Should resistent randori be introduced?

Posted by: Ames

Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/06/08 06:31 PM

Deleted post.

Topic became: "Is Aikido a fighting art?"

Please see new "Resistence in Aikido" thread.

--Chris
Posted by: NewJitsu

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/07/08 10:03 AM

Hmm. My limited experience with Aikido taught me more about choreography than fighting. As an art it is built around uke being totally compliant and would not just not be practical to add resistance. Try and slap a wristlock on when someone's punching you in the face? Tricky, to say the least.... I just can't see any practical applications to Aikido. Resistance could not be included because it would finish the art off, IMO.... Scales falling from eyes and so on.

I still love Under Siege though....
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/07/08 01:53 PM

I think any art that is practiced for combat potential needs resistant training. Here is a thread with some vids of Aikido with more unscripted randori:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...=0#Post15944833
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/07/08 02:15 PM

For the uninitiated, here is some Randori from Tomiki/Shodokan Aikido:

Longer Clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTt8YwPaPCY&feature=related


Lots of Short clips (less than 20 seconds each):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA0XACGbYck&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slmHJdbNdak&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck61s5GeOYU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA0XACGbYck&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D26GZJwYIE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajn6Jk_ESuo&feature=related


So as Ames mentions, there already exists a style of Aikido where competition/resistant randori is in place.

I think this is a fine line. I think Aikido Randori (and I have done quite a bit of it myself) needs to be like Push Hands in Taijiquan. The practioner should be able to demonstrate the principles of the system against someone who is resisting them.

I think New Jitsu made a decent point regarding Aikido moving too far away from its core system though. If it stops focusing on demonstration of understanding of Aikido against resistance, it isn't Aikido anymore.

As a comparison from my own experience I think of Judo. I studied Judo in 3 different clubs. 2 were modern clubs, referring to Judo as sport. As well as Randori, the other club took a more traditional approach to Judo. It focused on Waza, Kata, understanding the principles of Judo.

Many modern Judo clubs teach something akin to Olympic Wrestling. Nothing wrong with that if that floats your boat, but there is debate in the Judo community regarding how much Judo has moved away from its roots.

With all that said, I think resistance training should be part of Aikido as a) Tomiki/Shodokan shows it can be done b) it gives students a good opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of Aikido.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/11/08 08:29 AM

Resistance and "aiki" in the same breath is an oxymoron...

By definition, "aiki", meaning "to unite/join with another's 'ki' or force", implies being in accord with your opponent. And since you are in unison with your opponent (there is no opponent!), there can be no resistance.

"Resistance" is the result of your opponent sensing your force and opposing it. It is the opposition of forces between you and another that creates resistance. Like an electrical current passing thru a wire, the impedence in the wire creates resistance, and resistance creates heat.

Or magnets... like poles repel, opposite poles attract. Yin and Yang.

So, if there is resistance, it means at least one of you isn't doing "aiki".

Therefore, there is no need for resistance training in aiki, the absence of resistance is aiki itself.

Which vaguely echos the words of Chogyam Trungpa... there is no need to struggle for freedom; the absence of struggle is in itself freedom.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/11/08 08:47 AM

But how does one learn that perfect unison against someone that does not wish it to be? This seems to assume quite a bit of perfection in technique. Or perhaps aiki people assume they will only ever encounter other aiki people?
Posted by: NewJitsu

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/11/08 12:02 PM

Now we're moving into 'what is your definition of resistance?' territory. My old JJJ teacher always used to say don't just let tori throw you; if he hasn't taken your balance just stay planted. That was his definition of 'resistance'. Mine would be stay planted but also punch, kick, anything to gain the upper hand. Whether it's aikido vs aikido or karate vs karate, we're all fighting within certain rules and therefore can only provide a certain amount / type of resistance... apart from MMA. OK, no groin shots and eye gouges etc but pretty much anything goes.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/11/08 10:09 PM

Quote:

But how does one learn that perfect unison against someone that does not wish it to be? This seems to assume quite a bit of perfection in technique. Or perhaps aiki people assume they will only ever encounter other aiki people?


To the extent that certain things can be "learnt" is largely dependent on the individual. OTOH, some people keep banging their heads against brick walls and never ever learn...

In that regard, it's not so much perfection of technique as it is perfection of character. Emptying one's cup first tends to help...
Posted by: iaibear

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 12:08 AM

Just a thought.
Even my first Aikido sensei taught that when it was your turn to be uke you should attack with intent. You are not helping nage to learn if you just whiff at them. That sounds like "resistance" to me.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 01:36 AM

There's intent and there's intent... learning to read another person's intent is certainly a big part of it.

It's like training a dog. Dogs, and animals, in general, are far more cognizant of our intent, even if they can't communicate in a way that we humans can understand. People, OTOH, are a totally different ball game.

Teaching a dog to perform all manner of tricks, is like teaching a child the difference between good behaviour and bad behaviour.

Beating a dog doesn't make it understand what it's supposed to do... or not do... and neither does beating a child.... they only remember the beating and not the lesson.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 09:50 AM

Quote:

In that regard, it's not so much perfection of technique as it is perfection of character. Emptying one's cup first tends to help...




I do not agree. Character has little to do with fighting ability. Many unsavory characters have been great fighters.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 02:28 PM

Quote:

So, if there is resistance, it means at least one of you isn't doing "aiki".

Therefore, there is no need for resistance training in aiki, the absence of resistance is aiki itself.





Quote:

There's intent and there's intent... learning to read another person's intent is certainly a big part of it.





Couldn't an argument be made that by only learning the intent that is the absence of resistence, that one is then only to read that intent? Shouldn't one learn how to work with the intent that is without aiki?

--Chris
Posted by: mukashimantis

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 06:17 PM

I feel that if you are learning a "martial" art for sport or a hobby , minimum training is fine. However, if you are learning for self defense, you should experience resistance while training. Aikido may be more spiritual than Aiki, so it may be OK. But, if you look at the root training of O'Sensei and even Jigaro Kano , it was a training full of rough randori. As we all have read, O'Sensei's dojo was known as the Hell dojo. Hardly seems that they were just dancing. Also, how can resistance be harmful to training? With the proper use of Atemi resistance can be nullified.Great topic. Mukashi Mantis
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/12/08 06:51 PM

Just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many levels of progression and attainment, and many levels of sophistication and subtlety in the MA... aiki is no different.

Aiki as a concept and principle is simple enough to understand at one level and yet has several levels of complexity and layers of understanding.

At a fundamental level, if there is resistance, there is no aiki. When aiki happens, you'll both know it. You can't do or make aiki, you can only facilitate it happening, and by that, you can only BE and LET the forces of nature do their thing. Attempting to DO something (to the other person) is interference. And interference with the natural outcome creates resistance... By opposing and "fighting", you create resistance. Attempting to bend someone to your will also creates resistance.

One approach, can be to begin by "emptying yourself", and letting go of the idea of "fighting". On one level, there is no opponent. On another level, you and the opponent are one and the same thing - one half of a 4-legged animal. And still on another level, you are your own worst enemy. Yet, these are all fundamentally the same thing.

Ultimately, there is no "technique", and certainly no "ultimate" technique... there is only you and the subsequent perfection of you BE-ing... in the moment.

As far as "practice" goes, you can choose to practice anyway you wish. If you believe working with a "resistant" uke helps you find aiki better, by all means, go for it. Personally, I think both people working towards finding aiki together in a collaborative setting is far more conducive for both in the long run. After all, the incidences of finding those fleeting aiki-moments are generally far less common than those in which resistance and aggressive intent are created by one or both parties.

Besides, aikido isn't really about fighting, and its inclusion on a "fighting arts" forum is somewhat ironic. Although, I suppose, balance is needed somewhere...
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 02:28 AM

Morihei Ueshiba made it very clear that his art was indeed about fighting.

--Chris
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 02:45 AM

Cite please.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 03:29 AM

Well, "Aikido is 99% Atemi" certainly implies this! This is quoted in Shugyo, by Gozo Shioda. This quote is also found in Ellis Amdur's 'Duelling with O-sensei', pg 40. (1)

Here's a quote from Shoji Nishio who was a direct student of Ueshiba (http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=424):

Quote:

[INterviewer] Depending on the circumstances, the ability to attack is sometimes necessary in order to protect people.

[Nishio] We can attack. Since we know how to attack we don’t have to throw. Since we are able to throw we don’t fight or engage in matches. Everyone is convinced by this. Therefore it’s necessary to teach everyone atemi strikes. It’s possible to kill a person with a single finger.






Also, while I have the book open, perhaps I'll leave another quote from Amdur:

"It is pleasing to imagine that Aikido is exemplified by a pure deflection, the enemy spinning away and coming to rest, a contrite and reformed individual. It is also a naive and childish fantasy of the reality of conflict resolution. Peace must be established--not in the context of the schoolyard scuffle, but rather in the face of ignorance, fear and unmitigaged evil. In Bosnia for example." (2)

Now I understand that Aikido concept of 'fighting' is a broader and diffirent one from most other arts. However, 'fighting' it still is, in the sense of 'to contend with physically or in battle'. Although the philosophy of Aikido is as important as the techniques, that philosophy is predicated on one's ability to restore, in a violent situation, harmony by appropriate use of force.

--Chris

1, 2, both these quotes come from Dueling with O-sensei. Amdur, Ellis. Edgeword, Seatle, Washington, 2000
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 04:55 AM

Um, no, you have quotes from OTHER people, with THEIR interpretation of what THEY THINK aikido is... whereas your initial statement was:
Quote:

Morihei Ueshiba made it very clear that his art was indeed about fighting.


So, to back up your statement, you would need a quote directly from the old man himself, where he explicitly states or implicitly implies that...
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 08:24 AM

Ueshiba's students do not have to pass muster from Eyrie. Quite the other way around. Everyone else in the world would accept thier opinion - except Eyrie.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 10:36 AM

Just a point about Shodokan/Tomiki Randori:

The goal in Randori is to blend wholly with an attack, as Eyrie stated, in a natural and full way, where the opponent is compelled to move by the re-direction of his/her force.

This is the ideal outcome. However, it is sometimes hard to come by, also as Eyrie pointed out.

In randori, if a person is to make full use of Aiki, then it doesn't matter if the opponent intends to resist or not.

HOWEVER, if the opponent intends to resist, and the person attempting to use Aiki fails, then the opponent will be able to resist.

So in this sense, I still think resistance training is important, as it is a good way (IMHO) of finding out what you can or cannot do.

Resistance may well be futile, or it may well uncover flaws in a practioners Aikido. That is determined in Randori. At least the way I was taught. I have an open mind as to other methods of training to uncover this, but I think randori in Aikido is as good as any I have seen/experienced.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 01:48 PM

Eyrie, what are you talking about? Perhaps I didn't make it clear. Ueshiba is the one who said, "99% of Aikido is atemi."

But if that's not enough here a some more. Here he both directly states, and "implicity implies" ( :
These are from Budo renshu, by Morihei Ueshiba:

"As your Bujutsu training approaches perfection you will be able to detect the [weakness in the enemy's technique], the suki, even before he can, and as if to satisfy some deficiency in him, you can fill the opening [weakness] with your technique." pg.26
"True Budo is practiced not only to destroy an enemy, it must also make him, or his own will, gladly lose his spirit (seishin) to oppose you."pg.26

These are from 'Budo' by Morihei Ueshiba :

"When facing the realm of life and death in the form of an enemy's sword, one must be firmly settled in mind and body, and not at all intimidated; without providing your opponent the slightest opening, control his mind in a flash and move where you will - straight, diagonally, or in any other appropriate direction. Enter deeply, mentally as well as physically, transform your entire body into a true sword, and vanquish your foe." pg.31

"Regarding technique, from ancient times it has been said that movements must fly like lightning and attacks must strike like thunder." pg.33

"Fight masses of the enemy as if they were one man, and deal with one enemy as if he were many; this is the way you must do battle. Move in such a way that without openings [suki] you make one principle fit the myriad of possibilities." pg 26.

pg. 36 - "Always imagine yourself on the battlefield under the fiercest attack; never forget this crucial element of training."


From the book "The Founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba", written by Ueshiba Kisshomaru (translated and reprinted in Aiki News #62).

"[Ueshiba] started with easy techniques using two of his students. Even for an untrained eye, it was clear that he moved very softly... However, in the meantime his students attack him with all their might and still tumble down in a shower of attacks (atemi) to their vital points.
In short his art reaches a conclusion before ordinary judo even starts its work."


Here's an anecdote to help put those quotes in perspective:

Ellis Amdur

" recall a presentation 2nd Doshu gave to the Japan Martial Arts Society in the 1980's, and someone raised his hand as asked just when it was that Osensei became a pacifist. After the translation, Doshu looked rather puzzled, and asked for clarification, and the question was asked again. Doshu seemed to be suppressing giggles, and said, in effect that his father was never a pacifist, nor was aikido a pacifist practice. "After all, it is a martial art," he said. He then continued on to say, vaguely but accurately that his father created something new, that was outside the dualism of violence and non-violence."


Further there is a story I recently read . I can't locate the link right now, so I'll paraphrase. There was an Aikido demonstration. An old man was there and after it was over said , "This Aikido is very diffirent than the one Ueshiba Sensei taught us,". The man was questioned, and it turned out that he had been trained under Ueshiba during Ueshiba's time teaching at the notorious 'Nakano Spy School'. When the man was questioned as to what Ueshiba taught, he demontrated. The techniques were, grab your opponent, punch to throat, groin, eyegouge, throw to the ground, as well as limb breaking. If anyone knows the link for this I would be grateful.

Another thing to keep in mind when we are reading terms like "peace", "harmony" etc, is that these were being used very diffirently than we currently think of them. These were common 'catch phrases' used by the Japanese government in WWII in order to bolster support for the invasion of China. In effect, they were achieving 'harmony' by attacking and subduing the country. Now, Ueshiba himself had ties to some very, very right wing groups (the Black Dragon society), who not only met at his dojo, but helped fund it's being built. Onisaburo Deguichi, who is generally credited as being Ueshiba's main philosophic influence, was also directly tied to these groups. In other words, the phrases 'harmony' and 'peace' have been recently reapproprated and the meaning altered from the original one. Ueshiba was no pacifist. He was a class 'G' war criminal, due to his involvment with these groups.(http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=425) There is speculation that during the war, some of his top students (such as Gozo Shioda) were sent to Japan as spies who engaged in radical right wing/ quasi terroist activities. (http://www.morrisnoholdsbarred.co.uk/07Scorpionnoteslinks.htm)

So, all this evidence (and there is more, but I don't want to write an essay here--I have others to write that are actually being graded), anyway, all this evidence points towards Ueshiba, or more than likely his followers, recasting his words to fit a mythologized framework--that of the peace loving warrior/hippy/taoist immortal. However, the facts speak for themselves.

1. Ueshiba was involved with training numerous military groups.
2. He had direct ties (as in sat in the meetings) with the Black Dragon Society, a group that was involved with undermining of the government, pushing an ultranationalist agenda, esipinage, and terroist activities.
3. He himself was engaged in challenge matches--such as with Tenryu.
4. After the war, when the U.S. had conquered Japan, such rhetoric would no longer fly. Ueshiba left Tokyo, went to the boonies and softened his rhetoric.
5. Westerm authors, such as John Stevens, have recast Ueshiba as a peach loving pacifist. Yet, they leave out his involvment in these groups all together. As well, key issues are skirted (such as what exactly were Deguchi and Ueshiba doing in Mongolia). Unfortunatly, the image of Ueshiba has mostly been crafted in the West by people like Stevens. Stevens is offering his personal take on Aikido, but it is far from Ueshiba's own.

In conclusion, we have to be careful about using words and phrases like "harmony" or "art of peace" without reference to the culural milieu from which they sprang. These have only been recently invested with '1960's' peace/love rhetoric--the founder of Aikido almost certainly meant them diffirently.

So, I'll say it again, Ueshiba doesn't seem to have been against fighting.

Most of the 'philosophy' of Aikido today that is generally believed to be Morihei's is actually that of his son's Kissumaru. In both thought and technique, it could be argued, Kisshumaru has had a greater effect on today's practice of Aikido than his father.

From an interview with Gozo Shioda:
Quote:

Interviewer: Given his spiritual views on budo, did Ueshiba Sensei have any moral qualms about teaching at these spy training schools?

Shioda: No. He was only told to teach martial arts there.





--Chris
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/13/08 08:05 PM

Quote:

Ueshiba is the one who said, "99% of Aikido is atemi."


In Aikido Shugyo, Shioda (translated) is quoted as saying that "...He [Ueshiba] said, in a real fight, Aikido is 70% atemi and 30% throwing". In any case, this is 2nd/3rd hand information of what was supposedly said. Ellis wrote in 'Dueling with O'Sensei', in reference to the "oft-quoted saying" (again 2nd/3rd/nth hand information) that "Atemi is 99 percent of aikido". He also writes: "Here we have a martial way in which 99 percent of the combat tactics [his words] are joint locks and throwing techniques..." - the paragraph directly above the one you quoted previously. The implication of this statement is IF such a high percentage is "oft-quoted", why is it that 99% of the time, practice is primarily focused on locks and throws, rather than atemi? That, IMO, is the real question... because it raises the prospect that 99% (or whatever percentage) of aikido being atemi is questionable.

The rest of that chapter is an interesting read in itself, but the key point Ellis was attempting to convey is that the potential for atemi (as in striking between the spaces, striking the body and striking with the body) is there in every single "technique", within the entire continuum of the "technique". In my mind, the "potential" for something to happen is quite different to "actually" applying it so it happens.

Budo Renshu was written in the late 20's when Ueshiba was still doing and teaching Aioi-ryu Aikijitsu/Ueshiba-ryu Aikibudo. So, the thrust of his writings at that time reflects his thinking AT that time in his development and career.

The text you refer to is a translation which is [in Kisshomaru's word in the preface] "a revised English edition adapted to the current new age". Revised? Adapted?... from what? What was the original? It raises the question if the text was somehow "sanitized" for Western and mass consumption.

Here's the kicker... again Kisshomaru's words in the preface. "...since in Aikido the mind and body was trained internally without the use of competition".

Quote:

"As your Bujutsu training approaches perfection you will be able to detect the [weakness in the enemy's technique], the suki, even before he can, and as if to satisfy some deficiency in him, you can fill the opening [weakness] with your technique." pg.26
"True Budo is practiced not only to destroy an enemy, it must also make him, or his own will, gladly lose his spirit (seishin) to oppose you."pg.26


And yet, in the very next paragraph, it says "True Budo is done for the sake of 'building peace'. Train everyday so as to make peace between this spirit [of Budo] and all things manifested on the face of the earth. What could that possibly mean... I wonder?

Quote:

These are from 'Budo' by Morihei Ueshiba:


Um, no, they are Stevens' translations of a text which was based on Stevens own understanding of the material. The [true] sword [of Aiki](and mirror) is a reference to a (physical and mental) transformation of mind and body - not as you allude by implication to the vanquishing a "foe". Who is the foe? Someone other than yourself? Or your "self" as in masakatsu agatsu? What is the purpose of such "transformation" if not to defeat the Self?

Quote:

"... recall a presentation 2nd Doshu gave to the Japan Martial Arts Society in the 1980's, and someone raised his hand as asked just when it was that Osensei became a pacifist. After the translation, Doshu looked rather puzzled, and asked for clarification, and the question was asked again. Doshu seemed to be suppressing giggles, and said, in effect that his father was never a pacifist, nor was aikido a pacifist practice. "After all, it is a martial art," he said. He then continued on to say, vaguely but accurately that his father created something new, that was outside the dualism of violence and non-violence."


And by extension, outside the dualism of fighting... AND not fighting... so I stand by my earlier statement, it's not about fighting... or perhaps more aptly, it could be called the art of fighting - without fighting.

Quote:

..."This Aikido is very diffirent than the one Ueshiba Sensei taught us,". The man was questioned, and it turned out that he had been trained under Ueshiba during Ueshiba's time teaching at the notorious 'Nakano Spy School'....
.
.
From an interview with Gozo Shioda:
Quote:

Interviewer: Given his spiritual views on budo, did Ueshiba Sensei have any moral qualms about teaching at these spy training schools?
Shioda: No. He was only told to teach martial arts there.





I don't see how this helps your argument. So, in fact, what he actually taught at a "spy school" may not have been "aikido" per se, and just "martial arts" generally? MA principles are applicable to every MA, not just aikido - otherwise, they could hardly be called "principles".

Quote:

...all this evidence points towards Ueshiba, or more than likely his followers, recasting his words to fit a mythologized framework--that of the peace loving warrior/hippy/taoist immortal.


It doesn't explain Noriaki Inoue's or Kanshu Sunadomari's very similar perspectives of Budo, (or their abilities) both of whom were devout Oomoto-kyo devotees. I read somewhere that Inoue's movements bear an uncanny resemblance to Ueshiba, which I can believe, given the fact that Inoue explains in Stan Pranin's interviews (Aikido Maters - Pre-war students...) that he had been training with Ueshiba since he was a youth. Yet, by his own admission, thought little of Takeda or his art, and that the Oomoto teachings provided him with similar insights into martial arts, as it did Morihei, and to which Ueshiba largely lectured on his later years (pp 13-41).

And from Tenryu's own account, the "challenge" involved him "trying anything" to the old man, to wit:
Quote:

He [Ueshiba] offered his left hand, saying it was weaker than his right and continued, 'You must be quite strong physically. I am not putting any strength into my arm so you can do anything you want with it. Try!'. I thought that this old man was talking nonsense and slapped his hand down as I grabbed it. But the moment I touched him I was startled. I felt as if I had taken hold of an iron bar. Of course, I knew very well from my experience in sumo that it would be useless to struggle [er... resist??] against him. I immediately knew I had been defeated. However, I couldn't just leave things like that and so I attempted to twist his arm up and out. He didn't move an inch. I tried again with both hands using all my might. But he used my strength against me and I fell down. (ibid p279-280)


I wouldn't call that "fighting" - sounds a little one-sided, with Tenryu doing all the work. Sure, the old man liked to show-off, but that's not "fighting" in my book, nor does it fit in with how the word is defined in the dictionary.

Quote:

In conclusion, we have to be careful about using words and phrases like "harmony" or "art of peace".... So, I'll say it again, Ueshiba doesn't seem to have been against fighting.


I didn't say anything about harmony or peace. I said it wasn't about fighting, which is the point to which you are objecting. Even if Ueshiba was not averse to the idea prior to WWII, my argument is about the art of aikido as it was intended prior to his death (which I think should be the logical reference point since it represents the pinnacle of the man's philosophical and physical achievements which are reflected in the art's iteration of refinement at that point in time), and to which has already been pointed out, lies outside the dualism of this dichotomy.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/14/08 05:57 PM

Quote:

In Aikido Shugyo, Shioda (translated) is quoted as saying that "...He [Ueshiba] said, in a real fight, Aikido is 70% atemi and 30% throwing".




You're right about this. Saito Sensei gave the 99% quote.

Quote:

The rest of that chapter is an interesting read in itself[...] In my mind, the "potential" for something to happen is quite different to "actually" applying it so it happens.





No, actually Ellis then gives some ideas on how to insert atemi into the natural flow of techniques without having to go to an outside art.

Quote:

Budo Renshu was written in the late 20's




It was publised in the 30's. I believe it was written then as well.

Quote:

So, the thrust of his writings at that time reflects his thinking AT that time in his development and career.





I agree. But are you trying to say that we should dismiss his early views in favour of his later views? One could make the argument that after the 1940's Ueshiba wasn't even involved in creating (or practising) a martial art anymore. Here's what Shioda has to say about this:

Quote:

"I am told that Sensei said: in 1941, my physical training came to an end. Now, I have begun to study the way of the gods.."





So it seems, at least from this quote, that after 1941 Ueshiba effectively stopped investing in his time in the creation of martial art. What he was doing after this was a study of the "way of the gods (Shinto). Basically, he was performing Misogi.

Now this is not say that those who practice post war Aikido are doing something that is useles, but it does help to suggest that actually pre-war Aikido is the martial side of the art, whereas post-war focuses more on the spiritual aspect. All this is to say that it's not so easy to just throw away Ueshiba's earlier feelings regarding the martial aspects of Aikido, in favour of those that deal with the spiritual side of practice. I think this is something of false dicotomy.

Quote:

The text you refer to is a translation which is [in Kisshomaru's word in the preface] "a revised English edition adapted to the current new age". Revised? Adapted?... from what? What was the original? It raises the question if the text was somehow "sanitized" for Western and mass consumption.





Hmmm...not really. I think you'd need to provide evidence of this. 'Adapted' does not imply 'sanitization'. Further, if the 'sanitization' was to happen, wouldn't it make for sense for it to be interpreted in a way that better fits how Aikido is practiced in the West (as a less martial, combative art)? Why would it be 'sanitized' for a Western audience, only to seemingly contradict the way most Aikkai Aikidoka see the art? This is just illogical, imo.

Quote:

Here's the kicker... again Kisshomaru's words in the preface. "...since in Aikido the mind and body was trained internally without the use of competition".





That's not really the 'kicker' at all. Kisshomaru is not the founder of Aikido (although one could say, as historians such as Stanley Pranin have) that Kisshomaru's philisophy has more to do with the way Aikido is currently practiced.

More on the concept of 'competition' later.

Quote:

And yet, in the very next paragraph, it says "True Budo is done for the sake of 'building peace'. Train everyday so as to make peace between this spirit [of Budo] and all things manifested on the face of the earth. What could that possibly mean... I wonder?





I wonder too. Because I certainly see no evidence that it is talking about the kind of 'peace' you are thinking about. As I said in my last post, during the time that this book was written the Japanese government, who this book was written for, had a very diffirent concept/definition of 'peace' than you and other Aikidoka seem to have. For instance, when the Japanese invaded China one of the reasons they did so was to 'build peace'. This rhetoric fits well with this. And, again, this book was written for the very government that produced such propaganda slogans. the use of quotation marks(') around the words 'build peace' seems to point to this as meaning something diffirent than it's generaly accepted, Western, meaning.

Again, I can't emphasize enough the need to put a lot Ueshiba's writings into their proper socio/politcal context, not ours.

Quote:

Um, no, they are Stevens' translations of a text which was based on Stevens own understanding of the material.




Ok. Well, here's the thing with this. Steven's in his book 'The Art of Peace' gives his interpretation of Aikido as being more inline with yours than not. So, if we are going to call into question issues of a translator translating a work ideologically, it would make more sense for him to translate it towards the pacifist/non-violent kind of Aikido that Stevens himself promotes. He did not do so, because he is an academic, and he is translating this work to stay as true to the original as possible, one would imagine. If not, he would be untrue to the basic tenents of academic integrity.

Quote:

The [true] sword [of Aiki](and mirror) is a reference to a (physical and mental) transformation of mind and body - not as you allude by implication to the vanquishing a "foe". Who is the foe? Someone other than yourself? Or your "self" as in masakatsu agatsu? What is the purpose of such "transformation" if not to defeat the Self?





This is nice interpretation, though a subjective one, Eyrie. Notice your need to insert words in brackets ('true', 'of Aiki')? Doing this the meaning has been altered. I wonder, what is your training Japanese. I myself translate Tibetan, and am aware of how easy it is to make a text say what you want, especially if you don't have a grounding in the language, and knowledge of the history/socio/political/religious background of the author. So, I have to question you on your interpretive changes and you'll have to express to me why you feel the Japanese should be translated this way. If not, then I'll have to accuse you of the very thing you just accused Stevens of doing: altering a text to suit an ideological agenda.

In terms of "who the foe is", this is a relatively simple answer: those Japan was either at war with, or would be in the near future. This book was, after all, published for the those in the dojo who were expected to go off to war and fight for Emperor. Again, this needs to be put in the socio-political context of the time, something you seem unwiling to do.
You are welcome to read your own interpretation into the text, but to do so as though it is somehow a universally acknowledged truth, or a self evident one, is flawed scholorship.

As well, you seemingly contradict your earlier ascertion that this was written in a time when the study was 'Aikibudo', not 'Aikido' (something which I disagree with, and will touch on later). So, by your own logic, shouldn't this be speaking in a more combative way? Why exactly can't this mean 'foe' (as in opponent). All evidence seems to this being exactly what Ueshiba is refering to. The burden of evidence, then, is on you to prove otherwise.

Cite pleae.

I would also like to direct your attention to the bolded part of the second quote ("only to") does this not fairly clearly imply that there is more than a 'spiritual' foe being discussed?

Quote:

And by extension, outside the dualism of fighting... AND not fighting... so I stand by my earlier statement, it's not about fighting... or perhaps more aptly, it could be called the art of fighting - without fighting.





"Fighting without fighting" is still fighting. You, yourself are using the word 'fighting'. Fighting with fighting, is fighting, and fighting without fighting (though somewhat paradoxical) is still fighting. Stop trying to reduce this to a semantic argument.

You are arguing for a totally esoteric meaning of the word 'fighting' rather than the generally accepted one. Good luck with that.

Quote:

don't see how this helps your argument. So, in fact, what he actually taught at a "spy school" may not have been "aikido" per se, and just "martial arts" generally? MA principles are applicable to every MA, not just aikido - otherwise, they could hardly be called "principles".





No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you are too narrowly defining what 'Aikido' is. Whereas I am calling for a more expanded definition of 'Aikido' and using historical facts to back up my argument. You cannot sidestep the issue by saying "just martial arts", what does that mean exactly?

Quote:

It doesn't explain Noriaki Inoue's or Kanshu Sunadomari's very similar perspectives of Budo, (or their abilities) both of whom were devout Oomoto-kyo devotees. I read somewhere that Inoue's movements bear an uncanny resemblance to Ueshiba, which I can believe, given the fact that Inoue explains in Stan Pranin's interviews (Aikido Maters - Pre-war students...) that he had been training with Ueshiba since he was a youth. Yet, by his own admission, thought little of Takeda or his art, and that the Oomoto teachings provided him with similar insights into martial arts, as it did Morihei, and to which Ueshiba largely lectured on his later years (pp 13-41).




Omoto Kyo were group with ultra nationalist links. Much of the ideology of that group involved thinly veiled statements that implied agression to neighboring countries. Are these the kind of 'insights' you are refering to?

Tell me Eyrie, what do you think Omoto Kyu was about? After you do so, I'll send you out to look at some actual non-Aikido scholorship that describes Omoto Kyu in detail.


Quote:

I wouldn't call that "fighting" - sounds a little one-sided, with Tenryu doing all the work. Sure, the old man liked to show-off, but that's not "fighting" in my book, nor does it fit in with how the word is defined in the dictionary.




I'm not suprised that you "wouldn't call that fighting". Here are two defintions Webster's gives for fighting:
Quote:

to contend against in or as if in battle or physical combat

To put forth a determined effort




If two Judoka are engaged in a match and one Judoka far outclasses the other and throws him with little effort, that is still 'fighting'. Again, you're arguing against the generally accepted definiton of the word. Just because Tenryu was no match for Ueshiba, doesn't mean they weren't 'fighting'. Tell me, how did Ueshiba defeat Tenryu, by magic? One could say that the fight was 'onesided', 'short', etc. but it was still a fight (a challenge match no less).


Quote:

Even if Ueshiba was not averse to the idea prior to WWII, my argument is about the art of aikido as it was intended prior to his death (which I think should be the logical reference point since it represents the pinnacle of the man's philosophical and physical achievements which are reflected in the art's iteration of refinement at that point in time), and to which has already been pointed out, lies outside the dualism of this dichotomy.




No it doesn't. Here's why.

First, you have the qoute about Ueshiba giving up his "physical training" after WWII. So the 'pinacle' you speak to here, might be a spiritual one, but it isn't nescessarly a martial one.

Second, before you bandy words like dualism about, I suggest you consider your own words: you, yourself, are setting up binary opposition between 'pre-war' and 'postwar' Aikido in an attemtp to discredit the former.

Now, I don't really disagree with this seperation, I just thought I would point it out to you, because I hear so many Aikidoka throw out the word 'non-dualism' when they are still very much caught in this dicotomy.

Next.
Though I think you are entitled to your views regarding this as the "the logical reference point since it represents the pinnacle of the man's philosophical and physical achievements" this is a very subjective view. I think the thousands of Aikidoka who practice Yoshinkan, Yoseikai, and Tomiki style would very much disagree with you on that.

Here's an anecdote for you. Shoida orininally called his art "Aikibudo" but was asked by his master (Ueshiba) to call it 'Aikido'. Now why would Ueshiba do that if was Shioda was practising was 'only' prewar 'Aikibudo'--could it be, as the evidence in this case suggests, that Ueshiba himself did not share your views on what is and is not Aikido?

Even the 'art of Aikido as it was intended prior to his death" is up for debate. Certainly the 'post war' Aikido of the Aikikai hombu looks very diffirent than the Aikido of Saito (the longest serveing uchideshi of Ueshiba). I doubt I need to remind you of Iwami's heavy use of atemi?

What you are arguing about, I believe, is Ueshiaba's concept of 'no-contest'. I think you are misunderstanding this concept. Jigaro Kano also used this concept in Judo. It's a physical ideal, not a prescription against 'contests'. Rather, it is a call for softness rather than hard, muscle-based wrestling. When Ueshiba asked Prof. Tomiki to start an Aikido club at this university, Ueshiba was aware that in order to get club status shiai would have to be involved. This was after WWII. Ueshiba didn't seem (according to Tomiki, who you are welcome to call a liar) to have a problem with this.

For all these reasons above, I contend that the founder of Aikido never was against 'fighting'.

--Chris
Posted by: janxspirit

self defense is against resistance - 11/14/08 06:35 PM

Quote:

This is question I've been thinking of for awhile, especially in light of recent threads in this forum:

Aikido (aside from the Tomiki style) doesn't really have any resistent sparring/ randori. Do you think Aikido would benifit from the introduction of this facet of training, or would it suffer? If you think it would suffer, what in particular do you think would be affected?

How many think Aikido might benifit from the introduction of this kind of training?


Interested to hear responses, both from Aikidoka, and those outside the art.

--Chris




For self defense - any good fighting art must be tested against resistance - and athletic resistance at that. Otherwise, how does one know it works for self defense, against resistance.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/14/08 08:20 PM

Quote:

But are you trying to say that we should dismiss his early views in favour of his later views? One could make the argument that after the 1940's Ueshiba wasn't even involved in creating (or practising) a martial art anymore. Here's what Shioda has to say about this:
Quote:

"I am told that Sensei said: in 1941, my physical training came to an end. Now, I have begun to study the way of the gods.."



So it seems, at least from this quote, that after 1941 Ueshiba effectively stopped investing in his time in the creation of martial art. What he was doing after this was a study of the "way of the gods (Shinto). Basically, he was performing Misogi.


Not at all... I'm merely suggesting that one's perspective and outlook changes and matures over time. Misogi is merely another layer of the same path. According to Pranin:
Quote:

Morihiro Saito was a skinny, unimpressive lad of eighteen when he first met Morihei Ueshiba in sleepy Iwama Village in July 1946. It was shortly after the end of World War II and practice of the martial arts was prohibited by the GHQ. The founder had been “officially” retired in Iwama for several years, although in reality he was engaged in intensive shugyo in these secluded surroundings. Indeed, it was during the Iwama years during and after the war that Morihei Ueshiba was in the process of perfecting modern aikido.

Source: http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=210 />



Even when on his death bed, Ueshiba was still giving demonstrations of aikido. The purported story was that he had to be carried out to the dojo on a stretcher, whereupon he jumped up, performed the demo, and had to be carried back out after the event.

Quote:

Now this is not say that those who practice post war Aikido are doing something that is useles, but it does help to suggest that actually pre-war Aikido is the martial side of the art, whereas post-war focuses more on the spiritual aspect. All this is to say that it's not so easy to just throw away Ueshiba's earlier feelings regarding the martial aspects of Aikido, in favour of those that deal with the spiritual side of practice. I think this is something of false dicotomy.


On the contrary, I would say that the post-war/pre-war "difference" is a false dichotomy in itself. As I suggested, one's perspectives and outlook changes over time. As Pranin suggests, the founder was engaged in intensive shugyo and perfecting the art. I'm just suggesting that it is problematic to assume an arbitrary and static point (pre-war/post-war) in the development and evolution of the art that is, by it's very nature - dynamic, and to presume that it represents the entire totality and premise of the art. I propose it is merely a facet, an iteration, a snapshot of the art at the time, at a particular point in the continuing refinement of the art as Pranin writes.

Quote:

Hmmm...not really. I think you'd need to provide evidence of this. 'Adapted' does not imply 'sanitization'. Further, if the 'sanitization' was to happen, wouldn't it make for sense for it to be interpreted in a way that better fits how Aikido is practiced in the West (as a less martial, combative art)? Why would it be 'sanitized' for a Western audience, only to seemingly contradict the way most Aikkai Aikidoka see the art? This is just illogical, imo.


Translation issues aside, the Japanese have been known to rewrite history, particularly after the war, by embellishing facts and playing down other aspects where they might have been seen in unfavorable light. It is naive to assume that similar sanitization would not have been applied to other areas and facets.

Quote:

That's not really the 'kicker' at all. Kisshomaru is not the founder of Aikido (although one could say, as historians such as Stanley Pranin have) that Kisshomaru's philisophy has more to do with the way Aikido is currently practiced.


I can't find the reference, but my understanding is that Ueshiba was opposed to the idea when Tomiki first broached the subject with him when he was teaching at Waseda. Competition comes from the Latin competere meaning "to strive together". Shiai has nearly the same meaning of "trying/testing together". Also see Mochizuki's interview (Pranin, "Aikido Masters", p104) and Kano's own feelings about the idea of competition. For further commentary on "competition" please see
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-998.html and http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1191.html.

Quote:

Because I certainly see no evidence that it is talking about the kind of 'peace' you are thinking about.


I never said anything about 'peace'. As far as I'm concerned, "peace", "love" and "harmony" are grossly misinterpreted, in relation to "new age" aikido. It's got nothing to do with those ideas outside of one's self, but rather, relates to one's own state of mind within one's self.

Quote:

Steven's in his book 'The Art of Peace' gives his interpretation of Aikido as being more inline with yours than not. So, if we are going to call into question issues of a translator translating a work ideologically, it would make more sense for him to translate it towards the pacifist/non-violent kind of Aikido that Stevens himself promotes. He did not do so, because he is an academic, and he is translating this work to stay as true to the original as possible, one would imagine. If not, he would be untrue to the basic tenents of academic integrity.


I'm speaking to the issues of translation and context, and am merely suggesting that Stevens own understanding of the material is in question. The sword, the mirror and the jewel are Shinto shrine objects - objects in which the kami are believed to resided in and are therefore objects of deification and worship. Ueshiba was clearly making reference to these and linking it to how he saw the art. However, I'm not advancing arguments for a spiritual outlook or combative perspective either way. I'm merely commenting on the references you have provided, from alternate perspectives.

With regards to your whole argument about "fighting", it's like explaining to a child, what the (subtle) difference is between "fighting" and defending yourself. Punching the bully in the mouth because he called you names doesn't make it right and brings you down to his level. Punching him to make him stop pummeling you is an entirely different matter. Continuing to punch him after he has stopped is stepping over the mark. Walking or even running away from the situation doesn't make you a coward. The difference is "necessary and justifiable action". So when I use the words fighting and not fighting, I'm not speaking of duality or dichotomy, but rather whether one's actions and responses are necessary and justified according to the situation and circumstance. If that makes sense?
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/14/08 10:08 PM



Quote:

On the contrary, I would say that the post-war/pre-war "difference" is a false dichotomy in itself. [...] I propose it is merely a facet, an iteration, a snapshot of the art at the time, at a particular point in the continuing refinement of the art as Pranin writes.




Well then I don't know what you are arguing about.

My whole point here is that there are a variety of Aikido styles and that not one is the 'pinnacle' style. I think each style has diffirent traits, and that each represents a diffirent stage in Ueshiba's life.

I would also say that there is a large amount of Aikido (mostly that descending from Hombu) that is not really Morihei's Aikido, but rather his sons. Obviously this point can be argued, but from my research, that's what I've come to. So, when Stan Prannin refers to the final phase of Ueshiba's life, it's important to remember that he is refering to Iwama style, not that Aikido that descends from Kissumaru.

You asked me to provide quotes where Ueshiba talks about Aikido as fighting (or combative), I have done so.

Regarding the issues of the "Japanese have been known to rewrite history": well I don't really know where you're going with this, because that was the point I was making. The history of Aikido and the founder of it has been largely rewritten for a variety of reasons, some of which I outlined in my last post and don't need to go into again.

Quote:

Also see Mochizuki's interview (Pranin, "Aikido Masters", p104) and Kano's own feelings about the idea of competition. For further commentary on "competition" please





I've read those interviews. I don't really know where you're going with the Kano thing. Kano was responsible for many shiai during the formative years of Judo. He just didn't think Judo was a competitive sport. Again, this bolsters the argument that resistent randori can take place without there being 'competition' in the sport sense. As for Mochizuki he makes very clear in one of his interviews that Aikido is indeed a fighting art:

Quote:

Then he asked me whether or not aikido was really useful for fighting. When I replied that aikido was very useful not only for fights but also in times of war, he said my answer didn’t convince him. So I suggested that he attack me and stood there telling him to come anyway he wanted. He asked me to adopt a ready stance. I told him:

“Don’t say unnecessary things. There is no way for someone to defeat his enemy if he tells him what to do. Attack me as you like!”





Also, in that link you have Ueshiba said:

Quote:

The original intent of bujutsu was to kill a enemy with one blow; since all techniques can be lethal, observe the instructor's directions and do not engage in contests of strength ."





I can't see anywhere where Ueshiba forbid resistent training (on uke's part). The thing is, like Kano's ideal of Judo, the nage is meant to throw uke (ideally) without too much physical strength.

Quote:

I'm merely commenting on the references you have provided, from alternate perspectives.





Yes, and like I said, you're (of course) welcome to do so. I'm simply saying that the evidence points to him speaking firstly in terms of combat.

Quote:

With regards to your whole argument about "fighting", it's like explaining to a child, what the (subtle) difference is between "fighting" and defending yourself. Punching the bully in the mouth because he called you names doesn't make it right and brings you down to his level. Punching him to make him stop pummeling you is an entirely different matter. Continuing to punch him after he has stopped is stepping over the mark. Walking or even running away from the situation doesn't make you a coward. The difference is "necessary and justifiable action". So when I use the words fighting and not fighting, I'm not speaking of duality or dichotomy, but rather whether one's actions and responses are necessary and justified according to the situation and circumstance. If that makes sense?





No, I don't understand. Just because one of the people fighting has some ethical framework behind the reason why he engages in combat, doesn't remove the fact that IT'S FIGHTING!!! Once you engage physically in a violent struggle then it's FIGHTING! If someone attacks an Aikidoka on the street and you throw that person into the pavement and they crack their skull, can you say to the judge, no your honor, I wasn't fighting, I was merely being one with universe? No. It's b.s. You are fighting. If it's over quickly, then great. But it's still fighting.

You are attempting to redefine the word 'fighting' to suit YOUR agenda. No amount of ethical/moral talk is enough to detract from the physical truth of the techniques of Aikido (especially early Aikido): someone attacks you, you wrench their joint and throw them on the ground. If that isn't fighting, then neither is Judo, BJJ, JJJ, ect.

Eyrie, in general I appriciate your comments in this forum, but I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here. Early Aikido was a fighting art. Alot of later Aikido (like Iwama) is a fighting art. You still haven't shown how Aikido is NOT a fighting art.
--Chris
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 12:04 AM

Quote:

You asked me to provide quotes where Ueshiba talks about Aikido as fighting (or combative), I have done so.


And I have made my comments regarding those sources. All your prior commentary regarding the distinction between Kishomaru's "aikido" and what you have vaguely attempted to prove as "aikido" has nothing to do with your argument. Ueshiba never said it was about "fighting" - according to your broadly generalized definition of fighting. He said it was Budo - a martial way. If it was about fighting, he might have called it Bujutsu. You still haven't proved, beyond reasonable doubt that Ueshiba himself CLEARLY said it was about fighting. Only thru your interpretation and definition of the word used, which I have pointed out is subject to the same issues involved in translation of a non-English text.

Quote:

I've read those interviews. I don't really know where you're going with the Kano thing. Kano was responsible for many shiai during the formative years of Judo. He just didn't think Judo was a competitive sport. Again, this bolsters the argument that resistent randori can take place without there being 'competition' in the sport sense.


You brought up the competition aspect? And I have responded to the resistance issue. Resistance is something YOU create in the opponent... not the other way round. If you give the opponent nothing to resist, how can they resist you? That to me is the very definition to "aiki".

Quote:

Also, in that link you have Ueshiba said:
Quote:

The original intent of bujutsu was to kill a enemy with one blow; since all techniques can be lethal, observe the instructor's directions and do not engage in contests of strength ."





I can't see anywhere where Ueshiba forbid resistent training (on uke's part). The thing is, like Kano's ideal of Judo, the nage is meant to throw uke (ideally) without too much physical strength.


Um... the quote says DO NOT engage in contests of strength. I'm not sure what you are implying here, but everything you do requires strength. Lifting your hand to lift a cup requires some strength. I also don't see what this has to do with Ueshiba forbidding resistant training? Where did that come from? It seems to me that you are equating competition, fighting, physical strength with resistance.

Quote:

I'm simply saying that the evidence points to him speaking firstly in terms of combat...
No, I don't understand. Just because one of the people fighting has some ethical framework behind the reason why he engages in combat, doesn't remove the fact that IT'S FIGHTING!!! Once you engage physically in a violent struggle then it's FIGHTING! If someone attacks an Aikidoka on the street and you throw that person into the pavement and they crack their skull, can you say to the judge, no your honor, I wasn't fighting, I was merely being one with universe? No. It's b.s. You are fighting. If it's over quickly, then great. But it's still fighting.


Where did I suggest an "ethical framework"...? I used the word "justifiable" in the same context as it would be applied legally. Just because I didn't use the word "kill", if someone is trying to kill you, doesn't mean that I am averse to it. IMO, justifiable homicide is not "fighting". Pre-meditated violence is. I think there is a subtle distinction. But you seem to be missing my point by imposing your perception of me in the way you have framed your words and arguments. And I think your perception of what I think and believe is way off-base.

Quote:

You are attempting to redefine the word 'fighting' to suit YOUR agenda. No amount of ethical/moral talk is enough to detract from the physical truth of the techniques of Aikido (especially early Aikido)


I have no agenda. I'm only arguing the facts and points. OTOH, you are quite happy to push your contention that Aikido is a fighting art.

Quote:

You still haven't shown how Aikido is NOT a fighting art.


Because you choose to discount the arguments on the preceding points doesn't mean that I haven't demonstrated it....

Aikido pre-war/post-war are different iterations of refinement of the same art. Aikido pre-Deguchi/post-Deguchi influence is the key turning point in the evolution of the art, in which Ueshiba was already turning away and distancing himself from Takeda's influence. Which I believe was already taking place long before the war commenced. (I think around as early as 1924-25).

I don't agree with your position that Kisshomaru's personal "touch" has influenced modern aikido and changed it beyond recognition. If anything, I believe he has kept true to the spirit and intent of the onerous responsibility he inherited.

In Spirit of Aikido, Taitetsu Unno writes in the forward:
Quote:

Explaining his [Ueshiba's] art in a lecture he once gave to a general audience, he stated:
Quote:

Budo is not a means of felling the opponent by force or by lethal weapons. Neither is it intended to lead the world to destruction by arms of illegitimate means. True Budo calls for bringing the inner energy of the universe to order, protecting the peace of the world, and molding, as well as preserving, everything in nature in its right form. Training in budo is tantamount to strengthening, within my body and soul, the love of kami, the deity who begets, preserves, and nurtures everything in nature.







Even in Shioda's Aikido Shugyo, the final section heading...
Quote:

Aikido is the practice of Harmony
...In Aikido there are no tournaments, but I feel this is a good thing.... the concept of Aikido as a martial skill has ended with me. Instead, by training in the incredible techniques of aikido every day, I now completely embrace its fundamental principle of profound harmony and put harmony into practice myself....




Here we have not only the founder saying the same thing, but Shioda, whom you quoted previously, that aikido, as an expression of Budo, is not about fighting, but about something greater and beyond mere techniques of combat and violence.

I'm only pointing to what these very same people you quoted, that have written (or had translated for them) themselves!
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 03:26 AM

One last time.

Quote:

All your prior commentary regarding the distinction between Kishomaru's "aikido" and what you have vaguely attempted to prove as "aikido" has nothing to do with your argument




Okay, I'm going to start with the second half of this statement first. Who's being vague here?

You're the one who first said regarding prewar Aikido

Quote:

Even if Ueshiba was not averse to the idea prior to WWII, my argument is about the art of aikido as it was intended prior to his death ( which I think should be the logical reference point since it represents the pinnacle of the man's philosophical and physical achievements which are reflected in the art's iteration of refinement at that point in time)




But then you contradict yourself in your next post:

Quote:

On the contrary, I would say that the post-war/pre-war "difference" is a false dichotomy in itself.




So which is it, eyrie?

As to "what I have vaguely attempted to prove as "aikido"? Well, I haven't. You are the one who dismissed prewar Aikido as actually being
Quote:

Aioi-ryu Aikijitsu/Ueshiba-ryu Aikibudo.




I don't need to prove anything! Yoshinkan, Tomiki Style, Yoseikan, these are all regarded as Aikido! These all come from individuals who studied with Ueshiba during the time Budo Renshu was published! When you attempt to dismiss what Ueshiba himself wrote, essientially stating that it has no bearing on Aikido (because it is, according to you, NOT Aikido, it is Aioi-ryu Aikijitsu/Ueshiba-ryu Aikibudo), you are, by implication, suggesting that these other styles of Aikido are somehow lesser than what you have subjectively chosen as the "pinnacle" of Aikido. Sorry, I disagree with that.

Regarding Kishomaru's "aikido", I'm bringing that up because that is the lineage to which you obviously belong. I was bringing up points regarding the authenticity of Kishomaru's Aikido, because I find it ironic that you and e like to say how the post war Aikido is the pinacle, and all that prewar stuff...heck, that's not even Aikido! Sure, you'll say how there is no dicotomy, etc, but when push comes to shove, your entire argument is predicated on the fact that the postwar stuff is the pinnacle of the art. Meanwhile, Ueshiba walked into the Honbu before his death and shouted that Kishomaru and the other head sensei there were not even practicing "his" Aikido! Hopefully that clarifies things for you, eyrie.

Quote:

Ueshiba never said it was about "fighting" - according to your broadly generalized definition of fighting.




My definition is from Websters. Look it up. I quoted directly from it. Tell me eyrie, where are you getting yours from?

Further, I've clearly shown in various quotes, which DO NOT NEED INTERPRETATION to show that Ueshiba did in fact relate Aikido to combat (or the synonym of combat, 'fighting').

Quote:

Only thru your interpretation and definition of the word used, which I have pointed out is subject to the same issues involved in translation of a non-English text.





Okay, give me break. You have absolutely not pointed anything out whatsoever. You have the nerve to accuse me of vagueness? Again, what is background in Japanese? Heck, do you speak any other language than English? What is background in translation studies? What 'issues' are you talking about? Are you talking about a text being translated to suit a particular ideological view point, because I've already shown how that is NOT the case here. Again, rather than just stating things, you actually have to have a reason, a specific one, as to why you feel the translation isn't accurate.

I'd also like to point out that there doesn't need to be any outside interpretation done for my reading of the quotes I used. Meanwhile, your's requires, an interpretation of a book meant for students either in the military, police, or about to go to war, and another expressly written for military use, as dealing with esoteric Shinto! Really? Are you really trying to claim that I'm over intrepreting the facts to fit my thesis? Your intrepetation requires a rewriting of the words based on your own subjective concept of what's being said, even though you do not, presumably, speak or write Japanese.

Quote:

He said it was Budo - a martial way. If it was about fighting, he might have called it Bujutsu.




It has long ago been proven that Budo and Bujutsu were largely used interchangably in Japan. There are several densho that are hundreds of years old where the term 'Budo' is used. This dicotomy is largely a Western scholarly invention, and though helpful, it proves it's weaknes when things like what you stated above are said.

Budo Renshu was written and published during a time when Japan was readying for war. Ueshiba, it has been proven, certainly wasn't anti-war, not at this at least. It then goes without saying that this book was intended to speak to the people of that time. In other words, the book is milaristic in nature, because that was the cultural climate during its publication. Here's what one translator (not John Stevens) had to say in the preface for this an edition of this book:
Quote:

The political and historical context of the times should be kept in mind.




Further, the pictures in this book themselves depict a much more combative, self defence oriented Aikido. From these pictures alone, it is clear that Ueshiba intended these techniques to be used in combat.

Quote:

You brought up the competition aspect? And I have responded to the resistance issue. Resistance is something YOU create in the opponent... not the other way round. If you give the opponent nothing to resist, how can they resist you? That to me is the very definition to "aiki".




I brought this up due to your reference to Kano, as I couldn't puzzle out any other reason why you would throw him in there.
Resistence might be something "you create in an opponent" but how does one learn to do that when, in your ideal both nage and uke do not give resistence. Or as you said:

Quote:

So, if there is resistance, it means at least one of you isn't doing "aiki".





And please, don't try to get out of what the meaning of this sentence was meant to be. From your reply to MattJ it is clear that you indeed talking about complient practice being ideal.

Quote:

It seems to me that you are equating competition, fighting, physical strength with resistance.





You'll have to p.m. with your address and I'll send you a dictionary.
And yes, resistence, on uke's part should certainly involve physical strength. That is what I, and pretty much most people, mean when we say 'resistence' as it applies to m.a.

Quote:

Where did I suggest an "ethical framework"...? I used the word "justifiable" in the same context as it would be applied legally. Just because I didn't use the word "kill", if someone is trying to kill you, doesn't mean that I am averse to it. IMO, justifiable homicide is not "fighting". Pre-meditated violence is. I think there is a subtle distinction. But you seem to be missing my point by imposing your perception of me in the way you have framed your words and arguments. And I think your perception of what I think and believe is way off-base.




Honestly, eyrie, I don't know what you're thinking. But maybe if you didn't talk like a fortune cookie (fighting of no fighting) I would have an easier time understanding. Justifiable homicide is not 'fighting', unless of course a fight took place which caused someones death. What I'm getting at with the 'ethical framework' buissness, is that you are imposing a distintion between how your ideal Aikidoka would react to violence, and how anyone else would. I know that isn't very clear so let me try.

When I brought up the example of Ueshiba beating Tenryu, you said that
Quote:

I wouldn't call that "fighting" - sounds a little one-sided,




Well, to be blunt, that is nonsense. It doesn't matter how 'one-sided' a fight is, it is still what it is. If some highschool wrestler challeged Royce Gracie (or, for a better analogy, if Royce was the challenger) and Royce defeated him in seconds, would that, or would that not, be fight? Tell, me what is it in particular about Aikido techniques that give one this incredible ability to engage with violence in physical way, throw, joint lock, strike or pin an attacker, yet not be considered 'fighting'. I really would like to know here. You have been nothing but vague about this. Again, 'fighting of no fighting' still presupposes fighting, that is simply a logical fact!

Quote:

you are quite happy to push your contention that Aikido is a fighting art.




Really? My contention! I've already quoted from two of Ueshiba's uchideshi, who both also saw Aikido as fighting art. Shall I continue to quote from several more? I can you know. No, eyrie, here YOU my friend are in the minority. Most of Ueshiba's students take great pains to express that Aikido can in fact be used for self defence. As that Mochizuki quote shows, and I could find other quotes from other top students, the word 'fighting' is clearly used in relation to Aikido being 'able to do this'. So far, you really haven't supplied any 'facts' at all, you've merely commented on mine, without supportive material. I think this is case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

Because you choose to discount the arguments on the preceding points doesn't mean that I haven't demonstrated it....




No, that's not. You haven't demonstrated it because you've given absolutely no evidence as to why we should accept your interpretation as being anymore than what it is:your subjective interpretation. Again, supply some evidence (not just some unknown people in forum please), and then you can accuse me of this. So far, you have the one quote from Prannin, who also makes the claim that Aikido was at it's pinnacle during the post war period. That's great, and I would expect nothing less from Prannin as he is an Iwama Ryu practioner. Keep in mind, he has also tirelessly attempted to go back early "Aikido's" in order to figure out how Aikido can be more combative.
Other than this, you've done nothing to streghten your argument that Aikido is 'not fighting'. Feel free to do so.

Also, I find it funny that you are unhappy with what I provided considering your criteria was that merely find something that "implicitly implied" that Aikido involved fighting.

Quote:

Aikido pre-Deguchi/post-Deguchi influence is the key turning point in the evolution of the art, in which Ueshiba was already turning away and distancing himself from Takeda's influence.




No. Those books, from where the quotes come, were published after Ueshiba's meeting with Deguchi. Years after.

Yes, Ueshiba was turning away from Takeda, but as to why, well that's another thread altogether. Nonetheless, his Aikido of this period shows enough Daito Ryu influence for some (including yourself) to term it 'Aikibudo'. Just to be clear, Aikibudo was a name Ueshiba briefly used for his art until he came up with 'Aikido'. No longer paying his fees to Takeda, he needed a new name for his art.

Quote:

I don't agree with your position that Kisshomaru's personal "touch" has influenced modern aikido and changed it beyond recognition. If anything, I believe he has kept true to the spirit and intent of the onerous responsibility he inherited.





I'm not the first to suggest this. He had splits with a great many people over his personal concept of what Aikido should be. I'm not saying he was wrong. But it was his personal concept. He moves very, very diffirently then his father. It's well known that the techniques were changed. That's one reason why the Iwama style of Saito and the style of Kisshumaru look so diffirent. Again, this is common information.

As for that Shioda quote, well all I can say is read that book. There are many times in that book where Shioda talks about streetfighting to test out his Aikido techniques!

I've already shown one possible meaning of the word 'harmony'. To which you said:
Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, "peace", "love" and "harmony" are grossly misinterpreted, in relation to "new age" aikido.




Shioda is not talking about new age harmony hear. He is talking about the kind of 'harmony' needed to punch a yakuza so hard in the stomach that he passed out, or breaking the leg of a Chinese fighter who starts a barfight with you (both these are stories told in Shugyo).

Lastly eyrie, I can't help but laugh when the author of such statments as
Quote:

"Resistance" is the result of your opponent sensing your force and opposing it. It is the opposition of forces between you and another that creates resistance. Like an electrical current passing thru a wire, the impedence in the wire creates resistance, and resistance creates heat."

or

" magnets... like poles repel, opposite poles attract. Yin and Yang."

or

" In that regard, it's not so much perfection of technique as it is perfection of character. Emptying one's cup first tends to help..."

or

" Dogs, and animals, in general, are far more cognizant of our intent, even if they can't communicate in a way that we humans can understand. [...]Teaching a dog to perform all manner of tricks, is like teaching a child the difference between good behaviour and bad behaviour."

or

"Beating a dog doesn't make it understand what it's supposed to do... or not do... and neither does beating a child.... they only remember the beating and not the lesson"

or

"You can't do or make aiki, you can only facilitate it happening, and by that, you can only BE and LET the forces of nature do their thing."

or

"One approach, can be to begin by "emptying yourself", and letting go of the idea of "fighting". On one level, there is no opponent. On another level, you and the opponent are one and the same thing - one half of a 4-legged animal ."

or

" perhaps more aptly, it could be called the art of fighting - without fighting."

etc.





has the audicity to call me, who has backed up everything I said with actual references, vague!
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 03:54 AM

I thought this should be a seperate post (mostly because I doubt most people are going to wade through that last one).

I thought I would use video to better express my argument, that Aikido does involve 'fighting', including eyrie's concept of that term.

This video shows Koichi Tohei. For those who don't know, Tohei was the only student of Ueshiba given a 10th dan ranking. For a time (before a split that had more to do with politics than anything else) he was the chief instructor at the Aikikai hombu.

Here he is in demonstrating Aikido:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE5jN0rqMtM

Now, I'd like to bring attention to this next clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJ3bI-VyDg

Between 00:21 and 00:31, it is painfully obvious to anyone who has even a basic concept of kineselogy, that muscle is indeed being used in the techniques once a resistent opponent is introduced. And again between 00:49 and 00:53. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find one example where Tohei is not using muscle, push/pull leverage and needing to break his own posture in order to throw his opponent to the ground. Again, I'd like restate that Tohei was the only person given a 10th dan ranking in Aikido by the founder of the art. It's also important to know that his opponent was apparently completely untraned in any grappling system.

Now, I'm sure certain people are going to say that this is only one example, and cannot speak for all Aikidoka. But I'd like to say again, Tohei was the only tenth dan, was the head intructor at hombu, and therefore many current shihans were directly trained by him for a number of years. Therefore, this is pretty good example of what any of them may look like against a resisting opponent. I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that there were no strikes thrown during this match.

I dare anyone to say that this is not 'fighting'. This is an example of the difference between technique in 'theory' (demonstrated in the first video) and technique in application.

One wonders, had Tohei encountered more resistence in training would he have performed more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMw_Jtn3Avc

The person in this video is Kyuzo Mifune. Mifune was a product of early Kodokan Judo, and himself engaged in regular resistent practice. At the time of this video, he was in his 80's I beleive.

Going back to the original topic of this thread. It strikes me that both Takeda, before formulating Daito Ryu, had a backgroung in Sumo, and Ueshiba practiced Judo and Yagyu Shingen Ryu (which apparently at the time engaged in regular shiai matches). Many of Ueshiba's early uchideshi also had a background in Judo. What initially brought this question of resistence in practice to mind, was my wondering how much this early resistive practice informed these practioners later Aikido?



--Chris
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 05:24 AM

Chris,

I don't think that last response warrants a point by point answer on my part. My responses are from an intellectual debate... I don't think it's necessary to take vehement offence at the counter arguments that I have put forth, or to degenerate to using such insulting and abusive tone. I'd prefer if we can remain gentlemanly about the whole issue.

I have accorded you the respect and dignity deserving, because IMO, it has nothing to with the fact that you have yet to prove definitively that it was indeed Morihei Ueshiba who made it quite clear that Aikido is about fighting, even in light of evidence of his and other writings which point to the contrary. BTW, when you wrote that, I assumed you knew something I didn't, which is why I asked for a citation. So, there's no need to get ruffled if I prefer not to take your (quoted) word for it.

And FYI, I was never part of K. Ueshiba's lineage nor was I ever associated with that lineage. FWIW, I am 3rd generation in line to M. Ueshiba via one of his uchideshi who studied with him in the 1950s.

I have spent time in the military, and have been in a few fights - tournaments, firefights, and otherwise. I know what a fight is. But I don't know how to fight, I only know a few ways to hurt, maim and kill - which is not something I'm particularly proud of. Perhaps it is the real reason I detest fighting... not that I'm averse to doing what is necessary as the situation and circumstances dictate.

Ultimately, we don't have to agree... we can always agree to disagree. In parting, I'm sure you're familiar with the following quote: heiho no wa heiho? (I'd put the Japanese text in here, but the forum just mangles it as unicode). It's a common saying in many traditional ryuha... not one of my many fortune cookie quips.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 01:48 PM

Quote:

don't think that last response warrants a point by point answer on my part. My responses are from an intellectual debate... I don't think it's necessary to take vehement offence at the counter arguments that I have put forth, or to degenerate to using such insulting and abusive tone. I'd prefer if we can remain gentlemanly about the whole issue.





You're really crossing the line here, my friend. Please, what abusive language am I using? What is upsetting you, that I turned the tables on you after you had the nerve to call me vague and imply that my intreptation is groundless. If you don't like my tone then check the tone of the post that mine was in response to.

I have countered all of your arguments with evidence. You have provided none, yet you continue to disbeleive the evidence and then throw doubt on not only myself but John Stevens (as a translator), Nishio Sensei, and the others that I quoted.

If you want this to remain gentlemanly, then remain a gentleman. Counter my points with evidence. Don't try to detract from what I'm by disingeneosly calling me 'vague'. And don't expect me to allow that kind of behavior, nor the thinly veiled condensation of your early posts towards other forms of Aikido besides yours. If I see you do, I'll call you on.

Quote:

, because IMO, it has nothing to with the fact that you have yet to prove definitively that it was indeed Morihei Ueshiba who made it quite clear that Aikido is about fighting, even in light of evidence of his and other writings which point to the contrary.



I'm not suprised you don't want to engage with my points. I can imagine that one can only engage in purposeful misreading for so long.

You are debating a ridculous point--that Aikido is not a fighting art! I've given you evidence that it is from Ueshiba and many of his top students. You want to redefine the word fighting. Get over yourself.

Quote:

BTW, when you wrote that, I assumed you knew something I didn't, which is why I asked for a citation. So, there's no need to get ruffled if I prefer not to take your (quoted) word for it.





That's not what is bothering me. I don't mind quoting or citing something. I think any reasonable person can see that Ueshiba was involved, at leat for a couple of decades, in the creation of an art meant for fighting. I have shown

1. The cultural/political context of Japan at the time was militaristic, and many of Ueshiba's students, for whom the book from where these quotes come was made for, were in the military. This in includes admiral.

2. The physical techniques depicted themselves show a much more combative Aikido.

3. Ueshiba uses the words 'foe' and specifically talks about killing and physical victory.

In response, in terms of each point you have:

-Not spoken to number point 1 at all, presumably because it doesn't suit your agenda.

-Not spoken to number 2 at all, again, probably for the same reason

-Without reference to either 1 or 2, you have declared that the translator was wrong, and you know the real meaning. The meaning you propose is an esoteric one, and if you were to touch on 1 or 2 it would be self evident that such a meaning simply does not play a large role in the context of the rest of the book.

This is called faulty schlorship, even at the most basic level, eyrie.

If you personally choose to use an esoteric meaning for the word 'fighting' then by all means do so. But to presume that the rest of world (based on the definitions of that word provided by Websters) is just wrong.

Quote:

And FYI, I was never part of K. Ueshiba's lineage nor was I ever associated with that lineage. FWIW, I am 3rd generation in line to M. Ueshiba via one of his uchideshi who studied with him in the 1950s.





Interesting because on your website it says that you were
Quote:

In 1991, I started my Aikido training with the late Bob Gibbon (4th dan) and later with Mike MacGregor (4th dan), under the auspices of Takeda Yoshinobu Sensei (8th dan Aikikai).





Here is the aikidojournal entry for Takeda YOshinobu:

Quote:

7th dan Aikikai. Began aikido training at AIKIKAI HOMBU DOJO in the early 1960s. One of the leading students of Seigo YAMAGUCHI. Currently the director of Aikido Kenkyukai International and the Shonan Aikido Renmei in Kamakura, Japan, where he teaches.




All I see there is training at the Aikikai Hombu (which was run by K. Ueshiba). It seems the bulk of his training was indeed under the aupices of K.Ueshiba. Just to make sure, I checked out your teachers primary teacher at Aikikai Hombu (not Iwama):

Seigo Yamaguchi:
Quote:

13 April 1924-24 January 1996). 8th dan Aikikai. B. Fukuoka Prefecture. Aikikai Shihan. Began training at AIKIKAI HOMBU DOJO c. 1951 and quickly rose through the ranks. Dispatched to Burma in 1958 where he remained for several years. One of the senior instructors at the AIKIKAI HOMBU DOJO, he taught Monday evening classes for several decades. Traveled abroad on numerous occasions, especially to France where he had a large following.





Again, I see nothing in reference to any prolonged time as uchideshi at Iwama. It seems that both Takeda and Yamaguchi were primarily trained at Aikikai honbu, which, again, was run by K. Ueshiba. Again, your positing ideas that go against established facts.

Quote:

But I don't know how to fight, I only know a few ways to hurt, maim and kill - which is not something I'm particularly proud of. Perhaps it is the real reason I detest fighting... not that I'm averse to doing what is necessary as the situation and circumstances dictate.





From this alone I can see why you are biased to not wanting to believe that the art you practice is a fighting art.

Quote:

Ultimately, we don't have to agree... we can always agree to disagree.




Yes, absolutely we can disagree. The problem I'm having with you is that rather than speak to any of my points you have instead tried to throw doubt on my sources, implied that your style of aikido is the best, implied that I have being dishonest in my use of the material in front of me, implied a translator manipulated a text, and then, to top it off, called be 'abusive'. You crossed a line there, and you can consider this a warning.

You have provided nothing to back up your position and you continure to argue against well accepted word-definitions, historical facts, and scholors truthfulness...so I do think it is "necessary to take vehement offence" in light of all that I have just stated.

I was temted to remove your post altogether and p.m you with this part of my post. I am posting it here, because I know that others have seen your post and I don't want to appear like I am just removing that which I don't like.

I thought I would clarify why I take issue with your post and why I think you calling my tone 'abusive' is crossing a line. Again, I encourage you to participate in the thread and the forums in general, but please note that you have been warned that insinuating that I am insulting and abusing you because I disagree strongly with your opinions is uncalled for and will absolutely not be tolerated. Not done to me or any other member.

--Chris
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/15/08 06:42 PM

I see... so... bringing my personal background and lineage into discussion is fair game? Why not just stick to the topic?

I have addressed your arguments even if by your reckoning it doesn't meet your standards or requirements.

1. The cultural/political context of Japan at the time was militaristic, and many of Ueshiba's students, for whom the book from where these quotes come was made for, were in the military. This in includes admiral.

Not disputing this fact. Ueshiba was by that time reknown as a martial artist of some skill. However, your attempting to tie in a militaristic socio-cultural/political context to the foundation of the art is tenuous at best. Certainly Ueshiba was into martial arts, and studied a range of them - many of them well before the period in question. But, it is a stretch to suggest that the art was formulated on that basis and against the backdrop of a militaristic and nationalistic pride.

2. The physical techniques depicted themselves show a much more combative Aikido.

From which period? Which iteration of evolution? I think this is an important point even if you don't. I'm not disputing the fact that Aikido is a martial art/way, and that its principles and techniques are based on combative and fighting. What I'm disputing is the intent, purpose and end goals of the training method that is Aikido. There is ample evidence to the contrary, anecdotal and otherwise, that I have already referenced sources for, that suggest so.

3. Ueshiba uses the words 'foe' and specifically talks about killing and physical victory.

Translation issues aside, are you certain that these words were used in an absolute context rather than a metaphorical one? It is a well-known and accepted fact that Ueshiba used a lot of Shinto metaphors to explain and describe his art. And as I have already pointed out in my previous post, it is also well known that the Japanese have a fondness for puns and double entendrés.

Feel free to agree or disagree with me on these points.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/16/08 05:30 PM

Quote:

Not disputing this fact. Ueshiba was by that time reknown as a martial artist of some skill. However, your attempting to tie in a militaristic socio-cultural/political context to the foundation of the art is tenuous at best. Certainly Ueshiba was into martial arts, and studied a range of them - many of them well before the period in question. But, it is a stretch to suggest that the art was formulated on that basis and against the backdrop of a militaristic and nationalistic pride.




I never said that 'Aikido' "was formulated" on the basis. I am suggesting, though, that this played a major role in early Aikido.

Here is the evidence:

Budo Renshu was published as a gift to certain of Ueshiba's students. There is evidence that it was a kind of densho, given to students who had acheived a certain level of knowledge. Most likely this was done because Ueshiba could not give out scrolls because Sogaku was the only one who could do so.

We have to keep in mind who the students at the Kobukan were. According to Stanley Prannin, the dojo membership was largely made up of " "military officers, government officials and wealthy persons"(A.J). From these contacts, Ueshiba was given government contracts, so that "his main outside activities involved teaching posts at several military institutions. These prestigious assignments came about through his broad network of contacts among high-ranking army and navy officers"(Prannin). Considering that Japan was gearing up for a major war, it would only make sense for these officers to be training a martial art that is applicable to thier lives, not only in a philosophical sense, but in a combative one as well. Both Morihei's verbal and physical teachings must have been in line with the government of the day. After all, he was selected to teach at the following institutions:

Naval Staff College (Kaigun Daigakko), c. 1927-1937 through his contacts with Admirals Isamu Takeshita and Sankichi Takahashi.
Army University (Rikugun Shikan Gakko)
Military Police School (Kempei Gakko), dates unknown, through an introduction from General Makoto Miura.
Toyama School (Rikugun Toyama Gakko), c. 1930-?, possibly through a connection with General Miura.
Nakano Spy School (Rikugun Nakano Gakko), c. 1941-1942, through a connection with General Miura.
In addition, brief teaching stints at the Naval Engineering School (Kaigun Kikan Gakko), the Yokosuka Naval Communications School (Kaigun Tsushin Gakko), and the Torpedo Technical School (Kaigun Suirai Gakko) of unknown dates are recorded. (Prannin)"

One doesn't need to be an expert in Japanese WWII history (I certainly am not!) to know that these institutions were training the elite of the milaristic goverment's regime. Ueshiba was involved in training those who would have a direct influence on the next twenty years of Japanese history. Certainly, it is difficult to imagine an ultranationlistic government allowing a preacher of peace and harmony, in the Western sense, to instruct men of this importance. Prannin notes: "A glance at the above list offers rather convincing evidence of Morihei’s extensive links to right-wing military figures and their activities."

Further, not only did these right wing elites find enough in common with Ueshiba's teachings to supply him with several government contracts, they also helped to fund the very construction of the Kobukan. Amoung those present at the opening of dojo were: "Among the vip’s in attendance were Admiral Isamu Takeshita, General Makoto Miura, Rear Admiral Seikyo Asano, Admiral Sankichi Takahashi, Dr. Kenzo Futaki, Harunosuke Enomoto, and retired Commander Kosaburo Gejo." I do not have enough time to go into a detailed, or even basic, biography of each of these individuals. However, if one were to do so, they find that many of these people were involved in a variet of war crimes, assainations, terroist activies, undermining of goverments, etc. Again, these people liked Ueshiba enought to attend the opening of his dojo. In light of what these men did for a living, it's hard to imagine them agreeing with someone who preached a 'love thy neighbor' philosophy.

However, links with these officials, though interesting and certainly suggestive, do not necessesarily prove that the actual philosophy and techniques of Aikido at this time were intended for killing an opponent, or that they were milaristic in nature. For this we have to look at the techniques themselves and Ueshiba's own description of them, and then place all these things in their proper context.

Firstly, Ueshiba's first uechi deshi, remembers the type of training done at the Kobukan as:"The basics went about as far as gokajo, and after that it was applied techniques .” These "applied techniques" were most likely the same that Ueshiba taught to the military organizations. Next in Budo Renshu, under the heading of "Standing Techniques, which is a description of the proper mindset needed for their delivery Morihei says the following:

"To defend this [our nation]* each person must build a castly inside himself and then consolidate all these castle together. This is the training of Budo." (Budo,22)

This statment appears in line with Ueshiba's comment that:
Quote:

… the true task of Japanese martial arts is to become the leader of all the martial arts on earth as part of the continuing process of realizing an Imperial Way for the whole world.




There is no denying that Ueshiba was pro Japanese Colonialism and the invasion of neighboring countries this worldview presupposes. Again in Budo Renshu, still desribing the mindset of the physical techniques, Morihei states: "Speaking on a large scale, we defend the whole nation and on a small scale we defend our own bodies." (Budo, 23)

Quote:

From which period? Which iteration of evolution? I think this is an important point even if you don't. I'm not disputing the fact that Aikido is a martial art/way, and that its principles and techniques are based on combative and fighting. What I'm disputing is the intent, purpose and end goals of the training method that is Aikido. There is ample evidence to the contrary, anecdotal and otherwise, that I have already referenced sources for, that suggest so.





Again, I am talking about the period before the war. This is a stage of Aikido, and, unless one views Tomiki, Yoshinkan and Yoseikan as somehow lesser Aikido (which it absolutely should not be), then Ueshiba's worldview at the time should not simply dismissed because it does not fit with YOUR thinking. The "ample evidence to the contrary, anecdotal and otherwise" comes from a later period of Aikido. I have already, in a prior post, suggested that there is evidence that Ueshiba had effectively abandoned his pursuit of the martial in favour of the spiritual. There is overwhelming evidence that early Aikido was in fact created primarily as a fighting art.

I find it funny that you now are willing to admit that:
Quote:

I'm not disputing the fact that Aikido is a martial art/way, and that its principles and techniques are based on combative and fighting .




When this entire debate began because you stated:

Quote:

]"Besides, aikido isn't really about fighting, and its inclusion on a "fighting arts" forum is somewhat ironic."




If you will not dispuite that Aikido "principles and techniques" (in other words the entirety of the art) are based on "combat and fighting", then why have you been disputing this with for three pages now? Are you purposely wasting my time, or are changing your argument mid-stream (as it certainly appears).

Nontheless, the "intent, purpose and end goals of the training method that is Aikido" vary based on time. I have already clearly established in my prior posts that no one fully practiced Ueshiba's Aikido. Therefore, all manifestations of the art are on equal ground and deserve equal appraisal. I will deal with this topic more in reference to your last point, which is:

Quote:

Translation issues aside, are you certain that these words were used in an absolute context rather than a metaphorical one? It is a well-known and accepted fact that Ueshiba used a lot of Shinto metaphors to explain and describe his art. And as I have already pointed out in my previous post, it is also well known that the Japanese have a fondness for puns and double entendrés.





No one is suggesting that Shinto metaphors do not also play a role in the Aikido of the Budo Renshu period. However, it is indisputable that tje majority of those techniques were meant to kill and maim a "foe". For proof of this, I need do no more than look at the text itself. The following are just a few examples the illustrate the general nature of the techniques from the text:

pg 64- Technique 74, clearly shows a technique that finishes with the snapping of Uke's elbow. Many others are done at an angle very diffirent than postwar Aikido (and in line with Daito Ryu). These techniques are not 'locks' they are breaks.

pg. 102/ 103-Tech.78/79 both force Uke into a position where a breakfall in nearly impossible (as some who studied Daito Ryu and the technique that is the basis for this one, I know that, should the technique be applied by suprise, a breakfall would be impossible). The end result of these techniques, like many more in text, are the neck breaking and death.

pg 116- tech 90- is a neck crank that would more than likely damage the cervical spine. After this, as though not we are told that an atemi can then be delivered to the windpipe, killing the opponent.

pg 127-tech 98- End with uke cervical spine being brought down hard into nages knee. This would result in paralysis or death.

pg 129-tech 100-Uke is thown head first into the ground. In order to acheive the throw, the Uke's arms are controlled. Again, from the angle of the technique, a breakfall would b unlikely by all but the most experianced of fighters.

And there are many more like that. Although some 'control' techniques certainly exist, the majority of these techniques by far result in death/paralysis/ rapid limb destruction.

The Aikido of Budo Renshu undisputably shows a combative/militaristic Aikido, meant for the Imperial army which studied it. Again, there is absolutely no way to disprove this, as the TECHNIQUES THEMSELVES CLEARLY SHOW that the intent is killing of your foe.

The next question is, did UESHIBA's techniques really change that much in the years following the war? And this was my point about bringing K.Ueshiba into this whole thing.

It is well known that he changed the techniques, and made them safer. I could find any number of quotes to back this up, but it's such an established fact, I'm not going to bother. Yet, when we look at those techniques of the Iwama style, we see that they are NEARLY IDENTITICAL to those illustrated in Budo Renshu (heavy emphasis on atemi and all).

What's my point? My point is that it is clear, based on the culural context, Ueshiba's own words, the outcome of the techniques themselves, that early Aikido was intended to be used combatively. Further, the techniques usually resulted in death/paralysis/limb destruction. If Saito, as Ueshiba's longest serving post-war uechideshi, was not misrepresenting the final techniques of M.Ueshiba, then we can be fairly certain that the techniques never underwent the massive change generally believed to have occured. It should be recalled that Shioda, a veteran of the Kobukan (prewar Aikido) actually asked Saito to take over the Yoshinkan after his death. It seems that the techniques were more similar than diffirent.

My belief, backed by strong evidence, is that the intent of the texhniques of both the pre and post war phases of Aikido was destruction of an enemy. Ueshiba's concept of 'reestablishing peace' should be seen in the same culural context as his positive views regarding the militarisc Imperial governments attempt to 'establish peace' through dominition of Japan's 'enemies'.

In conclusion, it is more than likely K.Ueshiba who actually altered the meaning of 'peace and harmony', removing them from the context M.Ueshiba used them in order to make them more palatable, both for Japanese and non-Japanese alike.

M.Ueshiba's art was about combat, fighting. But it was explained with recourse to a very esoteric Shito language. Also remember, that most of Ueshiba's religious views came from Omoto Kyo. Deguchi, the leader of this group was, "deeply involved in politics and cultivated many right-wing contacts. These included such famous figures as Mitsuru Toyama and Ryohei Uchida, both key figures in the notorious Black Dragon Society and other right-wing organizations." (Prannin 2) Thus, even the Shinto/spiritual aspect of M.Ueshiba's art seems colored by these associations.

eyrie, the burden of evidence is now on you to disprove that M.Ueshiba's Aikido wasn't about 'fighting' or combat adn that the ostensibly spiritual goals of the founder were in anyway antithetical to his earlier (deeply) held beliefs manifested in many schools of Aikido's techniques. Outside of writing a book, I can do no more to explain this. I simply don't have the time.

--Chris

works cited:

Prannin, Stanley. Kobukan Dojo Era Parts 1, 2
http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=193
http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=207

Ueshiba, Morihei. Budo Training in Aikido. Trans. Larry E. Bieri, Seiko Mabuchi. Sugawara Martial Arts Institute, Tokyo, 2002.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Should resistent randori be introduced? - 11/16/08 06:49 PM

I understand that the basis of your thesis is based on pre-war Aikido as a fighting art. So what? The fact that Aikido's technical base is Daito-ryu Aikijitsu is undisputed. That the techniques can be changed and have been changed to be "safer" is neither here nor there. Techniques can be and usually are modified for participant safety. Techniques can also be situationally adpated and changed to be less lethal in execution if so desired.

Quote:

I never said that 'Aikido' "was formulated" on the basis. I am suggesting, though, that this played a major role in early Aikido.


"Played a major role" how? If not in the basis or raison d'etre for formulation, design, creation of, then what?

Quote:

Most likely this was done because Ueshiba could not give out scrolls because Sogaku was the only one who could do so.


Well, according to Pranin (Aiki News #94, Winter/Spring 1993), "among the recipients of Daito-ryu diplomas [kyoju dairi certification] from Ueshiba are Kenji Tomiki, Minoru Mochizuki, Rinjiro Shirata, and Gozo Shioda".

Quote:

Nontheless, the "intent, purpose and end goals of the training method that is Aikido" vary based on time. I have already clearly established in my prior posts that no one fully practiced Ueshiba's Aikido. Therefore, all manifestations of the art are on equal ground and deserve equal appraisal


So, in light of this comment, what is the objection to my personal opinion regarding the non-fighting aspect of "aikido" generally?

Quote:

The next question is, did UESHIBA's techniques really change that much in the years following the war? And this was my point about bringing K.Ueshiba into this whole thing.


And I have already refuted this point. There is ample video evidence of an older Ueshiba demonstrating techniques which bear little to no resemblance to those you referenced in Budo Renshu and elsewhere. And certainly no resemblance to the series of photographs taken at the Noma Dojo around the same period.

Quote:

In conclusion, it is more than likely K.Ueshiba who actually altered the meaning of 'peace and harmony', removing them from the context M.Ueshiba used them in order to make them more palatable, both for Japanese and non-Japanese alike.


Speculation... You have chosen to ignore Ueshiba's own words regarding this area.

As I said, I understand that your thesis is about pre-war Aikido as a fighting art, which is a moot point. How this "debate" started was when I asked you for a cite where you assert that Morihei Ueshiba made it very clear that it was about fighting. You have written a lot of peripheral guff to justify your thesis, which is fine. I see no point in belaboring the point.

As for my comment about not fighting, it is merely my opinion to which I am entitled... you don't have to agree with it, and I certainly don't have to justify it - even though I have based it on the same sources you have quoted, and to which you have ignored conflicting evidence (from the same sources!) that are contrary to your thesis.

Which is fine... because I'm not arguing about the validity of your thesis. Perhaps we can now get back to the topic on whether resistant randori should be introduced? Or do we need to debate which/whose "aikido"?
Posted by: Ames

Is Aikido a Fighting Art? - 11/16/08 08:12 PM

eyrie, I'm done.

I've stated my case, I've provided evidence. You have changed your argument several times. It appears like you just want argue.

You have yet to present any evidence, or references to dispute my claim that Aikido IS a fighting art (which has been my thesis).

I think it will be clear to any reader who has been disingenuous here.

In conclusion, let me remind you that this started because you made the ludicrous statement that:

Quote:

]"Besides, aikido isn't really about fighting , and its inclusion on a "fighting arts" forum is somewhat ironic."





Only, three pages, later to say:

Quote:

I'm not disputing the fact that Aikido is a martial art/way, and that its principles and techniques are based on combative and fighting .




Now, anyone in their right mind can see how these two things contradict one another. My part in this debate was to try and show you that Aikido is a fighting art. Obviously I have done so. Thank you for coming around.

Thread locked.

--Chris