Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance
Posted by: eyrie
Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/07/05 08:00 AM
"Aikido is the principle of non-resistance. That which is non-resistant is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests nothing".
- Morihei Ueshiba
Discuss the meaning and relevance of "non-resistance" within the context of aikido.
Posted by: rupert
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/07/05 09:24 AM
A sensible aim for the Aikido journey but it seems to me that you may meet some of your own resistance along the way.
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/07/05 09:48 AM
In the spiritual, mental or physical sense?
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/07/05 04:32 PM
See, now I am going to have a real problem here. We human beings are animals who communicate by encoding concepts into verbage, broadcasting that verbage to another who hears, decodes formulates a response, encodes that response and speaks back to the originator. The way I see it we have not defined the term before we started dialoguing.
By "prinicple" do we mean an axiom or a maxim.
By "non-resistence" do we mean incremental or complete-- and as was pointed out on what plane?
At the Yu sool level for Hapkido resistence is formulated (physically) along the lines of Newtonian physics with mass, force, vectors, velocity, speed etc etc as the variables.
At the hapkiyusool level, resistance is along the lines of impacting the partners neuro-muscular system including misalignment, misdirection, un-balancing and untiming.
All of these things can be said to "resist the attacker expressing their will over another person. But, then again so might Gandhi's non-violent, non-cooperation, right?
We already have at least four other threads speaking to "aiki" so I am at a loss to know where this is going. I also am not sure what time period of Ueshibas' life we are citing for the quote since his later expression of Omote Religious thought was more a function of later life than early-on. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/07/05 08:10 PM
Quote:
By "prinicple" do we mean an axiom or a maxim.
In your opinion, what would be appropriate?
Quote:
By "non-resistence" do we mean incremental or complete-- and as was pointed out on what plane?
I'm leaving this open to discussion. Feel free to discuss whichever way you're inclined to feel.
Quote:
We already have at least four other threads speaking to "aiki" so I am at a loss to know where this is going. I also am not sure what time period of Ueshibas' life we are citing for the quote since his later expression of Omote Religious thought was more a function of later life than early-on.
The quote is from John Steven's book "The Philosophy of Aikido", and is oft repeated in other books of Stevens. There is no citation for when the quote was made.
I think the quote is more generally reflective of Ueshiba's later life.
I know I'm bordering on a fine line here, but feel free to discuss any religious implications of this statement, but, please keep it civil.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/08/05 06:51 AM
In identifying Hapkido, despite its reputation for being an "eclectic art" the fact is that one must comply with the Three Principles or what is being done is no longer actually Hapkido. In this case it is a matter of using "principles" to mean "axiom" or "law". However, I think that the discussion would be better served if we used a premise based on "generally accepted principles" (maxims) as not everyone participating may want to speak in terms of absolutes. The reason that I raise this point is that I think if we make sure everyone is approaching such a subject from the same angle, we may keep from getting into word games later on.
In like manner, I see the ability to deal with incremental resistance as being far more demanding in terms of skill level than that in which a person is dealing with a large, planted aversary.
I'm actually growing very concerned that so much of what is used to examine Ueshiba's approaches derives from his later life. There was a certain pragmatism to his earlier art that was much impacted by the spiritual development of later life. Its not that this was necessarily bad, or that I am unwilling to take a more spiritual approach. Quite the opposite, I think that spirituality and ethics are under-represented in most discussions. Maybe people get a little nervous in these areas, yes? But there is a certain clarity that comes with keeping things utilitarian and I often find myself casting about for folks who trained with Ueshiba early in his career as touchstons for understanding what the art was meant to accomplish. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/08/05 07:36 AM
Quote:
I often find myself casting about for folks who trained with Ueshiba early in his career as touchstons for understanding what the art was meant to accomplish
Unfortunately, I believe most of them have passed on...
I can understand the general reluctance and trepidation to venture into the flamebait territory, but I believe that the spiritual (or at least the philosophical) underpinnings of the art is one way of approaching the perspective of an old man who understood perfectly the utilitarian nature of his art.
I'm just curious to see what people's views are.
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/09/05 01:04 PM
Quote:
"Aikido is the principle of non-resistance. That which is non-resistant is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests nothing".
In aikido, we must be able to overcome the devil without resistance. This idea is found also in the Bible as "resist not evil". On the other hand, the Bible also says, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you."
Anyway, in aikido, to 'learn' to overcome the devil without resisting, we need someone to "play" the devil for us, and allow us to get a feel for the power he can exert. The devil is no dummy, after all. He is not only powerful but extremely subtle. So we need a partner who doesn't just fall over like a dummy but gives us a real feel of the devil's power. After years of experience, we can meet the greatest force and without resistance. If the attacker can feel our technique at all, he can resist it.
In judo, the epitome of this idea was described by someone talking about fighting Kyuzo Mifune: "It was like fighting an empty jacket." Yet Mifune threw him around at will.
So we, as nage or tori must "not resist", but the uke must give us a feeling of reality and, if he can resist our technique, he should, once we have passed the absolute basic level.
And as tori/nage, we must not punish the uke for resisting. It's nothing but a sign that we have wrongly applied our efforts. We failed to find true aiki if uke can resist.
But there can be no aiki from tori if there is no kiai from uke.
Both sides can't be doing aiki. One side has to do kiai or neither side can do aiki because aiki is the "ura" of kiai. Uke provides kiai so that we can learn to find the ura of his kiai.
So tori must not resist the attacker, but the attacker should resist tori if he can.
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/09/05 01:14 PM
Quote:
"Aikido is the principle of non-resistance. That which is non-resistant is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests nothing".
And this is close to the principle of "love for all things". The only way to work subtly enough with another person that they cannot feel our technique is if we pay absolute and complete attention to them.
Why is it so difficult to apply so much attention to other people? Mostly because we don't really even like them, much less love them.
"love for all things" means that we look at them with full attention. How do we look at our beloved wives? We pay them full and detailed attention and do our best to get along with them. It's bad to resist your wife very much (can I hear "amen"?). But we can redirect them (as they do us) to other aims if we know them well.
So to redirect an attacker, we must perceive them on very deep and subtle levels and the only way to do that is to "love" them and give them full attention as people.
Then we are forced to notice that they are individuals and we can perceive a great deal about what they are experiencing in life to bring them to attack us.
An uchi deshi of Morihei Ueshiba, Terry Dobson, told of an encounter on a train when a large Japanese man, maybe drunk, was threatening other passengers. Just as Dobson thought he would have to fight the man, an older Japanese passenger said something to the violent man and within a few minutes, he had the big bear lying in the seat beside him, head in the old man's lap, crying as the old man stroked his head.
I've always found that story to give me shivers.
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/09/05 08:38 PM
A good point regarding the aiki-kiai mirror image of nage and uke. I think this is one of the difficulties of the practice today. Uke must throw a committed attack, and be prepared to follow thru with another and another. And if nage cannot deal with the initial attack, he is forced to deal with the next and the next.
I think "love" needs to be clarified. It is more than complete attention to the person or moment. It is also being in unison with your partner, of knowing without the need for words, of emotional detachment to the outcome.
Kahlil Gibran's "The Prophet" has a really nice piece of prose on love, but I think this section on marriage is more appropriate:
Quote:
Love one another, but make not a bond of love: Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls. Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup. Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf. Sing nd dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone. Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
IOW, it is a harmonious "dance" between 2 people. One giving the other receiving. Who is the giver and who receives? I think is not so clear-cut. To me, they are one and the same thing. Uke gives, nage receives. Nage gives, uke receives.
For the record, my wife knows I don't really pay her full attention. (Yes dear, no dear... uh huh... uh huh... YOU'RE NOT REALLY LISTENING TO ME ARE YOU? Uh huh... yes dear 
)
But that doesn't mean I don't "love" her.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/10/05 09:09 AM
Yes and can you love someone enough to let them learn from the consequences of their own poor judgement? Bad decisions often result in injurious consequences. Attacking a person for one reason or another is a selfish act perhaps driven by anger, fear or desperation. Its not that I don't understand that. What I am saying is that to perform such an act and then have the defender moderate the consequences out of some misguided sense of protecting the attacker from himself easily could provide the attacker with an inaccurate sense of how the world comes together.
If I truely "love" my attacker, I will first protect myself from harm and then do what I can to educate the attacker as to the inadvisability of his behavior. This does not mean I MUST injure the attacker, but that certainly needs to remain an option if I am going to educate at some level comensurate to the level of the attack, right?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/10/05 06:24 PM
Are you talking about "tough love"? I think it is sometimes necessary.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/10/05 08:36 PM
In a word, "yes". I know that some people would pitch an arguement for more altruistic versions but I have come to believe that the "tough love" model is more in keeping with the uniform application of martial intent. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/10/05 09:05 PM
No, I think you are spot on. In many ways, it is similar to dealing with a spoilt child. Sometimes they just have to dumped on their backside, or popped one in the nose (figuratively speaking - I DO NOT physically abuse my children!), in order to appreciate the futility of negative engagement.
In any case, such action needs to be firm, decisive and with a sense of finality.
In terms of non-resistance, (as he subtlety attempts to bring it back on topic), to me it means, going (entering/blending) with the child's line of thinking/action (attack/misbehaviour), and redirecting (osae) it into something more constructive (aiki-nage), or into something a little more persuasive (atemi).
Posted by: Jason DeLucia
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/11/05 02:26 PM
Quote:
"Aikido is the principle of non-resistance. That which is non-resistant is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests nothing".
- Morihei Ueshiba
Discuss the meaning and relevance of "non-resistance" within the context of aikido.
though it is a long assiduous time before beginners acquire enough in practice to carry this out .
the perfect syntax for aikido is push or enter when pulled ,pull or turn when pushed .only apply this to everything you do .
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/11/05 07:15 PM
I remember one of my senior sempai saying to me that this stuff is "simple", and that our sensei makes it look so simple. However, after 15 years, I've found that it is and it isn't. It is simple on the one hand, but not simple when you go deeper and consider the many underlying layers.
I think the hardest part is "letting go" of technique (or attempting to apply technique). However, beginners (or at least when teaching beginners), must start somewhere, and invariably this means beginning with the form of a technique.
The difficulty is breaking out of the form and finding the "feeling" of the technique (i.e. su-ha-ri). But I feel, it is a necessary evolutionary stage in training, in order to approach the meaning of "non-resistance".
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/12/05 01:14 PM
But I feel, it is a necessary evolutionary stage in training, in order to approach the meaning of "non-resistance".
Its the only way to begin testing what really works for you. I mean you don't want to take just theory into a real self defense situation. U want to use what U know works for U, not what works for your Head Sempai or Sensei.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/12/05 03:54 PM
Hhhmmmmm... Not sure that I go along with this line of reasoning. I will agree that out of a catalog of techniques some moves will work better for one person than another and I have seen this a lot. I have also seen very young kids who have not very much time in class able to handle themselves pretty well if they are in a threatening situation.
I tell you what I hear an awful lot of in many of the posts on this particular net (though I am not saying that YOU--- Neko-- are doing this. What I hear are a lot of people who don't have a lot of confidence about taking care of themselves, so they kinda hang around looking for a couple of quick suggestions as a kind of short-cut to self-defense.A lot of times many of these posts sound like young kids who are afraid of the local bully and want some quick tricks that will get them out from under some bully's tyranny. The reason I say this is because I have found with the students I work with that this is where a lot of the "what happens if..." questions come from. My life experience tells me that as long as you want to study a MA you will never get around plain ol' free-floating anxiety until you decide to face it down for what it is. Otherwise you could easily spend the rest of your life trying to locate a pat answer for every conceiveable situation that might come up. Know what I mean? FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/12/05 04:24 PM
Granted but let me explain I was talking about Mastering a technique, you learn the proper way it done, then you modify it so it works well for you and you use it in situations were it fits. I wasn't talking about in class what ifs, at the learning stage, that will only hamper progress. I'm talking about the point were you think you have a technique, then test it with a real attacking opponent maybe a friend/combat buddy from a different system.
I feel a good technique is like the sharp balde of a Katana, you stone it/sharpen it and sharpen it. Test it and test it to assure it can do its job. Much the rumor has it real blade was tested against the straw rolled stalks and then stacked human cadaboiurs and then it was suited for battle.
If you just do Iiado you don't know how well the blade really works.
I've been shown many techniques by my Sensei some I can use others I can't use well enough for combat. I still teach it but I would never implement it in a fight. Body type and skill are only a few factors that determine how well you can do a certain technique.
We agree that you don't take a untested or dull blade into combat, Right? You don't confront violence, with just theories do you? Just as you wouldn't enter a Kendo match if you only practice drawing sword.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/12/05 07:40 PM
".....We agree that you don't take a untested or dull blade into combat, Right? You don't confront violence, with just theories do you? Just as you wouldn't enter a Kendo match if you only practice drawing sword....."
But is not this the very same question that comes to every MA student, in every MA around the world? Sooner or later the question is--- "I wonder if this stuff REALLY works."
The fact is that you are simply not going to find out just like a person who goes into battle ultimately wonders "how will I act when the fighting really starts?" Sure you can train, and imagine and even simulate--- but you don't ever REALLY know, do you? For instance, how many of these people who write in to this Net are basically asking the same question from various points of view, yes? The practitioners wonder if the stuff will work. The wannabees want to know what stuff will work. Guys from one art challenge another art about whose stuff will work. Sure you can get on a mat--- but even THAT is limited by usual and customary behaviors. Swinging the sword around is the same thing. Fact is, buddy, unless you want to turn the clock back, theories is all you have to go on since we as a people simply do not engage in gladitorial games any more. Modern warfare simply does not produce consistent opportunities for h2h combat under similar situations with significant enough frequency to say a particular tactic works 100% of the time.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you are looking for. I don't know that you can find such an answer in these times. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/12/05 08:20 PM
Quote:
Granted but let me explain I was talking about Mastering a technique, you learn the proper way it done, then you modify it so it works well for you and you use it in situations were it fits. I wasn't talking about in class what ifs, at the learning stage, that will only hamper progress. I'm talking about the point were you think you have a technique, then test it with a real attacking opponent maybe a friend/combat buddy from a different system.
To be quite honest, there is no "proper" way of doing a technique. All techniques are based on specific universal principles of body movement. All techniques have to be modified or adapted to some extent to cater for a multitude of variables, including body types (yours or your opponent), terrain, the way they are attacking, relative skill level etc. etc.
Essentially, we are talking about the same thing, but we're using different verbiage to describe it. And therefore it is essential that we use accurate verbiage to describe what it is we are talking about.
What is important is mastering the principles of how the technique works, rather than "carbon-copying" the outward expression of a technical form that one is shown.
Quote:
We agree that you don't take a untested or dull blade into combat, Right? You don't confront violence, with just theories do you? Just as you wouldn't enter a Kendo match if you only practice drawing sword.
A story is frequently told of how Musashi, the sword saint, carved a bokuto out of a boat oar and used it to defeat his opponent in one of his many duels. So I think the above point is moot, since it is the person wielding the principles of combat which work, and not necessarily the tool.
How is this even remotely related to the principle of non-resistance?
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/13/05 06:11 PM
"....How is this even remotely related to the principle of non-resistance? ....."
I can't speak for others in this discussion but where I was going has to do with perception and the conclusion that I was moving towards was the assessment of determining what constitutes "non-resistance". Please work with me for a second.
Research conducted at a university developed a model in which one person was invited to strike another person. The person so struck was invited to return the strike at an identical level of power. What was seen is that the individuals invariably escalated with each person striking the other incrementally harder. But there was one point that was particularly interesting even on those occasions when the person doing the strike really did hit with near identical force the strike was PERCEIVED as harder by the person being struck. The person DOING the striking uniformly reported that they had hit with equal or even LESS force.
In my previous posts I wanted to share that what I think I am hearing in a lot of posts is quite a bit of subjectivity being pressed forward as objective discussion when it isn't. In this way my previous post was to set the stage to point up that I think a similar argument could be made for non-resistance. My sense is that the person DOING the resisting probably perceives that he is resisting little or not at all while the person being resisted may PERCEIVE that the resistance is much greater. In this way it could reasonably be expected that people resisting each other would tend to escalate. ERGO: Non-resistance is not so much an objective principle as a subjective experience. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/13/05 08:19 PM
Interesting research... I wonder what the research objectives were?
You've highlighted a very interesting observation regarding the subjective nature of experience and perception. Whilst I tend to feel that much of what is considered high-level "aiki" to be subjective experience, I am inclined to feel that it lies somewhere between that and objective principle.
Let me go back to what KiDoHae posted in the "aiki" technique thread regarding "fighting an empty jacket".
To me, this is the highest level of "non-resistance". However, at some point during the execution (kake) of the technique when uke is thrown, there is a moment when resistance by uke works against him.
I think the discussion can be made objective if we talk about what physical laws of nature are involved in this context.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/14/05 06:07 PM
"....I think the discussion can be made objective if we talk about what physical laws of nature are involved in this context...."
Absolutely agree. In fact I will go so far as to say that such a discussion can ONLY be pursued objectively in this manner. Where I think we get into problems is with the use of esoterica such as "projecting Ki". I am not saying "Ki" does not exist. What I am saying is that within the context of an objective discussion the use of a term which cannot be measured, reproduced at will, or adequately defined cannot be part of the discussion. For instance, one COULD define the "empty jacket" experience in terms of timing, speed, vectors, mass and so forth. We might give it a clever title such as "empty jacket" but the thing itself COULD be defined and reproduced. While I have experienced manipulation of "Ki" through my accupuncturist, a doctor of many, many years experience, he remains unable to adequately define what he does or how it actually works.
Lastly, I wonder if it behooves us to speak to such high levels of performance such as "empty jacket" knowing that the typical practitioner will only be able to aspire to such profficiency and most probably will not attain it. Thoughts?
BTW: I think the research was originally posted to DOCHANG DIGEST so I may do a bit of digging to see if I can find the original release.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: shihan_chris
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/14/05 06:49 PM
In my style of karate, there are a few self-defense techniques which are the same as those used in aikido. I find aikido to be very fascinating. Does anybody on this forum know personaly, any of Ueshiba's students? I think that it would be an honor to train with them and learn from them. I hope that I one day get the oppurtunity.
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/14/05 07:00 PM
Quote:
...Where I think we get into problems is with the use of esoterica such as "projecting Ki". I am not saying "Ki" does not exist. What I am saying is that within the context of an objective discussion the use of a term which cannot be measured, reproduced at will, or adequately defined cannot be part of the discussion.
Agreed. "Ki" has many meanings in many different contexts. It may perhaps be more appropriate to use the term "shuchu ryoku" or "kokyu ryoku" (I'm going by Shioda's definitions).
Quote:
Lastly, I wonder if it behooves us to speak to such high levels of performance such as "empty jacket" knowing that the typical practitioner will only be able to aspire to such profficiency and most probably will not attain it. Thoughts?
My teacher taught us at the highest level of performance from the day I started. The very same teacher that opened the eyes of my senpai to the mysteries of "aiki". All of the dai senpai that have trained with my teacher for the last 20-30 years all have this ability to move like an "empty jacket", as well as the ability to "extend ki" (both martially and healing-wise).
So I think it behooves us to talk about it, so it no longer becomes mere aspiration, but attainable proficiency.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 08:44 AM
".....So I think it behooves us to talk about it, so it no longer becomes mere aspiration, but attainable proficiency.,,,,"
Sheesh--- we seem to be hitting a lot of good themes here!
You point is yet another issue that I think needs to be focused on. I hear far too many people speak in terms of exotic thinking or beliefs. One of the results is that a concept of "empty jacket" becomes some "ultimate" skill unattainable to all but the most rare individual. Once again, I think if we keep our feet on the ground and speak in terms of factual dynamics, the idea of "aiki" as a distinct and attainable approach to practice becomes much more realistic. For instance, if you think about it, the principle of non-resistance must, at its core have a drop of resistance. This is to say that while one can become an "empty jacket" there must still be a "jacket" for the attacker to have as a focal point against which to work his tactic. The trick as I see it is to provide only minimal cues to the attacker by which they can gauge force, vectors, leverage and so forth while exploiting the imperfections in their attack to one's own advantage. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 10:36 AM
Quote:
To be quite honest, there is no "proper" way of doing a technique. All techniques are based on specific universal principles of body movement. All techniques have to be modified or adapted to some extent to cater for a multitude of variables, including body types (yours or your opponent), terrain, the way they are attacking, relative skill level etc. etc.
Exactly. As my sensei used to say, "The technique is only a hint." The form is there, like a schematic for a hobbyist's crystal radio. But applied to reality, we find that the crystal is larger or smaller than the plans call for, the power supply greater or less, the wire thicker or thinner. Ideally, it would all be exactly as called for in the plan, but in reality, we have to make do. Hobbyist martial artists will get upset if given anything inconsistent with the plan. Experts make do with what they have. It might not look like the plan, but it works.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 10:43 AM
We agree that you don't take a untested or dull blade into combat, Right? You don't confront violence, with just theories do you? Just as you wouldn't enter a Kendo match if you only practice drawing sword.
A story is frequently told of how Musashi, the sword saint, carved a bokuto out of a boat oar and used it to defeat his opponent in one of his many duels. So I think the above point is moot, since it is the person wielding the principles of combat which work, and not necessarily the tool.
Thats exactly my point, if you are seasoned and have been in combat you know how to use the techniques and modifiy them for your personal use. Musashi is a prime example of changing taught techinque and modifying them for his personal use, creating almost a different method of delivery.
When I speak of sharpen the tools I talking about the technique using empty hand. You guys take me too literally.
And what it has to do with being non-resistance is that until you perform the technique against a resistance foe its unproven, FOR U.
I question have you ever used your art in a real fight? Or against another unwilling person? I know purist find this almost insulting but, still have you ever?
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 10:53 AM
[quoteI can't speak for others in this discussion but where I was going has to do with perception and the conclusion that I was moving towards was the assessment of determining what constitutes "non-resistance"[/QUOTE]
Well, there is also the problem of who is doing the resisting? Ueshiba said "I" do not resist. But he did like for his uke to give him sincere attacks and resist if they could. I think this discussion has confused the two to a large degree. ((((Since "I" should not resist, my uke absolutely must not.)))) I don't agree with that.
If I do a technique really badly, it can actually position uke so that he almost cannot fall. That's my fault. Not his. But if I consider his inability to fall to be "resistance" and I punish him with some nasty trick, that is way off the mark, as well.
You said, "where I was going has to do with perception" and that's where I'm going to: if the uke can perceive my technique at all, it isn't really aiki. In real aiki, the uke feels only his own movement and power and he is hit only with his own movement and power. If he can even perceive my technique, then resistance is already there. If uke can feel my technique happening, it is because I am resisting him, already.
If uke can resist my technique, it is because he can feel it, which means that I did not do aiki, meaning that I resisted him. And resistance is already there.
If I do real aiki, uke cannot feel it happening and therefore cannot resist. So the principle of non-resistance does not mean for uke not to resist my technique. It means that if I do aiki, I never go against the uke in any way. He cannot feel a thing unless I am already resisting him.
Quote:
My sense is that the person DOING the resisting probably perceives that he is resisting little or not at all while the person being resisted may PERCEIVE that the resistance is much greater.
Or, again, our movement may have set him back on his balance without any effort on his part, and then he becomes harder to move even though he didn't do it. It may be only our own resistance that we feel.
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 11:03 AM
Quote:
Does anybody on this forum know personaly, any of Ueshiba's students? I think that it would be an honor to train with them and learn from them. I hope that I one day get the oppurtunity.
Too late for most of them already. My sensei was uchi deshi to Ueshiba sensei in 1930. Ueshiba sensei died in 1969. If one were 20 years old at that time, he would be almost 60 now. And how much experience would he have had by 20?
Another direct student of Morihei Ueshiba was Murai sensei at the old yoseikan hombu. Although Mochizuki Minoru's direct student, Murai sensei alsot trained with Morihei Ueshiba and could do some spectacular and irresistible aiki nage. He is now about 90 years old.
So if you want to know some of these guys, you'd better find them fast and learn from them while you can.
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 11:05 AM
Quote:
In fact I will go so far as to say that such a discussion can ONLY be pursued objectively in this manner. Where I think we get into problems is with the use of esoterica such as "projecting Ki". I am not saying "Ki" does not exist. What I am saying is that within the context of an objective discussion the use of a term which cannot be measured, reproduced at will, or adequately defined cannot be part of the discussion. For instance, one COULD define the "empty jacket" experience in terms of timing, speed, vectors, mass and so forth. We might give it a clever title such as "empty jacket" but the thing itself COULD be defined and reproduced.
Well, I don't know. What or who would reproduce it? A robot?
No, art can never be made science. Its only purpose is for artists to explore it, for the enrichment of their own lives.
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 11:09 AM
Quote:
while one can become an "empty jacket" there must still be a "jacket" for the attacker to have as a focal point against which to work his tactic. The trick as I see it is to provide only minimal cues to the attacker by which they can gauge force, vectors, leverage and so forth while exploiting the imperfections in their attack to one's own advantage.
The "jacket" that is there to be empty is the original self, standing upright. It's just human dignity and correctness from within. It's our right not to be cowed down by bullies. Any more than that and it does become resistance.
The question is, "What is that minimum?" Can it be even less than that? Can it become completely invisible, so that no attack ever occurs?
This is the material that I cover in my Zero Degree method of teaching. Moshe Feldenkrais also worked extensively with this idea in judo.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 11:54 AM
Dear Aikikiai:
".....Well, I don't know. What or who would reproduce it? A robot?
".....No, art can never be made science. Its only purpose is for artists to explore it, for the enrichment of their own lives. ....."
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not making a case for turning an art into a science. My point is only that we may be better served by discussing things in terms of measurable and repeatable terms rather than esoteric or exotic language.
My wife is fond of wine and we often have a laugh reading some of the descriptions of a wine that has a "subtle nutty flavor" or "a hint of fruit at the back of the palate". While this is all very descriptive, were I a winery owner I would be very much concerned with pH, sugar content, tannins and spectrometer readings. My sense is that if we are to speak meaningfully about non-resistance we need to be considering relative foot/lbs or pull vs push, co-incidental angles, vectors and tangents. I see this as much more productive than "melding" or "being in the flow". Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Posted by: aikikiai
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 12:51 PM
Quote:
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not making a case for turning an art into a science. My point is only that we may be better served by discussing things in terms of measurable and repeatable terms rather than esoteric or exotic language.
Indeed, that language can be worse than science since very few people even know what the words mean. Most aikido people cannot really accurately define "aiki" for instance.
Quote:
were I a winery owner I would be very much concerned with pH, sugar content, tannins and spectrometer readings. My sense is that if we are to speak meaningfully about non-resistance we need to be considering relative foot/lbs or pull vs push, co-incidental angles, vectors and tangents. I see this as much more productive than "melding" or "being in the flow". Thoughts?
I agree with you very much, but again, we're talking about an entirely human art, based on relationships (aiki and kiai) between people. Since our bodies are not equipped with meters for determining foot/lbs of force and such, only a robot could be made to reproduce exactly any equation of forces in physical movement. When it comes to art, I just don't think it can be captured.
If you do want to talk about forces and perceptions (kinesthesia (sp?)), I'd say read some of Moshe Feldenkrais' books such as Body and Mature Behavior or The Potent Self. An engineer by background, Feldenkrais was a direct student of Jigoro Kano, who sent high-level teachers to polish him up in France. He further reduced the esoterica with detailed analyses of the processes of decision and movement in the human mind/body. Where Kano broke movement down into small chunks (like falling techniques, tai sabaki, etc.), Feldenkrais took those small chunks and broke them down to microscopic levels for exploring just how we perceive our motivations, options and limitations, just how we order our bodies to do something and how lack of perception leads to difficulty and injury.
All I think we can do to make our efforts more scientific is to develop ever finer distinctions of the amount of effort we are using and the amount of resistance we can feel. If we eliminate all unnecessary effort from our movement and technique, we will begin to glimpse how little effort really is needed. As long as we, ourselves, do not accurately realize how much effort we are using, we are not even at the level of "perceiving" the opponent at all.
But finally, the way to do this is not with numbers or even the names of forces, but with our own feeling. And when we can relate our feelings to the opponent's feelings, we are starting to understand aiki and kiai.
I once took art classes from a rather famous teacher who was infamous for his temper and colorful personality. After some time, I thought I'd gained a bit of respect from him and when I saw him sitting on the steps of a campus building, I approached and sat beside him. He seemed okay with this and we chatted very idly about the weather and the squirrels gathering nuts. So then I thought I could get him to address some pithy points.
I said, "Professor, what is the responsibility of the artist?"
He looked a me weirdly, then looked away for a second, then said, "Hey! It's Caroline!" and he jumped up and ran, calling, "Hey! Caroline!!"
So I never asked him that kind of question again.
Best wishes.
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/15/05 07:48 PM
Great posts by everyone.
Firstly, to Neko456:
Quote:
I question have you ever used your art in a real fight? Or against another unwilling person? I know purist find this almost insulting but, still have you ever?
I think "real fight" needs to be clarified.
In aiki training (at least the way I learnt it, not necessarily how I was taught it), uke must really attack (however, you want to define "attack"). The interesting thing is that it is exactly the same in the jujitsu I do.
Most MA systems are predicated on "civil self-defense". i.e. the responses are predicated on someone trying to hurt you or kill you.
Standing your ground and trading punches, to me, is not a "real fight".
The point that was so eloquently raised by aikikiai is this:
It is not uke that is "non-resisting", but rather nage not resisting (in actuality, not interfering or interrupting) uke's attack.
In reality, it is mis-timing the interruption of the attack by nage, that provides uke with the opportunity to be able to resist and counter.
My personal feeling is that the (pure) art/science debate is moot. Every MA system is personal expression (art) based on physical laws of nature (science). Some physical laws (currently) defy explanation and scientific proof, but they nonetheless "exist" as theoretical postulates on observable phenomena.
Even though we cannot discount the synergistic effect of both working in concert, it may be prudent to keep the discussion on the objective (or at least observable phenomena) for the time being.
And let's see where this leads us.
Posted by: glad2bhere
Re: Muteiko - Principle of non-resistance - 08/16/05 09:23 AM
As much as I would like to stay with the discussion I am afraid I need to draw a line somewhere and that line is between me and such places a defining a "real fight". As a veteran of countless discussions (usually originated by an MMA proponent) I have seen too many dialogues devolve into semantics chief among which is defining a "fight". For the record I continue to hold that what passes for "fighting" in most discussions is what I would term "challenges". An actual fight occurs when individuals no longer care about the well-being of themselves or their adversary to the point that severe injury or death becomes a real or acceptable alternative.
Now, if you are hearing some small irritation in the tenor of my post it may be because we are talking about "(non-)resistance" and I have come to believe that actions in a real fight represent the opposite extreme. A person committed to dominating his adversary to the point that he will inflict even death while accepting or enduring any injury or discomfort himself is a far cry from the typical drunken bar-fight or parking-lot confrontation.
Getting back to the idea of non-resistance, let me also say that I am one of the few who hold that an accomplished Aikido person could very well use his skills in such a case. I believe that there would need to be three caveats however. One would be that unlike the use by police to restrain the individual, the Aikido person would need to hold self-preservation as the foremost priority. Secondly, again using the police for a comparison, the Aikido person would need to have an open-ended time frame as opposed to having to subdue a person within a given moment. Lastly, I believe the Aikido person would be allowed to use those portions of his training that would produce damage as opposed to simply redirecting energy.
Again, IMO I say that an Aikido person COULD successfully use their skills in such a situation with some modification. As always, your mileage may vary.
Best Wishes,
Bruce