Aikido, Daito Ryu and Sport

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deshijack
[ a. Aikido in general naturally changes and adapts to the current society ( of competition as you put it) and evolves a new leg; sport. Aikido evolved from Daito ryu and other bujutsu into a budo art. Just as Japan evolved from warring states to a modern Nation; from swords to plowshares. Aikido's next step could be sport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But Daito ryu did NOT evolve into aikido; Daito ryu continues on it's course (evolving in it's own way). Aikido is separate art, with it's own techniques and philosophies; if these philosophies change, then it should no longer be cosidered aikido, any more than cubist paintings can be considered realist.
__________________
Jason C. Diederich
http://www.geocities.com/shaolinninjamarine/



The original thread has ended. I thought it be fair to address the question.


I am reminded of I heard once. It was regarding philosophy, " the more understand of what we don't know, the less realize all things aren't so different. The longer you live the more you realize all things are more the same then they are different."

It is fair to proclaim Aikido's originality. According to Stanley Pranin, Aikido has two pillars; Daito Ryu being one. Agreed Aikido is a separate art built on pillars.

Ueshiba M. said that no one was following him. If you look at his Aikido and those that followed I would say he was right. The following generations changed Aikido. Many branches/splinter Aikido’s; different focus, different school and style philosophy (not religious so much, but direction). Aikido was changed went international. Americans approach and focus is different then French. Different focuses things are highlighted while others are dropped or ignored. Good example is the sport element.

Abstract Art doesn't accurately represent a form or object.
Cubism, Neoplasticism, and Abstract Expressionism, are Abstract Art. Pablo Picasso the most famous cubist started out painting in a realism style figures. Like most artists, painters are artists and are not defined as what they paint, but what media they choose to work in; sculptors, drawers, painters. Painters have a range(s) of expression that can be in forms of cubism or realism. In otherwords, painters can and do paint in a variety of different styles, like Abstract or realism. Abstract art is the expression, that doesn't accurately represent a form or object. Abstract is the distortion of a form or object, and all the other fundamental elements of all painting that evolved to the period of Abstraction still exist in Abstract Art.


The point is Aikido is Abstract art. the proceeding generation further expanded on the Abstraction. These new styles of Aikido had developed new movements based on the original Abstraction.

Daito ryu is an Abstraction just as Aikido. Daito ryu is not based or draws on Aikido. Daito ryu period proceeds Aikido's period. Aikido may be cubism with elements of Abstract Expressionism. Daito ryu may have started cubism.

I would not consider Daito ryu as realism to illustrate. Realism is a method of painting that represents objects and forms accurately. Daito ryu jujutsuka aren't killing their ukes on the battle field.

I realize this is long but this is what I meant originally. Aikido may have absorbed other arts ( which has been argued and the common belief is that Aikido mainly took from Daito ryu and modified the waza to fit the philosophy) or not. The point is we are taking about arts of the same family where one altered the other to become to be less violent which is how sport came about.

[Ernesto Lemke]

Dear Jack,

Let me first state that my native tongue isn’t English so it’ll be a challenge for me to be accurate in finding the right words.
Being a painter myself I have stumbled on the many parallels regarding the process of achieving control over form and releasing form many times. In fact that would be the very crux of my search as a painter as well as a budoka. However I find a lot of what you’re saying to be somewhat simplistic and not very consistent. It would be oversimplifying the case when you say art is merely this or that. As in (the art of) aikido, it’s exactly that what YOU make of it. Spiritually, philosophically, mentally and physically.
I agree that the way the Founder, and perhaps a few of his disciples, practiced aikido is abstract in that sense that it evolved from something you call realism. The abstraction however is not in the form but the form is the manifestation of the abstraction. Though I have a very clear idea of what this means I’m sure by just looking at these words a lot of people won’t understand. When O-Sensei said: “You can not define it in words. The Gods won’t allow you to” I can sense (on the humble level I’m on) a bit of what he meant.
I guess I was triggered by your statement that realism is merely a way of representing a form or object from the physical world or ‘reality’ and that abstract is the expression that doesn’t necessarily represent form. Again, I think it all depends on the (abstract) source you consult. O-Sensei’s greatest achievement, I think, was taking ‘his’ budo form to the ultimate and reaching enlightenment. Budo was his way but not necessarily everyone’s way. It’s no coincidence the one person even O-Sensei claimed understood him best was Masahisa Goi Sensei. Not even a Budoka but someone who also had reached enlightenment.
When you are inclined to make a distinction between realism and abstraction, as you do, you are merely looking at the outer form and state that the one evolved from the latter whereas it’s more likely to find the same conclusions in different disciplines.

You can see the same in painting. Picasso goal was not to paint for the purpose of inventing a new form but finding a way that represented his ideas about perception best. I mean, when he discovered cubism, he didn’t think “I finally found the ultimate shape! The one form which dictates and embraces all.” He went back to figure-ism many times as well. I do think however Picasso’s way of representing things represented the idea of reality better then a lot of so called realist painters. But then again, what is reality?
The problem is finding a common ground where people have agreed on certain definitions in order to get rid of a lot of distractions while debating.
It’s in the way we perceive things. Though the way it is represented tells a lot about the way the maker perceived it, by merely LOOKING at the representation you can get easily fooled. The manifestation of the experience is merely that; a manifestation. This in itself tells little about the inner dimension unless you have an understanding where that particular individual stood and came from OR you have reached a certain degree of development yourself. I really feel there’s no difference in realism or abstraction. Both originate from the same source.

I think it’s fine there’s a lot of diversity in any art form for people are divers and different. There’s absolutely no way to say that “this way is the ultimate way for everyone” BUT I do think there are levels of degree in perception and experience on a pure spiritual level. Were you are in that process is were you need to be. That there are higher levels in life to develop is something we can only hope to accomplish and try to do. There’s no way to look beyond the boundaries of your present state of comprehension. You can only look back upon things and hopefully see you have grown.
Best regards,

Ernesto Lemke

I want to correct a mistake I made incase it causes confusion. in my first post, Jason is replying to an example I made in the Thread "Bad News for Aikikai People. He made a very good point upon my example of how Aikido can evolve further and that step could be sport. I was not very clear. As a result, to explain my misleading post , I created this new thread. In addition, Jason's post was rich and complex in ideas that warranted, I felt. a detailed response. So there you have it. I goofed.


Ernesto, you also bring equally complex and sophisticated points. At this time I am unable to comment as equally. I canl say your command of English is impressive, like YAMANTAKA as well.

I can say there are many points you wrote very well that I was trying to covey. Particularly, this statement, “ I really feel there’s no difference in realism or abstraction. Both originate from the same source.” This was exactly what I was trying to say concerning Aikido, Daito, and sport in my post. Aikido and Daito ryu are both abstractions and not realism. Sport is an abstraction and not realism. Realism in concern to martial arts would be battlefield application, such as kenjutsu. On the battlefield life and death take place. Aikido, Daito ryu, and sport are not battlefield application. Granted Daito ryu is closer to battlefield application but from my understandings Daito ryu immobilizes attackers with the possibility to injure and /or cause death. Unlike sword or gun applications which had one function and that was to kill instantly. Aikido like sport has no intent to kill or injure. Yes, injury is a part of a small number of some types of sports. Take for example American football, hockey and boxing. But these sports have restrictions to protect from harm, and also the loser is not the one killed. The loser can go on to play another day. Aikido is a contact activity that has been modified and is similar to sport than to battlefield applications. But philosophically and physically. Hence my parallel to abstract and not realism.

I am able to make one last response. In agreement in a major one of yours. I incidentally feel is a good one that echo's what others have pointed out that I may am not see clearly. From your post you said, “O-Sensei’s greatest achievement, I think, was taking ‘his’ budo form to the ultimate and reaching enlightenment. Budo was his way but not necessarily everyone’s way. It’s no coincidence the one person even O-Sensei claimed understood him best was Masahisa Goi Sensei. Not even a Budoka but someone who also had reached enlightenment. I whole heartily agree. I don’t think any of his ushideshi’s did reach the same goal as Ueshiba did in the spiritual grounds. This may be why there are so many different styles of Aikido with different focuses, personalities or missions then Ueshiba’s original. Aikido is very diverse both spiritually and among it’s splinter schools. Aikido is unique in it’s spiritual choices which I feel are not practiced as original intended based on your comment of enlightenment.

Concerning what others have stressed that spirtiual enlightement can't be derived if Aikido is a sport. I echo your comment that no Budoka understood Ueshiba. Therefore, Aikido's path to spiritual enlightenment died with Ueshiba. No one is following ( has obtain such enlightenment and contined this pillar) the spiritual path. Struggling, yes. I feel the spiritual attainment many seek out of today's Aikido or the level of spritual training can also be gained via sport. In sport there is a port for spiritual training and attainment. Aikidoka of today are not getting the same intense spiritual training. Today's aikido spiritual level could easily plug and play into the sport port. That is one could practice Aikido's spritiual element in sport and have an equal chance of attaining enlightenment as in the dojo. Granted the dojo is a special place that sport can't emluate at this time. This may be draw back.

I am sorry that I have only touch on a few major points. Like I said before I see many similarities in what you say.