAINST theory, strategy, intelectual improvement? Isn't that strange?
Best regards and good keiko
Yamantaka

Daniel Pokorny
2nd April 2001, 20:57
Hey group,

The original "poster" asked what people thought of their questions. I replied. I don't feel the need to defend how I feel. I never said it was true for everyone, it is however, true for me. Also, if there is anyone questioning my particular training methods, please feel free to drop in at Shindai Aikikai anytime you're in the Orlando Florida area. We welcome all visitors.

Szczepan, it is truly wonderful to be young and full of ideals. Ironically, you seem to really enjoy learning an art that was based on that which you claim is not necessary. Enjoy yourself all you can before the realities of life catch up to you....


Regards to all,

Dan P. - Mongo

PRehse
2nd April 2001, 22:14
Dear Ubaldo;

I wrote

<<
I agree completely with Szczepan - the foundation is the physical training.
>>

Let me understand you correctly - you took half of one of my sentences and used it out of context to define my position relative to what someone else posted long after I had hit the send key. At that point Szczepan is his usual direct, sometime abrasive, writing style had only lambasted the statement that the foundation of the martial art is the philosophy. That is the statement I completely agree with.

In the same post I made my position very clear.

<<
Philosophy has its place but the primary source is the physical training. Reading books may put what you come to understand in context but it is impossible to understand Aikido through just the written word.
>>

My only subsequent observation is that I find that many people seem to take refuge in the philosophy too early in their Aikido journey.

You wrote:
<<
Do you know, Peter : your words remind me very much of a problem we have here in Brazil. There are what we call "Practitioners" and "Theoreticians". The first ones debunk the last ones saying that they're incompetent, with poor techniques and that they're afraid of fighting. The problem is, generally the practitioners are, for the most part, ignorant and they're jealous of the theoreticians' intelligence and the positions they hold in MA's organizations. the theoreticians, on the other side, resent certainly from a lack of practice. But the important point is : the practitioners are always belittling theory and philosophy, as if afraid of them. Why emphasize body, strength, physical practice AGAINST theory, strategy, intelectual improvement? Isn't that strange?
>>

So now because of my stated view (see above) I am ignorant and somehow have belittled "Theoreticians". Considering the amount of posting on theory that I have done I would be belittling myself.

My view is not my own but based on what I learnt from my teachers. You were not discouraged from reading but the primary lesson came from what you learned through training.

Neil Hawkins
3rd April 2001, 03:11
I don't remember saying it was all physical, what I tried to say was that there is philosophy in every thing we do. Now some activities we inherently understand, they are part of our genetic makeup, or are learnt from birth. Some activities are so simple that the philosophy is minimal. Others, such as Aikido (or many koryu) have a great depth that is not immediately apparent and lend themselves well to philosophical debate.

And I do mean debate, as understanding is within us, different people come to different conclusions, some try too hard. Like every journey of discovery the search for understanding has many wrong turns, dead ends, false crests and so on. Many of the people that write about it are going through this process and confuse themselves and others with their twists and turns. Often you will see greater clarity as they age and begin to actually understand. This is why we have so many different martial arts, and different styles within the same school.

Ueshiba was like this, he wrote and said some things early on that had a glimmer of real understanding, but were still clouded, I think he understood but was at that time unable to articulate it clearly to others so that they could understand as well. Later in life he was able to get the point across better and more people understood what he had to say.

This is evident in the differences between the masters that went on to form their own lines. Mochizuki left early and founded Yosiekan which is almost Koryu, Shioda followed later to form Yoshinkan which is still practical but has the 'soft' centre, finally the Aiki-kai stuff is almost pure spirit with little concern for actual combat. Now this is a generalisation to illustrate, I don't have enough knowledge (or understanding!) to debate the various schools of aikido, so please don't ask me to.

Anyway, what else was there? Oh, yes. I agree totally that the act of writing enables you to formulate and expand your ideas, this is indeed its greatest strength. However the germ of an idea must have prompted the need to write in the first place.

Reading is a passive action, again I agree, that was my original point when you suggested that the books in some way initiated philosophy. But in each instance I believe that someone wrote the book, it may have been divine inspiration, but there was an understanding or philosophy there before the book.

Regards

Neil

szczepan
3rd April 2001, 04:36
YAMANTAKA ,

you are using quotes out of context and combining them to backup your opinions.
Let ppl using their own minds.

in the other hand you quote many Big Names.It doesn't give you any more power in your argumentation. Philosophy, religion, and spiritual training in context of aikido training are very personal, unique, and internal feelings.Everyone must deal with by himself, by his own real experience and not with quotes and theoretical considerations.

regardZ

Yamantaka
4th April 2001, 15:06
Dear Peter,

I didn't write :

"I agree completely with Szczepan - the foundation is the physical training."
I quoted you : "I agree completely with Szczepan"
Put this way, I believe I rightly concluded you agree with all things Szczepan said before. I didn't use anything out of context. On the other side, you changed what I wrote to justify your position. :nono:

PETER : In the same post I made my position very clear.
Philosophy has its place but the primary source is the physical training. Reading books may put what you come to understand in context but it is impossible to understand Aikido through just the written word. My only subsequent observation is that I find that many people seem to take refuge in the philosophy too early in their Aikido journey.


YAMANTAKA : So,so...When you give emphasis to a part, you give less importance to the other. What I have defended, since the beginning of this thread (which you extended to other posts), is the equal value of both and, in the last analysis, the fact that just practice will lead you just HERE. Practice and good theory/philosophy will get you farther. And theory isn't something you should just start when you are old. Then, perhaps, it will be too late...:cry:

QUOTE FROM YAMANTAKA :
<<
Do you know, Peter : your words remind me very much of a problem we have here in Brazil. There are what we call "Practitioners" and "Theoreticians". The first ones debunk the last ones saying that they're incompetent, with poor techniques and that they're afraid of fighting. The problem is, GENERALLY THE PRACTITIONERS, "FOR THE MOST PART" ARE IGNORANT and they're jealous of the theoreticians' intelligence and the positions they hold in MA's organizations. THE THEORETICIANS, ON THE OTHER SIDE, CERTAINLY RESENT FROM A LACK OF PRACTICE. But the important point is : the practitioners are always belittling theory and philosophy, as if afraid of them. Why emphasize body, strength, physical practice AGAINST theory, strategy, intelectual improvement? Isn't that strange?

PETER : So now because of my stated view (see above) I am ignorant and somehow have belittled "Theoreticians". Considering the amount of posting on theory that I have done I would be belittling myself.

YAMANTAKA : Peter, Peter...You're including yourself in my proposed "FOR THE MOST PART"? Because I sure didn't. On the contrary, I've always stressed your qualities and the educated manner in which you discuss things. Do not read more than I intended! But I do believe that many people (not all) who emphasized practice over theory are really ignorant. But I stressed
also the fact that many theoreticians indeed resent from a lack of practice.
In peace :wave:

Yamantaka
4th April 2001, 15:23
[QUOTE]Originally posted by szczepan
[B]YAMANTAKA ,
you are using quotes out of context and combining them to backup your opinions.
Let ppl using their own minds.

YAMANTAKA : :nono: Sorry but I must say you are WRONG. No quotes out of context. I placed here many of your posts and the picture is quite clear. You have a profound antipathy for theory and philosophy. I love both theory and practice. You are dogmatic in stating that theoreticians have no ability to practice and that practicians need no philosophy, just a teacher and time.
We disagree, as is our right.

in the other hand you quote many Big Names.It doesn't give you any more power in your argumentation.

YAMANTAKA : :eek: Sorry, but from your words, may I understand that you gave no value to Ueshiba Kaiso's words? You accept just what you wish? :confused:
And Szczepan, I have no need for "power", nor the need to "win" any "argumentation". I just wish to hear opinions and have some food for thought. Aggressive talk means nothing to me.

Philosophy, religion, and spiritual training in context of aikido training are very personal, unique, and internal feelings.Everyone must deal with by himself, by his own real experience and not with quotes and theoretical considerations.

YAMANTAKA : I practiced MA for quite a long time but I don't despise quotes, theoretical considerations or opinions. Anyone like you, so sure of yourself, shouldn't be afraid of "less qualified ones". It would be easy to prove them wrong. Trying to disqualify them perhaps only show that you are possibly afraid of a discussion, don't you think so?
Best regards (from someone who has no problems discussing anything with people, even if I think they know less than I do...) :shot:

Gogita9x
5th April 2001, 01:44
a) is philosophy and theory a part of martial arts' study?
b) should it be studied apart from training or just the training will give you an insight?
c) philosophy is useless in the study of a martial art?
d) it's enough to practice with a good teacher and not worry about philosophy?


Well philosophy is integral to the traditional martial arts.
Philosophy is integral to anything in life unless you are insane or temporarily in a fit of uncontrollable emotion.

You can study philosophy, but the way is to formulate your own as an individual. As in you can study martial arts, but you must formulate your own devices based on principles. Stating this those two things go hand in hand.

Study and forming of philosophy is not useless ,especially not in martial arts, b/c philosophy is related to and akin to purpose.

Even with the newer strictly combat based martial arts, their philosophy is to subdue the opponent with whatever aims of their style(extreme pain, speed, efficiency, brutality, gentleness{yeah right !} or whatever).


A good teacher will concentrate on basic techniques and let you know of philosophy of himself and others, but he cannot teach it to you, thats an inner aspect.

Sayonara

Kai boyd

Yamantaka
6th April 2001, 20:05
Hey, Kai! Thank you for your post. It seems this thread is getting back to its main discussion!
Best regards and good keiko
Yamantaka

koshoT
7th April 2001, 00:51
On the topic of philosohpy and Martial Arts I have a very big opinion, but I lack the eloquence to explain it in words. The best I can do is give you this: The following is an exerpt from Hanshi Bruce Jucknik's book "To Fall Seven to Rise Eight". Hanshi Jucknik is on his second visit with Mitose (the man who brought Kosho Ryu Kempo to Hawaii).

" (Mistose) asked, 'What is more important to know, how to move or when to move?' My answer, how to move was wrong. I always thought 'when' dealt with a lot of hard work-outs, traingin and speed drills. The correct answer dealt with mastering the senses.
He explained to me that an elderly person moves in a slumped posture. It becomes easier for them to move in this manner since walking is a falling process. When we are young, we are always trying to dominate earth instead of learning to marry it and become one with it. Therefore, we always fight gravity. As one becomes older, the body will give in to gravity, allowing the posture to be pulled naturally to work with nature instead of against it...
...What he had just done, in a short period of time, was to confuse me and create chaos. my mind was rushing. I knew he was right because he proved it to me. he got up and asked me to move at him quickly, trying to hit him... ...I stood up and as I launched my strike, he moved slowly, but on time. He grabbed me around right nipple, twisted, pinched, and dropped me to my knees...
...he returned with photos of other martial art masters, indicating that these men were to be respected. One was a photo of Ueshiba Morihei, master of Aikido, and the other was a photo of Otsuka Hidiori of Wado Ryu. He said that these two people were masters of the martial arts. Mitose pointed to their postures. 'Don't they look old?' He questioned. I looked at them and saw that they looked old and awkward. Mitose asked, 'Is it because they are old or do they know?' In that moment of my life I felt totally lost. I knew that later inthe evening I would walk into my school, put on my red, white, and blue gi, stand before my students who respected me as a great fighter, and carry inside the knowledge that a little old man had just pinched me and dropped me to my knees."

The only reason I use this story is because Mitose, like Ueshiba, knew. They did not practice their arts without philosophy. In fact both agreed that the philosophy was the art, and everything doen in martial arts are part of the same truth. People have been attempting to to define that truth through all sorts of different philosohpies. So it's not important to study any philosophy, or martial art in particular.... but it is very very important to study that truth that is inherent in everything.

Thank you, for all of those who bothered to read this far. I hope that I haven't gotten off topic too much.

Tom Berkery

Yamantaka
7th April 2001, 16:30
Originally posted by koshoT
... but it is very very important to study that truth that is inherent in everything.
Thank you, for all of those who bothered to read this far. I hope that I haven't gotten off topic too much.
Tom Berkery

YAMANTAKA : No apologies, Tom! We're the ones who should thank you for opening your heart and giving us your opinion, no matter wherever we agree or disagree with you.
Domo arigato gozaimashita