Aiki as a concept- why all the fuss?

[Dan Harden]

"drops you on your butt with the slightest contact....makes you stick to the tori, impairs your breathing, messes up your vision, makes you nauseous, freezes/locks your body........"
Actually that stuff is precisely why you GET "IP detractors" in the first place.
Amazing Randi has a million bucks cash for anyone that replicate such paranormal abilities in the lab----and nobody has even come close to doing so.
Are there no widows and orphans that could use the money/help?
What is lacking is a precise definition of what is exactly meant by "IP" at any given time and discussion.

That is a very understandable and reasonable comment, Chris. All that said everything we train is about conditioning the body, albeit in a way most of us have never trained before. Everything we do can be explained and taught and defended mechanically. I have two world champion Bjjers, Olympic wrestlers and other wrestlers (I was a wrestler myself) and many MMA types among the traditional martial artists who train this. All of whom would agree with your comments instantly.
However, none of us would recognize your comments as belonging to or pertaining to what we actually train. I think it is the more traditional aiki guys who fall for the overly-cooperative nonsense seen in many of their practices; muscle cramping around joints to lock them, freezing/shocking diaphragms, jumping and seizing up many other antics as well as the stiff, overly complicated, Frankenstien jujutsu moves, and connecting to the opponents center are never going to work on non-cooperative players. They are simply part of a tradition and kata approach within those arts. Most people I hang with are as uninterested in that as you are.

That said, internal power training to create aiki is completely practical and pragmatic. When it comes to budo, if I cannot make it work in cross platform combatives with and without weapons, or see it improve my health and my game, I am not interested. I have better things to do.

[Dan Harden]

Yamaguchi used to say this quite a bit (but I think that people mostly ignored him ). Actually, Moriteru Ueshiba said the same thing here:
"Quietness in turmoil" (as it is translated on the Aikikai English web site) is actually more commonly translated as..."stillness in motion" (動中静). I mentioned some other instances "stillness in motion" in this article (Hint: one of them is Yamaguchi, and another is Taiji's "Song of the 13 Postures").
Best,
Chris

As you have seen and continue to professionally translate, the aiki arts are firmly rooted in Tibetan and Chinese internal practices. The repeated quotations on internal training, solo training, from so many teachers from Daito ryu and aikido support the case of these practices being known throughout Asia. I see the ignorance of these facts by so many practitioners in the aiki arts indicative of the teachers other oft quoted comments; "Only teach one or two the real art."
In fact, considering that so many aiki teachers in both Daito ryu and Aikido talk about:
*Solo training
*Breath power
*Changing the body
*Aiki not being learned in techniques
*Quoting well known Chinese internal methods
and then saying
*It was always taught in a clandestine manner
*Only teach one or two the real art
Perhaps we should take them at their word in both aspects;
1. Aiki is about solo training and internal practices known throughout Asia.
2. They in fact DON'T teach most of their own people.
Maybe they are just stating the facts!
It certainly would explain a lot of the confusion among their students

[Cliff Judge]

Then he goes on to give the secret to it. "They sound like Zen koans, but with our bodies, we can gain clear understanding of such ideas. We forge such a body, and such a mind, rather than simply trying to learn techniques."

Here we have another aikido shihan that most looked up to, who is stating outright that techniques aren't the way to become great. He's echoing Sagawa in that one must change the body. And he's touching on immovability as the others did (Ueshiba, Horikawa, Sagawa, etc).

I could read this as being an explanation of the traditional kata-based teaching method of koryu though. "The purpose of training the techniques is not simply to learn the techniques, but to bring about subconscious changes in how the body reacts to certain stimulus."

[Dan Harden]

I could read this as being an explanation of the traditional kata-based teaching method of koryu though. "The purpose of training the techniques is not simply to learn the techniques, but to bring about subconscious changes in how the body reacts to certain stimulus."

Or its that statement from Sagawa: Aiki is about training the body. Only amateurs think you can learn aiki from techniques...."

It is more compelling reading the arguments stated repeatedly in his book and to his students when you consider that Sagawa stated that Takeda told him to hide his solo training. Which he did till late in life,when he went on to say that once he started to actually teaching his people? He stated that they started to actually get aiki.
Once you realize that most all of the higher level Asian arts have solo training, and that they share the specific reasons for that, many things become clear.
Then again you wrote here:
"There is no solo training in Daito ryu...." Cliff Judge on Edudo
Even though your own teacher taught solo training in a public room, and his teacher spoke about it and taught it. This isn't as confusing as it first appears when one consideres my previous post:

In fact, considering that so many aiki teachers in both Daito ryu and Aikido talk about:
*Solo training
*Breath power
*Changing the body
*Aiki not being learned in techniques
*Quoting well known Chinese internal methods
and then saying
*It was always taught in a clandestine manner
*Only teach one or two the real art
Perhaps we should take them at their word in both aspects;
1. Aiki is about solo training and internal practices known throughout Asia.
2. They in fact DON'T teach most of their own people.
Maybe they are just stating the facts!
It certainly would explain a lot of the confusion among their students

Not all things are taught to everyone. Some branches are being taught solo training in open rooms to white belts, others hide it till later. Again the more compelling case is that what was shown to them (in DR) was shown to me (in DR), and has been shared with me by many other teachers in traditional arts, all doing essentially the same stuff from China to Indonesia to Japan.
I don't really care other than to point out the obvious to both DR and Aikido people so that they see it's place in the greater tradition of the Asian arts past a single entity.

[Koshu]

"drops you on your butt with the slightest contact....makes you stick to the tori, impairs your breathing, messes up your vision, makes you nauseous, freezes/locks your body........"

Actually that stuff is precisely why you GET "IP detractors" in the first place.

Amazing Randi has a million bucks cash for anyone that replicate such paranormal abilities in the lab----and nobody has even come close to doing so.

Are there no widows and orphans that could use the money/help?

What is lacking is a precise definition of what is exactly meant by "IP" at any given time and discussion.

Your comments are exactly why I dropped the post from which you quote into this thread.

All of these things can be demoed, allowing for various flavors of ukemi, to Dan's point, to demonstrate said effect: i.e. some of the things I listed require some degree of cooperative ukemi as done within the Daito-ryu lineage of arts, but others can be done against full-fledged resistance. I think this kind of continuum is good to experience to put internal skills as a whole in the right perspective: like many things in the martial arts, the more intricate and low percentage, the more you tune down the resistance (560-degree spinning back kicks work better against assistants holding boards than against live sparring partners). In any case, whether or not a given adept is interested in Randi's proposition or not does not invalidate one's first-hand experience of such skills.

Argue away, or train away: one's choice.

[Koshu]

Add to the list of things to argue about: drying cold, wet sheets with one's body heat.

Harvard scientists have spent decades studying, documenting and ultimately validating (albeit without determining the specific manner in which it's done) that Tibetan monks can use internal skills to raise their body temperatures beyond what's conventionally possible for humans (reference: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002.../09-tummo.html). Can the monks do this in a blinding snow storm (akin to being in a UFC cage), or does it have to be in a serene practice environment (akin to a Daito-ryu dojo) as suggested in the article? Regardless, the skills have been verified by first-hand objective account, and the adepts don't seem to give a rip about Randi's proposition. I also doubt they argued with the Dalai Lama and their prospective senior monks for as long as people have here about IP/IT (again, going on decades), but rather took on the work and got the skills.

There's also the iron shirt demonstration by the Shaolin practitioner on Fight Science. OK, not a Harvard / academic research effort, but nonetheless scientifically measured and documented. Maybe that guy got paid for his appearance on that show. But maybe it's invalid because he didn't specifically go after Randi's money, and/or Shaolin iron shirt shouldn't be categorized as "internal" (though, like "internal" training, it involves utilization of meditative practices that result in physiological changes to the body).

[Koshu]

the greater tradition of the Asian arts past a single entity

Hakkoryu refers to this on its public website as "inyodo" (the study of yin and yang).

Ryuho Okuyama was a kyoju-dairi in Daito-ryu, and he carried over aiki into Hakkoryu. I think it's interesting that, despite the traditional Asian medicine in the system (both on one's own behalf and applied to others) being different than aiki on various technical levels, the label of "inyodo" was used to describe what we're going after as a whole. It really is, or at least can be, that simple. The rest is hard work.

[Cliff Judge]

Or its that statement from Sagawa: Aiki is about training the body. Only amateurs think you can learn aiki from techniques...."

This is a different quote by a different teacher, from a different martial art. Why do you assume they are making the same point? I think your assumptions include your conclusions.

[Chris Li]

I could read this as being an explanation of the traditional kata-based teaching method of koryu though. "The purpose of training the techniques is not simply to learn the techniques, but to bring about subconscious changes in how the body reacts to certain stimulus."

I suppose that you could - but I went to a lot of classes with Yamaguchi and that wouldn't be my interpretation.

Best,

Chris

[cxt]

Dan

I have no doubt of it.

But you also take the time to define exactly what you are doing and how it works--and why.

[cxt]

Koshu


"argue away or train away"

Why can't you do both?

"In any case whether or not a given adept is interested in Randi's proposition or not dos not invalidate ones first-hand experiences and skills"

Yeah....except it kind does.

Like I said, are there no widows and orphans that could use the cash? If you have the ability to do the stuff you listed in your first post---and you could so easily pay for medication for a sick child---and you refuse to do so? Well you might be a great fighter---but a terrible human being. And I would not wish to study under such a person. There is much more to life than fighting........and much more effective and efficient ways to do it.

At the very least it requires a good explanation as to why one would refuse.....given the good that can be done for so little effort.

More to the point however, the claims were made on-line, where "first hand experience" is not possible.

So one can't fully "invalidate" such claims on-line--but one can't prove them either. And burden of proof is on the one making the claim/s.

Oh.....and the monks did so in a LAB---take cash away and you still have LAB reproducible results.

Not only claims, not groupthink claims, LAB reproducible results.

[Koshu]

Koshu


"argue away or train away"

Why can't you do both?

"In any case whether or not a given adept is interested in Randi's proposition or not dos not invalidate ones first-hand experiences and skills"

Yeah....except it kind does.

Like I said, are there no widows and orphans that could use the cash? If you have the ability to do the stuff you listed in your first post---and you could so easily pay for medication for a sick child---and you refuse to do so? Well you might be a great fighter---but a terrible human being. And I would not wish to study under such a person. There is much more to life than fighting........and much more effective and efficient ways to do it.

At the very least it requires a good explanation as to why one would refuse.....given the good that can be done for so little effort.

More to the point however, the claims were made on-line, where "first hand experience" is not possible.

So one can't fully "invalidate" such claims on-line--but one can't prove them either. And burden of proof is on the one making the claim/s.

Oh.....and the monks did so in a LAB---take cash away and you still have LAB reproducible results.

Not only claims, not groupthink claims, LAB reproducible results.

I totally understand that someone would want empirical, scientific proof before committing to a given path of training. Again, the points you make could be valid and logical in an online discussion and/or over a beer, from a western-centric perspective.

Maybe Dan and others with a compelling degree of IP will do the lab thing one day, or take Randi up on his offer one day. Maybe they won't. There's a premium being put on that stuff, and unfair value judgments being put on people, that have nothing to do with the training, individual investigation of and uptake of the skills, and/or transfer of the skills from generation to generation. That's what really matters. I'm glad Sagawa, Ueshiba, Okuyama, et al didn't wait for lab results on Takeda to come in (I have a feeling Takeda would've balked at playing nice with the researchers as well as the orphans) before committing to their Daito-ryu training. Hands-on was then, as now, adequate. The data may be qualitative (e.g. the stuff I mentioned above), but it is still data. I'm sorry that doesn't play in Peoria among the INTJs, but well, these inyodoists ain't from Peoria. A number of us in the current discussion are better off that they simply adhered to the historical, traditional cultural paradigms and busted their tails to give us something sublime and wonderful to inherit.

Anyway, plenty of westerners have done their due diligence and drawn their respective conclusions in favor of the IP's veracity. I suspect you'll get your data points in due time.

[cxt]

"from a western perspective"

No.....pretty sure that the various Asian cultures I am familiar with would require "proof"--after all, how many Koryu and CMA had challenge matches with people wishing to "test" said skills.

"unfair value judgments"..........IMO its only "unfair" when people make claims they can't support. Again, burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Period.

"I'm glad.........didn't wait for lab results on Takeda to come in"

And I'm glad they didn't post nonsense on-line........not that I would have expected them too. But as long as you seem to be mixing modern tech with historical figures........

"hands on was then as is now adequate"

Not for claims made on-line they are not.

Other wise I expect you to admit I am your superior in IP, I know more than you and since I know more than you about it.....you are off base in your understanding of IP..........which is a fact because I say so on-line.......right?

"plenty of westerners.......due diligence.......in favor of IP veracity........I suspect you'll get your data points in due time"

And how exactly do they define IP?

And how long must we wait for said data? How many people are training in various art worldwide and for how many decades? And why don't we have the data already?

Given the numbers and time----we should have had it already..... unless of course the results/abilities are not "teachable" in the usual sense of the word.

[Koshu]

"Proof" is what Takeda provided the other Daito-ryu licensed instructors I mentioned (and applies to the koryu and CMA challenge matches you mentioned). So, in centuries past, they "posted" claims of prowess not on the Internet, but by word of mouth, in writing in public places, etc. That didn't obviate the need for skeptics and interested parties alike to go first hand to the source and take ukemi, and get their eyes "opened . . . to budo", as Ueshiba said about getting proof from Takeda.

"Burden of proof" is largely a western concept. The concept of ki, as I discussed in my initially entry into this thread, is relatively ubiquitous in, and inherent to / a reality in Asian culture, albeit immediately failing the whole scientific burden of proof thing. That's billions of people who can relate to something that a lot of westerners can't; and frankly, Asians by and large are happy to just let westerners pound sand in that regard. That's just the way it is.

Anyway, we're not gonna resolve this millennia-old dichotomy here, so let me ask a more hopefully productive question (apologies in advance if you've already addressed your take on this in some older thread): if you push on and/or try to throw someone as hard as you can, yet you experience kuzushi occur and your power gets negated while the person you're attacking doesn't outwardly move -- which from an Asian perspective is a demonstration of ki at work -- would that satisfy your requirements for burden of proof (albeit in a qualitative vs. quantitative/scientific manner)? If so, then go take the ukemi (yes, Dan comes to mind as someone to serve as tori, as the benchmark for proof I mentioned earlier in this paragraph comes from him). If not, then the discussion ends for all the reasons previously stated.

[Cady Goldfield]

I think that one reason why Western science has not really plumbed the depths of research on this method - and it is a method - is because researchers haven't themselves gone hands-on so that they could ask the kinds of questions that would lead to the right kinds of research.

For example, some years ago grad students in human gait kinesiology at Stanford University used motion-capture technology to try to figure out how a baji/taiji master was able to generate explosive, concussive power in his strikes with seemingly minimal body movement. The only things their equipment could read, were the test subject's acceleration and power outputs, and the mechanical movements of his skeletal system; they could not discern what the actual physiological or mental processes were that he was using to move. They didn't even know to ask these questions. They were going solely on what the eye could see. And, they were focusing on things pertaining to human gait motion; the unconventional nature of the baji master's actions was beyond the purview of their particular piece of science research.

But if senior researchers could put their hands on an "internal" demonstrator as he moves, they might feel things that would lead them to ask the right questions. Then, they'd do brain MRIs and explore his deep-body neuro-muscular activities to figure out was really going on when someone generates power or absorbs/neutralizes someone else's power. It's not mystical, it's body mechanics that simply haven't been adequately explored yet by Western science. Perhaps it's just not known well enough by mainstream Western science to consider seriously.

Add to that the number of fakes, poseurs and charlatans, and it's no wonder that people like Randi are not putting any effort into finding out more about it. And, the real-deal people aren't interested in proving anything... or revealing what makes their arts' skills tick, for that matter.