PDA

View Full Version : Aikido Pacifists Defined



TommyK
15th July 2000, 05:52
Greetings,

I was reviewing the 'Aikido as Combat Art' thread and was interested in the pacifist digression. I was contemplating this subject when the latest issue of AIKIDO JOURNAL appeared in my mailbox. The following was written by Mr. Pranin and I quote:

"...In our recent piece on Shindo Yoshinryu jujutsu in Aikido Journal 117, Yukiyoshi Takamura eloquently expresses a similiar concept when commenting on pacifism: "A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence..."

While this is taken out of context, I'd like to get reaction from this forum on the thoughts expressed by Yukiyoshi Takamura. I personally accept this as a truism, with some reservations.

I do think that one must be able to 'walk the talk', and then CHOOSE NOT TO. Those that express the philosophy without being able to do the technique, are not doing real Aikido, but some type of 'New Age' verbiage.

Just one man's view on the subject, I welcome any and all comments on the topic.

Regards,
TommyK

dainippon99
15th July 2000, 07:21
I know a few so called "aikido pacifists who say that the only reason they study aikido is for meditational purposes. They would never fight anyone for any reason. I read this quote somewhere but i cant remember if its even completely right but the jist of it is appropriate. "There is a difference between pacifism and passivism. A pacifist (like tommy said) is ready and able to defend himself but wont kill for moral reasons while a passivist is someone who wont fight at all. For anything. Which are you?"
Just rambling on.

Mike Collins
16th July 2000, 02:20
It is my opinion that it is possible to learn true Aikido and do true Aikido without ever emphasizing or seriously learning how to kill, or seriously maim. I think that mainline Aikido is and can be taught without ever overtly displaying the side of Aikido which is also valid, but a good deal more dangerous.

If a person chooses not to look for or see the small adjustments which can easily be made to make the gentle techniques of Aikido deadly, that is one of several valid choices. Another is to use the deadly side of Aikido to kill someone who is attacking oneself or their family, the one I think I'd be more likely to pursue would be to strike a medium ground, and disable without seriously injuring such an attacker, if possible.

It is all valid Aikido, just different layers of the same art. Question is, how long can you throw someone into a roll and have them come back before they kill you? Hopefully long enough for help to arrive?!

TommyK
16th July 2000, 04:47
Hi Mike,

It is very easy to say that 'small adjustments' can turn a technique from controlling to 'deadly'. However, while I am a firm believer of O Sensei's message, I also feel that repetitive practice re-enforces what you are doing.

Where I practice, we make it a firm part of our practice to 'crank it' to the point of making your partner either 'tap' out or throw themselves out of the hold. The reason for this is to re-enforce the pattern of knowing how much force to use on an attacker. However, we do make sure that each partner respects the other and lets go of the hold at the instant that their partner taps or throws themselves out of the hold.

If one gets to used to 'letting' up on their partner, then they will use the same response when attacked for real. All the well-meaning philosophical talk will not replace the patterning that occurs during strong repetitive practice.

Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting abuse when responding to your partners attack, just a strong response to an equally strong attack.

Regards,
TommyK

Mike Collins
16th July 2000, 08:40
Okay, here's my take on "cranking it on" to the point of getting your partner to tap out or roll away because of pain:

I have trained for the majority of my martial art life in Aikido at a school that does not particularly stress combat effectiveness, but does make reference to the possibilities, with explanations and allows some practicing at that stuff. I have also trained a little with Jujutsu people who make a big point of combat effectiveness. In having taken ukemi for average practicioners of both, it is my opinion that the Aikido people are more effective on the whole. It seems that Jujutsu people (that I've trained with) bail out as soon as a technique forms, before there is any real effect.

I also beleive that it is impossible to know from training what level of "crank" is required in a real situation, and that consistently training to a painful tap makes you no more prepared to take technique to the point of break or unconsciousness than to practice to a healthy stretch. Neither is the real deal, and if you train your mind to believe that one is, that in itself is dangerous.

Practicing to a healthy limberness and stretch with a consciousness that in reality, more is needed is, in my humble opinion more safe on several levels.

No disrespect, just my opinions.

George Ledyard
16th July 2000, 11:46
Originally posted by TommyK

I do think that one must be able to 'walk the talk', and then CHOOSE NOT TO. Those that express the philosophy without being able to do the technique, are not doing real Aikido, but some type of 'New Age' verbiage.

Saotome Sensei has always said the same thing. "If you are weak, non-violence has no meaning. It's not a choice, it's just wishful thinking."

Aikido is supposed to be about the balance of natural energies. There is an ethical dimension to that balance. But no where have I ever found any indication that O-Sensei was person who "would not fight anyone for any reason". That he was a pacifist is true I think, if by that you mean someone who is opposed to war and believes in doing everything possible to promote Peace.

But Aikido was never about passive resistance in the way that the followers of Gandhi expressed it. They would sacrifice their lives and not lift a finger in their own defense. Aikido is about defending ones self but it puts a positive value on the life of the attacker and trying, if possible, to preserve that life while defending the greater good of the community. I think that those who will not fight for any reason too often exemplify a kind of unnatural imbalance of idealism over physical reality. We are members of the animal kingdom. We have been given an instinct for self-preservation. We also have the natural inclination to protect others, especially our family and tribe. Many people who style themselves as non-violent have in a sense short-circuited what is natural, what was given to us as part of our survival throughout evolution. They do this as a reaction against the violence that exists when these natural instincts get distorted and produce violent behavior. But extreme non-violence is just as out of balance as violence is.

Imagine that O-Sensei was present when violent thugs set upon an innocent person. Does anyone honestly believe that in his non-violence he would allow himself to be killed (which of course would mean he could no longer protect the innocent person) rather than hurt another? Surely he would have tried various ways to persuade the attackers to end their attack. Surely he would have used the least destructive means to protect the innocent person that would be effective. But there is no way that he would simply have sacrificed himself on the assumption that his moral strength would persuade the attackers not to harm their innocent victim. In fact it is quite clear to me from my own readings of O-Sensei's writings that if the attackers did not back down and instead delivered a strong attack with intention that the attackers would be destroyed. Aikido techniques are to be used to protect the world. The ethical dimension is about what the purpose is for the use of the technique. As far as I can see, the reason to use technique is to restore the imbalance that is created by violent behavior (which O-Sensei points out is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality). The restoration of that imbalance can be the destruction of the violent individual if his behavior makes that the only way for balance to be restored.


[Edited by George Ledyard on 07-16-2000 at 05:50 AM]

TommyK
16th July 2000, 22:34
Hi Mike,

'Cranking it' is the only way that one can see the technique will work for real, when necessaary. Remember, this is 'cranking it' with a non-resisting partner (unless you are doing this in a self-defense exercise or randori), how will you know how much to 'crank it' against an opponent who is pounding you.

I appreciate Mr. Ledyard seeing my point, and I hope you can too. I appreciate your viewpoint, and I respect your vision of what you say. But, for me, I'm more comfortable in knowing how far I have to go to get the technique to work in the real world.

By the way, I know of schools, who have taken this practice further and have had students who have ripped ligaments and broken bones. Our school, in the 15 years I have been there, have had nothing worse then a few light sprains from this type of activity.

If you ever come to the Big Apple, I invite you to contact me to watch a class, and see what we do.

Regards,
TommyK

Mike Collins
17th July 2000, 06:33
Thanks, I appreciate the offer.

I'm not sure we disagree that much except on one item. I think that taking technique to the point of a good stretch is not too different from "craking it on" with a partner who is not resisting as long as care is taken to protect that partner.

I only think that it is dangerous to believe that you are learning how to make technique work by cranking it on. If the emphasis is on learning to affect the center rather than the joint,you are probably safe, but hurting joints by cranking on technique is a practice to fail (in my opinion). This is based on a little bit of experience, and a lot of opinionation. I am 6'3" and almost 300 lbs. and it is a rare individual who can hurt me with technique, but many good Aikidoists have moved me (without any of that agreeable "dance" crap), by affecting my mind and center.

I am not saying that you are not practicing to affect the center, only I hope, clarifying some terms.

Daniel Pokorny
17th July 2000, 18:01
Practice, regardless of whether it's soft and slow or hard and fast is just that, practice. Hopefully most people will not have to prove out their degree of skill in the streets.
For those who have though, I'll bet more often than not you couldn't pre-determine to what degree you were willing to go during the altercation. People that have not experienced a life-threatening situation seem to be under the impression that through their Aikido training they will have so much self control and skill that they will be able to somehow regulate the amount of damage they do. This is of course an illusion (unless you're at Saotome's level of ability) that becomes quite evident once they actually get hit or injured.

Unfortunately, the actions you'll take when the instinct for survival and self-preservation really kicks in will only be realized through experience. And even those actions will vary greatly with each experience. We may well have good intentions to start with, but in the trench those intentions can (and usually do) change drastically when you're trying to save your butt.

Until you've been there, any discussions regarding your actions during those situations are merely theory anyway.

Regards,

Daniel Pokorny

Mike Collins
17th July 2000, 18:36
I don't know if it qualified as life or death (I could have fallen on this guy and accidentally killed him, there was that much difference in size), but I have used Aikido in an altercation with a drunk who got into my house. Fact is, I felt like I had a week to see everything he was trying to do, and my mind was amazingly clear throughout the event. In my younger years I had a lot of fights, and never had any idea what happened once they started, it was just like, "it's on".

In this situation I actually had time to think "how can I control this guy without letting him bleed on me or my family?". I tried a nikkyo on him, felt it not having much effect, and put in for real, I felt his wrist snap, and he acted like I had just hit him with a wet napkin, no effect.

I had the presence of mind to switch to Sankyo, took his structure away from him and got him out o f the house. I eventually had to choke him out to end the situation and sat on him (literally) until the police showed up. I learned two things from this:

1. Force and pain don't work well enough to rely on them. And you don't learn in practice what it takes to make someone who isn't cooperative submit.

2. Taking a person's structure (center) works.

Daniel Pokorny
17th July 2000, 19:57
Originally posted by Mike Collins
I don't know if it qualified as life or death (I could have fallen on this guy and accidentally killed him, there was that much difference in size), but I have used Aikido in an altercation with a drunk who got into my house. Fact is, I felt like I had a week to see everything he was trying to do, and my mind was amazingly clear throughout the event. In my younger years I had a lot of fights, and never had any idea what happened once they started, it was just like, "it's on".

In this situation I actually had time to think . I tried a nikkyo on him, felt it not having much effect, and put in for real, I felt his wrist snap, and he acted like I had just hit him with a wet napkin, no effect.

I had the presence of mind to switch to Sankyo, took his structure away from him and got him out o f the house. I eventually had to choke him out to end the situation and sat on him (literally) until the police showed up. I learned two things from this:

1. Force and pain don't work well enough to rely on them. And you don't learn in practice what it takes to make someone who isn't cooperative submit.

2. Taking a person's structure (center) works.

Mike,

I know what you mean, drunks don't really react to pain due to the numbing effect of the booze and the lack of coherent thought patterns. Man, if you're 6'3 and close to 300 lbs, this guy must have been really drunk! I have a question though, you said at the time your thoughts were, "how can I control this guy without letting him bleed on me or my family?"

What do suppose your thoughts would have been had this guy been armed?

Curious,

Daniel Pokorny

Mike Collins
18th July 2000, 16:14
How can I survive? (I'm no saint). Aikido reacts in a coresponding manner to the attack/threat. If one of us has to attone for our karma today, it may as well be him.

TommyK
19th July 2000, 03:39
Greetings Mike,

No one is a saint, the ones that are, are dead by definition. I hear what you have been saying, and I hope you got my point. I think there is no substitue for knowledge(technique), but we have to modify the amount of cooperation (passivity and concern for our training partner)on the anvil of experience (real life). Therefore, I will look more into removing ones structure (center) while applying my technique. I hope you will come closer to 'cranking it', with appropriate care and respect, while you devolve your partners structure.

Regards,
TommyK

Mike Collins
19th July 2000, 07:10
Actually, my practice tends to be more how to be effective without hurting people. "Cranking it" for me looks a lot like being a bully. I think we're pretty much on the same page though.

I think effective Aikido is completely possible without any effort to learn or teach "combat" technique. (It doesn't have a lot of flavor without a little bit of reality, though). There are a lot of different philosophies possible here. Just because it isn't my taste, doesn't make it less valid.

When it comes to actually needing this stuff in real life, I still believe that practicing genuine, but soft Aikido, is still enough to keep a person safe, but I refuse to hold anyone to the fire and say they aren't sincere if they hurt someone. Intent has to count for something. If you practice to hurt, and in a real situation, hurt someone, is that because you intend to hurt someone, or because in the heat of the moment, control is less important than survival?

I personally always parctice way soft just before tests just so I have some room left to account for the extra juice brought out by the test process (thankfully and hopefully all behind me). I wonder if that has anything to do with the success I had the one time I needed it.

Neil Hawkins
19th July 2000, 07:50
Although jujutsu is my primary interest, I have attended many aikido classes over the years and have observed many more. I have noticed that there are lots different approaches to training and in relation to the 'cranking' discussion going on here I have a question.

I have seen schools in which the nage just flies regardles of what the uke does, in one instance the fall was totally different from the throw. In other schools the nage actually made the uke work for the throw, if it wasn't the correct angle or tension they wouldn't move.

Now I would believe the within reason the latter is better, it's two sided, you blend with your partner rather than blending with your concept of what your partner should be doing. To me the correct application of technique and the gradual increase of pressure during a lock is more beneficial, than merely assuming the position. Is this the case?

Am I correct in assuming that the technique should be applied gently but with enough force to hold the lock, (rather than 'cranked', a term that to me means fast, thus losing control), or, are your saying that tension is not necessary during the application of the lock.

As an aside, Mike, I was taught that whilst useful at times pain is not the aim of most locks. The aim is to imobilise the attacker, initially physiology rather than pain prevent movement, the next step if he still resists is to damage the joint so that the limb becomes useless. He may not feel the pain but he can't punch you any more at least not with that arm. That's why I advocate shoulder or elbow locks over wrist locks, you destroy more of the weapon.

Regards

Neil

Mike Collins
19th July 2000, 15:41
That all sounds like a reasonable translation of my intent. By taking the structure, I don't necessarily mean destroy structure, only lead uke's balance away from the structure, rather than trying to go through their strength and, hence their structure.

That is a good re-cap of what I'm afraid has become a bit of a nit-picking converstaion (on my part, I'm afraid- mea culpa)

TomW
29th July 2000, 06:56
Hello.

I'm new to this forum but I wanted to respond to this thread. I read the article mentioned by TommyK and, while taken out of context, I also agree with this statement if you view aikido as a viable martial art(which I do).

However, I want to suggest that if you manage to make it to the pin, you're way past the "point of impending doom" of your attacker, and you have already managed to SUCCESSFULLY choose non-violence.

I think that the "moment of impending doom" happens when attacker/uke crosses ma'ai. For most of us this is when they have crossed ma'ai and are "reacting" to your attemi or presented had, but with the really accomplished practitioners, it's before the uke crosses ma'ai.

I think it is relatively easy to learn how to maim and kill and almost as easy to chose non-violence(provided you don't mind getting your ass kicked), but it takes a serious spiritual depth to stand there on the line untill the "moment of impending doom" and then choose non-violence and be able to pull it off.

I'm not trying to be Gung-Ho here, I don't view aikido as some killer matial art. It is a spiritual journey for me and even after twelve years of study, I have no illusinos as to the effectiveness (or lack thereof)of the techniques (glad it worked out for you Mikey, but I'm 5'6" on a good day and 140lbs. so I have to get it right the first time), I realize I probaply have 15-20 yaers 'till this is a reallity and that's OK, I'm not in a hurry, I just think that if I'm going to realize the full potential of aikido as an art, martial or otherwise, I have to look at this stuff honestly and objectivly.

Respectfully,
Tom Wharton

George Ledyard
30th July 2000, 12:07
Originally posted by TomW
Hello.
However, I want to suggest that if you manage to make it to the pin, you're way past the "point of impending doom" of your attacker, and you have already managed to SUCCESSFULLY choose non-violence.


Originally posted by TomW
Hello.

However, I want to suggest that if you manage to make it to the pin, you're way past the "point of impending doom" of your attacker, and you have already managed to SUCCESSFULLY choose non-violence.

I would like to point out that Aikido isn't a "submission" fighting art. If you have had occasion to do Aikido with someone who is experienced in submission fighting, in which the opponent is either knocked out or submits because he is locked up in such a way that he must submit or be injured or choked out, you will know that in the majority of Aikido pins there is nothing that forces the opponent to tap out. If the opponent wants to really beat the pin he usually can eventually do so in most cases. A good ground fighter can work his way out if given enough time.

Originally these pins were not "submission' type pins but were rather immobilizations that simply held the opponent down long enough to access your backup weapon and dispatch the attacker. This is represented in symbolic form in the older styles of Aikido by a knife hand strike after the pin has taken place. There are plenty of photos of O-Sensei himself ending his technique this way.

There are some pins that seem to have the potential to lock an opponent up in such a way that he has to submit but in many cases if you really look at those pins and practice with a partner who really resists you will find that there are only two ways that you would get into the pin: a) you executed a locking technique or atemi that disabled the attacker before you applied the immobilization or b) the pin wasn't really a pin at all but was really a breaking technique that was executed very quickly and powerfully as a follow-up to the original takedown. If you try these techniques against a strong and experienced ground fighter you will find out that these techniques really can't be done the way we do them in class.

The point I am trying to make is that much of what we take to be the non-violent nature of Aikido exists in the dojo but doesn't exist in the same way outside the dojo when real martial application is required.

TomW
30th July 2000, 21:32
George.

I believe you have miss-understood me. I'm not arguing the effectiveness or lack thereof of the pins. I'm suggesting that in order to have any option other than maiming/killing an attacker, we ought to focus on the beginning of the "technique", not the end.

As you pointed out, the pins were originally ment to give you time to access your backup weapon and I agree. I also think that the original point of the "techniques" was to not have to pin anyone, but to deliver a maiming or killing blow as the attacker crossed ma'ai, and this allowed you the time to access a weapon, if necessary.

It is this innitial blow that I'm talking about. In aikido we train to throw atemi and then slip this blow (atemi) past the lethal landing point and perform a "technique" on our uke and pin them untill they tap out. Furthermore, ukes are trained to react to these atemi, and this reaction is what allows us the time to complete the technique.

This reaffirms the point you made about the non-violent nature of aikido existing in the dojo. It also reaffirms the point I'm trying to make: The attacker must react to the initial atemi, either before it lands, or after. The attacker reacting after it lands is too late, we have delivered a maiming/killing blow and defeated our purpose for studying aikido vs. another martial art. Making the attacker react before atemi lands is dificult at best (how many times have you pulled an atemi when working with a beginner?) and increadibly hard when faced with an attacker outside of the "agreement" of aikido in the dojo. It requires precision and must be a valid threat. Furthermore, to execute this atemi cleanly without tapping into anger takes a tremendous depth that only years of self-study can bring. Making an attacker react to the initial atemi before it lands is what I view as successfuly chosing non-violence.

As to the pin, I think this only allows us to make a timely exit from the scene.

Respoectfully,
Tom Wharton