Aiki as a concept- why all the fuss?

[WVMark]

In Daito ryu, Aiki is a technique that is a component of what a student learns as he or she trains. I was kind of surprised when I first encountered Tokimune Takeda's definition when I first read it, but it fits with the "palace police art" idea of Daito ryu nicely.

Are you speaking on behalf of the Takumakai, Kodokai, Sagawa line, Roppokai, Tokimune line, or other branches/lines of Daito ryu? If so, are you authorized to speak on their behalf? It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that "Daito ryu aiki" was one of the deeper teachings. Are you stating that you have been initiated into those deeper teachings? Because I am unsure if you're qualified to speak on what "Daito ryu aiki" is and I'd like to know if I can rely on your statements. If I can, I will certainly point people in your direction for questions regarding "Daito ryu aiki". If I can't ... could you please point to the research you've done, the official representatives in Daito ryu who have stated what you have, and the hands-on with those who have been deeply initiated into "Daito ryu aiki"? At least with that, I can show people that you've completed some due diligence and have the background to state what "Daito ryu aiki" is or isn't.

Ueshiba made quite a bit more of the concept, extrapolating it out into a theology for resolving conflict between the heaven and earth. While most Aikido people settle for a less grandiose definition, there is a tendency to blend other martial principles and skills, which used to be distinct pieces of a whole, and try to roll them into a katamari of "Aiki."

Hmmm ... that's not what I've discovered in my research. For instance, when Ueshiba talked about "kami", quite often he meant "ka" of fire and "mi" of water and not the spirits/gods that is normally meant by kami. Fire and water are subsequently used as a reference for opposing forces or in/yo or yin/yang. He also used Izanami/Izanagi in the same manner at times. Ueshiba was a heavy reader of the Chinese classics and wrote notes in the books. Heaven/Earth or Heaven/Earth/Man is a very popular martial principle, not a theological one. If you compare/contrast Deguchi's writings on the Universe, heaven, earth, man, god with Ueshiba's writings (See Chris Li's translations) on the same subjects, you'll note the difference between Deguchi's spiritual slant and Ueshiba's martial slant from having Daito ryu aiki (Ueshiba stating, with aiki we'd do it this way, is a good reference too).

Mark

[pgsmith]

Are you speaking on behalf of the Takumakai, Kodokai, Sagawa line, Roppokai, Tokimune line, or other branches/lines of Daito ryu? If so, are you authorized to speak on their behalf? It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that "Daito ryu aiki" was one of the deeper teachings. Are you stating that you have been initiated into those deeper teachings? Because I am unsure if you're qualified to speak on what "Daito ryu aiki" is and I'd like to know if I can rely on your statements. If I can, I will certainly point people in your direction for questions regarding "Daito ryu aiki". If I can't ... could you please point to the research you've done, the official representatives in Daito ryu who have stated what you have, and the hands-on with those who have been deeply initiated into "Daito ryu aiki"? At least with that, I can show people that you've completed some due diligence and have the background to state what "Daito ryu aiki" is or isn't.

That sounded to me like Cliff was merely stating a personal opinion as he mentioned nothing about any official stance by any school. That being the case, why in the world would you cross examine him as if he was a criminal? Expressing opinions is what makes for conversation. Suppressing other's opinions is both confrontational and deters conversation. If you are looking for definitive answers and statements that you can "rely on", then I suggest you go and conduct interviews of knowledgeable individuals and not attempt to conduct your research on an internet forum.

Just my opinion.

[WVMark]

That sounded to me like Cliff was merely stating a personal opinion as he mentioned nothing about any official stance by any school. That being the case, why in the world would you cross examine him as if he was a criminal? Expressing opinions is what makes for conversation. Suppressing other's opinions is both confrontational and deters conversation. If you are looking for definitive answers and statements that you can "rely on", then I suggest you go and conduct interviews of knowledgeable individuals and not attempt to conduct your research on an internet forum.

Just my opinion.

I would suggest reading through this thread. Let me quote:

I haven't seen anything really compelling that Aiki was something that was taught or demonstrated as a manifest ability before Sokaku Takeda.

And that means that Daito ryu and Aikido really do own Aiki. You cannot in good faith talk about it outside of the context of those arts. You certainly cannot in good faith teach it, and it is in even worse faith to claim to teach it while teaching something else entirely. if you do so you are appropriating a term that is not yours to use.

It is a fair argument to make that Aikido did this to Daito ryu. I think if you have a lineage - you can name your teacher's names and talk about what you were taught - then your own body of research and training can be represented as Aiki - because it was given to you and it's yours. But the Aikikai intentionally obfuscated the lines of transmission from Daito ryu, That's problematic. But it does not make it okay for someone to teach taiji to Aikido people and call it Aiki just because.

My post asks valid questions as Cliff Judge has laid the groundwork for how he wants to discuss "Daito ryu aiki".

[Cliff Judge]

Are you speaking on behalf of the Takumakai, Kodokai, Sagawa line, Roppokai, Tokimune line, or other branches/lines of Daito ryu? If so, are you authorized to speak on their behalf? It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that "Daito ryu aiki" was one of the deeper teachings. Are you stating that you have been initiated into those deeper teachings? Because I am unsure if you're qualified to speak on what "Daito ryu aiki" is and I'd like to know if I can rely on your statements. If I can, I will certainly point people in your direction for questions regarding "Daito ryu aiki". If I can't ... could you please point to the research you've done, the official representatives in Daito ryu who have stated what you have, and the hands-on with those who have been deeply initiated into "Daito ryu aiki"? At least with that, I can show people that you've completed some due diligence and have the background to state what "Daito ryu aiki" is or isn't.

Hi Mark. The answer is no. These are my own opinions based on what I have read and been taught by Katsuyuki Kondo Sensei, and my attempts to square everything with the quotes from Tokimune Sensei.

Hmmm ... that's not what I've discovered in my research. For instance, when Ueshiba talked about "kami", quite often he meant "ka" of fire and "mi" of water and not the spirits/gods that is normally meant by kami. Fire and water are subsequently used as a reference for opposing forces or in/yo or yin/yang. He also used Izanami/Izanagi in the same manner at times. Ueshiba was a heavy reader of the Chinese classics and wrote notes in the books. Heaven/Earth or Heaven/Earth/Man is a very popular martial principle, not a theological one. If you compare/contrast Deguchi's writings on the Universe, heaven, earth, man, god with Ueshiba's writings (See Chris Li's translations) on the same subjects, you'll note the difference between Deguchi's spiritual slant and Ueshiba's martial slant from having Daito ryu aiki (Ueshiba stating, with aiki we'd do it this way, is a good reference too).

Mark

That's great, Mark, i am really happy for you. Will you be able to cite your references or are you just providing a gloss?

The problem with making claims as to what a dead person writing in an antiquated mode of a foreign language is, it is very difficult to make a strong claim. Prof. Goldsbury touched on this earlier in this thread, conveniently enough. The best claims are builf by examining other documents from the same timeframe, similar authors and subject matters, and then you've got a thesis but not a proven fact. (I'll let the scholars on here straighten me out if I am explaining this incorrectly.)

I enjoy and appreciate Chris Li's translations very much for all of the forum-fencing he and I do, and he has the respect of those I respect. However when it comes to the couple of columns of his where he seems to try to explain the "true meaning" behind Ueshiba's writings I find them rather lightweight in terms of this kind of support.

In general i think we are in agreement that practitioners of Aikido have a concept of aiki that has some problems, my problem is that the term is used as too big of an umbrella and obscures martial principles which are well worth study of their own, sometimes mystifying them unnessarily.

[Cliff Judge]

My post asks valid questions as Cliff Judge has laid the groundwork for how he wants to discuss "Daito ryu aiki".

Sorry, missed this while replying. Yes, it does indeed appear that this is what I have done. I think your quote makes it sound like I don't think Aiki should be discussed outside of the context of Daito ryu, and I didn't mean that I was opposed to talking about it on forums or even by non-trainees.

[P Goldsbury]

To Cliff Judge,

I would like to continue my response to your earlier post as it relates to aikido and the Aikikai. Earlier in your post you mentioned the article in Dr Hall’s Encyclopedia of the Martial Arts and so I looked it up. As I stated in my earlier post, Dr Hall focuses on three aspects of the term: its use as a ‘mysterious’ art in post-Tokugawa Japan, exemplified by someone like Kunishige; its use for the Daito-ryu of Takeda Tokimune and most probably of his father; its seemingly quite different use for Morihei Ueshiba. You then move to a different area of discussion and I would like to look at this, especially in view of the fact that another poster has also cited this part of your post.

I haven't seen anything really compelling that Aiki was something that was taught or demonstrated as a manifest ability before Sokaku Takeda.

You state this immediately after your reference to Dr Hall’s book and the issue for me is what you would count as supporting evidence for your statement, ‘taught or demonstrated as a manifest ability’. I assume that what you are looking for are activities resembling those of Takeda Sokaku, as he travelled round the country giving seminars. However, the issue for me is that the absence of such activities is no evidence for the absence of what was called aiki in the training of Takeda’s predecessors.

And that means that Daito ryu and Aikido really do own Aiki. You cannot in good faith talk about it outside of the context of those arts. You certainly cannot in good faith teach it, and it is in even worse faith to claim to teach it while teaching something else entirely. if you do so you are appropriating a term that is not yours to use.

You now move from an individual, Sokaku Takeda, to two arts, but in my opinion this omits a good deal in between. Ueshiba was a student of Takeda, and evidence for his knowledge of aiki (in addition to what can be deduced from films about him) is that he discusses it in his discourses. Mr Harden has called attention to the differences between texts and oral teachings, but this distinction is hard to make with Morihei Ueshiba, since all the material published under his name as texts, and translated by those like John Stevens, are precisely oral teachings – that have been edited and collected together by his students. Kuden 口伝 are sometimes taken to refer to oral teachings given to individual students, such as those cited or quoted by Morihiro Saito in his Traditional Aikido volumes, but Ueshiba gave a great deal more than these. His discourses became legendary, apart from the content that nobody seems to have understood, as a sore trial for the knees of the students those who were subjected to them.

One issue here is what these discourses mean and I would think that one could also amend your statement to refer to, “anything compelling that Aiki was something that was taught or demonstrated as a manifest ability after Morihei Ueshiba.”

However, you regard this lack of ‘anything really compelling’ as sufficient grounds for the following statement, namely, that Daito-ryu and Aikido ‘really do’ own Aiki. Ueshiba certainly mentions aiki and discusses what he thinks it is, but I understand your statement about ownership as a statement about Ueshiba’s students, teaching or demonstrating aiki as a manifest ability. I think one can reasonably state this of some of Ueshiba’s students, such as Rinjiro Shirata, but with others the question is moot.

It is a fair argument to make that Aikido did this to Daito ryu. I think if you have a lineage - you can name your teacher's names and talk about what you were taught - then your own body of research and training can be represented as Aiki - because it was given to you and it's yours. But the Aikikai intentionally obfuscated the lines of transmission from Daito ryu, That's problematic. But it does not make it okay for someone to teach taiji to Aikido people and call it Aiki just because.

Wait a minute. You state on the one hand that aikido owns aiki (even providing an acceptable context with which the concept can be discussed) and you also state that it is a ‘fair argument’ that aikido was guilty of bad faith, in appropriating the term that it should not have used and also in intentionally obfuscating the line of transmission from Daito-ryu. Ueshiba received a transmission from Takeda and then transmitted all or some of this transmission to his own students. Ueshiba also separated himself from Takeda and eventually called the art, or happily acquiesced in the naming of the art by others, aikido. He also happily acquiesced in the establishment in 1940 of the Kobukai, the legal entity that eventually became the Aikikai in 1948, again, with Ueshiba’s blessing. It is not clear to me where the misappropriation actually lies and who was guilty of it.

Best wishes,

PAG

[Joseph Svinth]

In this area, I suspect "Sensei sez" is a consideration. For a discussion of this in the context of martial arts, see "Sense in Nonsense: The Role of Folk History in the Martial Arts" by Thomas A. Green, in _Martial Arts in the Modern World_ (2003), pp. 1-11. You should be able to read most of the essay online via Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...page&q&f=false

On a separate note, I have no idea how his technique compares to the people posting here, but the late Ron Duncan was reportedly a grandmaster of aiki-jujitsu. I have been there while Japanese martial art students and teachers giggled through his videos, but there is no doubt that Duncan used the word "aiki" in his explanations and discussions.

Conversely, I know several people who met Morihei Ueshiba and have all kinds of documented rankings in various martial arts. Asked for a technique that worked on almost everybody, regardless of training or style, these folks consistently replied, "Kick 'em in the nuts." So far, I have not heard anyone say that "Kick 'em in the nuts" is the stupidest advice they've ever heard coming out of the mouth of a martial art teacher.

With that said, I return you to the ongoing attempt to discern how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Cliff Judge]

Professor Goldsbury,

The forum software stole all of my formatting…I clicked to preview post, I have nice preview here, but cannot figure out how to actually post it. So here is just what I meant to reply without the quotes from your post and my previous post. I hope this serves to clarify my points.

A particular concern of mine is the use of the term aiki. The initial post of this thread led with the argument that aiki (as differentiated from internal power) is an old concept, discussed and outlined in Koryu. I had some hope that we could have a discussion about other koryu that use the term aiki. My contention is that, where it appears before the Meiji period, it does not describe anything like the subtle technique for unbalancing an opponent that exists in Daito ryu nor is it an overloaded, hallowed term as it is in Aikido. Ellis Amdur and Meik Skoss have both mentioned that the term aiki appears in Toda ha Buko ryu; I have not found the reference but I recall it meaning something very different than a constructive joining of opposing forces. I believe I have come across the concept that "ai-" anything is generally a state you don't want to be in many soho bujutsu. We certainly train hard to avoid "joined rhythm" in Yagyu Shinkage ryu.

It would be interesting to hear more about the term being used in other, older arts.

Now as far as a general category of "mysterious skills," well obviously every ryu had those, and they all certainly had some element of body mechanics to them. Toby Threadgill said at one of his seminars for non-TSYR folk that I attended that these were called in fact "mysterious skills" in TSYR. My belief is that "power" was not the usual thing that was sought after by a student seeking these teachings until later in the Edo period. Psychological dominance and the ability to see through subterfuge were far more useful skills. The general disposition of "mysterious skills" and whether the body mechanics or "internal power" are the true meat of them in the various koryu arts is an interesting discussion that I certainly think could be had on the internet.

As far as Sokaku Takeda's predecessors transmitting a mysterious skill that was called aiki goes, I personally buy into the idea that this was a component of a system of etiquette that taught a proper method for policing warriors in a highly formal setting. It makes more sense to me that it would be trained and manifested in the way that it is than if it were meant for battlefield use.

...

I actually think that Ueshiba retained the right to use the term aiki to describe his essential practice and teaching after splitting with Takeda, due to the licenses he received from Takeda. And that Kisshomaru and all the other post-Daito ryu students of Ueshiba kept that right as long as they framed their training and teaching as efforts towards spreading Ueshiba's art. But there are people who are of the opinion that the whitewashing of the link to Daito ryu was a disreputable move and I have to grant them something, it is an uncomfortable matter. Moreover, some people use the fact that the Aikikai hid the link with Daito ryu as justification for calling whatever they are doing aiki.

[LGatling]

Are you speaking on behalf of the Takumakai, Kodokai, Sagawa line, Roppokai, Tokimune line, or other branches/lines of Daito ryu? If so, are you authorized to speak on their behalf?。。。。。 At least with that, I can show people that you've completed some due diligence and have the background to state what "Daito ryu aiki" is or isn't.
。。。。。
Hmmm ... that's not what I've discovered in my research. 。。。。 Heaven/Earth or Heaven/Earth/Man is a very popular martial principle, not a theological one. If you compare/contrast Deguchi's writings on the Universe, heaven, earth, man, god with Ueshiba's writings (See Chris Li's translations) on the same subjects, you'll note the difference between Deguchi's spiritual slant and Ueshiba's martial slant from having Daito ryu aiki (Ueshiba stating, with aiki we'd do it this way, is a good reference too).

Mark

Mark,

This may be off topic, but the Heaven / Earth, Heaven/Earth/Man etc idioms are primarily philosophic, not martial arts-related (some academics claim they are equal to a religion, but that discussion is for another time).

If you have any references supporting the claim I'd be very interested. Any notion that these are more martial arts than philosophy is novel, in my thirty years of looking.

They're also not 'principles'; rather, they represent relationships that in turn illustrate and are ruled by principles. They extend back 3-4000 yrs, and have been in Japan since around 600 CE.

In Japan, neo-Confucianism, established over 1,000 years ago, was the basis of culture, education, and thought. The relationships you cite above are only a glimpse of the human universe; one version of its entire world view is:

修身斉家治国平天下 (old Japanese: 修身齊家治國平天下)
read しゅうしんせいかちこくへいてんか shū'shin'sei'ka'chi'koku'hei'ten'ka

Kano shihan's writings and the writing of close associates are full of this or homegrown derivatives. Roughly, without elaboration, it means something like:
修身 (proper) ethical education leads to
=> 斉家 governing your family (properly and ethically) leads to
=> 治国 governing the nation (properly and ethically) leads to
=> 平天下 in accordance (literally 'at peace') with the will of heaven

I.e., stick to your knitting, train and polish yourself as an ethically individual first, as the true path to peace and harmony builds from proper ethics and training of individuals to families to nations to proper relations with the will of Heaven (which is where some claim that is sufficient to be called a religion).

I defer to Prof G or someone else to talk about the details of the world view of Ueshiba sensei but I reckon you'd not find it much astray.

And therein lies the difference between a būdō and a bujutsu - while the bujutsu school or individual instructor may have such education as a goal, by definition that spiritual education and perfection of the individual is a built in goal of true būdō. (I once had a long exchange with a bunch on Kendoforum.com about this - several could not get their head around kenjutsu [bayonet fighting] for children as a būdō, but had no problem with their kids splitting skulls and disemboweling each other with bamboo swords. I thought that instructive how about blind people can be but really, really weird.)

Kano shihan went much further, said you practiced jūdō to better the world (now, that does sound familiar for Ueshiba sensei) as he placed jūdō all along that continuum to ruling the nation in peace and harmony with the mandate of heaven.

Lance Gatling

PS - it's such an important concept there's an entire webpage devoted to how to write out the idiom
http://kanji.quus.net/jyukugo893/idiom268130.htm

[Chris Li]

Mark,

This may be off topic, but the Heaven / Earth, Heaven/Earth/Man etc idioms are primarily philosophic, not martial arts-related (some academics claim they are equal to a religion, but that discussion is for another time).

Heaven-earth-man is a basic given in many Chinese martial arts. Off the top of my head see:

http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/mike-si...ach-pt-i-4272/

and

In this discussion, the idea of triads – groups of three – will be used to help understand the concept of ‘internal’. Triads are an important concept in Chinese thought. The most basic triad in Chinese philosophy is that of Heaven, Earth and Human Beings. This is often depicted with Heaven above, Earth below and Human Beings in the center. This Triad is the basis of San Ti Shi, the “Trinity” posture, or ‘Three Body Pattern’ in Xing Yi Quan (Form-Intention or Form-Image Boxing). From this fundamental triad, many other triads can be developed to explain internal arts and internal training. Heaven’s energy (yang qi) flows downward and is received by Earth. Earth’s energy (yin) flows upward. The two interact and co-mingle in living things. Earth manifests and upholds physical forms in response to Heaven’s movement and image. There is an interaction of form and intention, images and manifestations, qi and substance.

http://www.internalartsinternational...-internal-art/

Simply searching on Google will show how ubiquitous this concept is.

Best,

Chris

[Cliff Judge]

Chris,

Do you argue that Ueshiba meant to use these terms only in the sense that they are used in ICMA? Primarily?

If so, could you clarify what your basis for this belief is, given that Heaven-Earth-Man is an omnipresent Neo-confuscian concept? I don't think that any extra work is required to accept the idea that Ueshiba meant the same general things as Kano did, whereas quite a bit is required to show that he was speaking in terms of internal power development.

I am not sure the best place for it would be this particular thread, but a general primer on these Chinese texts that are often referenced would probably be useful for e-budo. What the texts are, why they are considered important to Chinese martial arts, whether they are exclusively Chinese martial arts treatises, etc.

[Chris Li]

Chris,

Do you argue that Ueshiba meant to use these terms only in the sense that they are used in ICMA? Primarily?

If so, could you clarify what your basis for this belief is, given that Heaven-Earth-Man is an omnipresent Neo-confuscian concept? I don't think that any extra work is required to accept the idea that Ueshiba meant the same general things as Kano did, whereas quite a bit is required to show that he was speaking in terms of internal power development.

I am not sure the best place for it would be this particular thread, but a general primer on these Chinese texts that are often referenced would probably be useful for e-budo. What the texts are, why they are considered important to Chinese martial arts, whether they are exclusively Chinese martial arts treatises, etc.

Well, it's quite common in Japanese Budo as well - those just happened to be the most explanatory sources that came off the top of my head. Ask Bill Gleason about it when he teaches at summer camp, he wrote some explanations of it in "Aikido and Words of Power" (pre-Dan Harden, if that matters).

All of the personal and societal development implications (which neither Kano nor Ueshiba originated) are true as well, it's a pretty standard package in the Chinese and....Japanese martial arts.

Best,

Chris

[Cliff Judge]

So it is a common thematic language used to describe a great many things? Are all of these things aiki?

[Chris Li]

So it is a common thematic language used to describe a great many things? Are all of these things aiki?

You're reaching here - go back and read Morihei Ueshiba's original statements in context for the answer.

Best,

Chris

[LGatling]

Heaven-earth-man is a basic given in many Chinese martial arts. Off the top of my head see:

http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/mike-si...ach-pt-i-4272/

and

http://www.internalartsinternational...-internal-art/

Simply searching on Google will show how ubiquitous this concept is.

Best,

Chris

Yes, these concepts are ubiquitous. They do not originate in the martial arts, but rather in the 四書五経 the Four Books and Five Classics of Confucianism and their hundreds of later commentaries. These broad cultural philosophies were used to guide and enlighten everything from familial relations to tax policy. Adopted by the martial arts, they were modified to enlighten, explain and expand biomechanics, tactics and strategy.

Mr. Sigman's intro to seems right.

This is a selfish question, perhaps. Chinese grammar is not my forte, but I don't understand Mr. Bisio's use of the term 'triad' below. AFAIK a 'triad' is a Chinese criminal gang. There are many famous binary elements such as 陰陽　yin/yang 文武　civil/military 明暗　light/dark etc, and four- and more character idioms 成語 chéngyǔ (Japanese: yojijukugo 四字熟語). I just don't know if there's a specific name for a three-character idiom outside of 三字 san'ji (three characters), and have never seen the use of 'triad' in that context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengyu

[QUOTE] In this discussion, the idea of triads – groups of three – will be used to help understand the concept of ‘internal’. Triads are an important concept in Chinese thought. The most basic triad in Chinese philosophy is that of Heaven, Earth and Human Beings. This is often depicted with Heaven above, Earth below and Human Beings in the center. This Triad is the basis of San Ti Shi, the “Trinity” posture, or ‘Three Body Pattern’ in Xing Yi Quan (Form-Intention or Form-Image Boxing). From this fundamental triad, many other triads can be developed to explain internal arts and internal training. Heaven’s energy (yang qi) flows downward and is received by Earth. Earth’s energy (yin) flows upward. The two interact and co-mingle in living things. Earth manifests and upholds physical forms in response to Heaven’s movement and image. There is an interaction of form and intention, images and manifestations, qi and substance. [\UNQUOTE]

Note I'm not questioning the basic introduction regarding the element 天地人tiān dì rén but rather the use of the term 'triad' only.

I don't know enough about it to comment on the notion of Westerners developing their own 'triads', especially by people who don't understand Chinese and the culture behind the words.

Lance Gatling