modern aikido

[GrahamB]

Aikido threads will never die. Ki just keeps extending......

I think we need to bring Steven Segal into this...

[D_Glenn]

Aikido threads will never die. Ki just keeps extending......

I think we need to bring Steven Segal into this...

You're too late, he already has showed up at this party:

Don't most Modern Aikido practitioners endlessly extoll the virtues of compassion? Is this not more-or-less the opposite of ruthlessness?

No no no... you got it all wrong...

This guy does 'modern aikido', right? So that's what it should look like, dammit!

[ "Steven Seagal Brutality Video" ]

and some more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X9RvuSuU_Y


.

[WVMark]

The function of a martial art is to demolish an attack as quickly and as ruthlessly as possible...

Are you sure this is the "function" of the martial arts?
I think a quick and ruthless demolition of an attack could be a trait of some martial artists and perhaps some MAs even, but not the "function" of them all. Saying this in regards to Modern Aikido in particular seems strange to me. I personally don't think that ruthlessness needs to have anything to do with martial arts, sure you can be a great ruthless martial artist but I don't think its intrinsic to MA in any way. Shouldn't the function of the martial arts be more akin to complete control of the opponent(Whether through the use of force or emptiness or what-have-you)? Don't most Modern Aikido practitioners endlessly extoll the virtues of compassion? Is this not more-or-less the opposite of ruthlessness?

Contrary to popular belief I don't think there is a cookie cutter modern aikidoist. There are simply too many out there to be objective, over 1.5 mil last count I heard. Thousands upon thousands practising the art in one form or another, whom we will never encounter and know nothing about. We are prone to generalisation.

I think if you are practicing a martial art then you have to square morally within yourself what you hope you are prepared to do.
This has to be squared with what you are training yourself to do subconsciously.

If you train persistently to attack the eyes, throat and knees in as many speedy and plausible scenarios, then it should hardwire to result in automated response when triggered by an assault. Like training a dog really.

I can be inwardly compassionate to someone trying to attack me but behaviourally aggressive to stop them from injuring me.

I do not see much value in spending years doing a martial arts, if when self protection is needed it all fall to pieces. There are of course many other benefits to training, I enjoy good health and good friends from practice. I enjoy solving life's problems by using martial arts as a strategy and so on..

If you are been attacked you can't think, you respond. I have been attacked a few times and on two occasions the response was text book self protection.
The training just overrode my anxiety and took care of me.. worked like a charm..

I think the more one trains and embodies training then certainly the less of a target one becomes, there is something about folks who spend a long time working on a martial art.

To lose the martial function, is to lose the content. A strike to the eyes will always be a strike to the eyes.. One does not need to obsess about it though..but it should always be there.. up your sleeve, at the back of your mind, its what gives us freedom to move, to not get stuck on form or a technique.

As we say round here " if you can't get them one way, get them another ".

when we talk about peace and the martial arts I think we are talking about inner peace, making peace morally with ourselves about what we feel is acceptable to do when attacked by another or others....

To have complete control of more than one attacker is supreme ability, and high risk.

Try it out get three friends to attack you, give two of them a knife, it becomes obvious that ruthless demolition of the first guy is your only option.
Many street attacks on single males are group attacks. Its worth thinking about, I am sure you do.

Rich

Ueshiba sparred with a swordsman and hurt the swordsman. Don't have the reference handy, but after that Ueshiba changed and said that he didn't want to harm the attacker. His ideal wasn't just an ideal to him. He actually trained towards that goal ... with aiki. In fact, there are other people who have trained aiki who have progressed close to that goal. That becomes a very big difference between Ueshiba's aiki and Modern Aikido. With Ueshiba's aiki and a martial system, one can progress much closer to that ideal of not harming the attacker (Notice I said progress closer, not always get there) than Modern Aikido will ever get.

It's an ideal. Something worth training towards. If we look at Takeda, when he was attacked by the mob (I think construction workers), he killed some of them. Ueshiba hurt people, even in some of his demos. Ueshiba stated that in a real fight, it would be 75% (or 90%, depending on the quote used) atemi. While they held to a higher ideal of not harming the attacker, they also knew that it could happen. For them, though, the reason it could happen was because of the internal power they wielded, not because of eye gouges, throat strikes, or dislocating knees. Pre-war students stated that when Ueshiba grabbed their wrist, they thought he would break/crush it because of the power he had.

Mark

[emptycloud]

Corky's all about this ideal of a non violent martial art.. I have some reservation. However it does make practice very precise and conscious as an approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-eHL-wzHuA

Rich

[allen2saint]

Intention is a big deal. I think intention helps us dispense with a lot of unwanted techniques, which is useful in this environment where there's a ton of MA out there to learn. If you know you are a pacifist, then you train accordingly and you don't make yourself miserable.

[Itten]

With respect, what Dan and Mark are talking about has nothing to do with intention as "attitude", but rather with intent as "method". Yi to ki to li. Being a pacifist and studying a martial art is like trying to jump up and down after tying yourself to a chair. If you follow an internal method that leads to harnessing opposing forces in self and can get to a point of being "neutral" , then using power or not using power is not the result of intentions but the result of your structure's constant desire to retain it's internal, inflated condition, allowing nothing in to disturb it. This may sometimes mean returning incoming forces that cannot be dissipated within the structure.
Wether or not modern aikido does this or not is a matter of opinion, but all the talk of attitude is irrelevant if the individual is concerned with the maintenance of a state based upon the polarities of yin/yang . This state must permeate bones, muscles and tissues, and that won't happen unless it first of all permeates the mind.
regards

[GrahamB]

your structure's constant desire to retain it's internal, inflated condition, allowing nothing in to disturb it. This may sometimes mean returning incoming forces that cannot be dissipated within the structure.

I hadn't thought about this before, but thanks - I think it might explain discussion styles too.

[allen2saint]

Being a pacifist and studying a martial art is like trying to jump up and down after tying yourself to a chair.....

Most people when they comment on moral or philosophical ideas jump rght to extremes and absolutes. That's a mistake. There are levels of commitment to an idea such as "pacifism." I don't know about you, but I've met a whole bunch of MA people who thrive on the idea of having power over others and being able to hurt or kill. In contrast, if I practice intentionally to develop a set of skills and strategies that minimize the opponent's injury while I still accept that I will not simply stand there and let someone injure me, I'd say that's "pacifist" enough for most. What one decides one will and will not do directly affects how they practice, just as in any other activity in life. I understand that Dan and Mark are talking about something else.

[Bhassler]

your structure's constant desire to retain it's internal, inflated condition, allowing nothing in to disturb it. This may sometimes mean returning incoming forces that cannot be dissipated within the structure.

I hadn't thought about this before, but thanks - I think it might explain discussion styles too.

IPPON!

[Spncr]

Does that mean +1?

[wiesiek]

more like:
- bullseye , -10 points
or simply - winner

[WVMark]

Being a pacifist and studying a martial art is like trying to jump up and down after tying yourself to a chair.....

Most people when they comment on moral or philosophical ideas jump rght to extremes and absolutes. That's a mistake. There are levels of commitment to an idea such as "pacifism." I don't know about you, but I've met a whole bunch of MA people who thrive on the idea of having power over others and being able to hurt or kill. In contrast, if I practice intentionally to develop a set of skills and strategies that minimize the opponent's injury while I still accept that I will not simply stand there and let someone injure me, I'd say that's "pacifist" enough for most. What one decides one will and will not do directly affects how they practice, just as in any other activity in life. I understand that Dan and Mark are talking about something else.

I'm not sure what you understand. Too hard to tell over the internet. But, Ueshiba's aiki is a method to change the body. Ueshiba stated it fairly clearly when he said that one didn't have to follow his spiritual path to train aikido. So, pacifism or not ... doesn't matter at all to Ueshiba's aiki. Two completely different topics.

Topic 1: When asked, Ueshiba stated very emphatically that he was not a religious man but a man of budo. In a separate interview, Kisshomaru stated that his father was most definitely not a pacifist.

Topic 2: Aiki. Can be seen as a method of training to change how the body works. Based upon yin/yang but has specific physical attributes that are not "normal". Many noted that they had no idea how or what the aiki masters were doing.

[allen2saint]

Mark,

A comment was made about pacifism and I responded. It was tangential to the technical discussion about aiki, etc. As far as Ueshiba's spirituality, for a time he was consumed in that photo-shinto cult. If he divested himself of those beliefs it's news to me, but I can't see what that has to do with my comments on pacifism which were commented on above.

You really need to lighten up the control issues on these threads man. It's not a formal rhetoric class and I don't need a running comment on what I post.

[wayne hansen]

It comes down to the point like tai chi it is a counter punching art
That dosent mean it can't stop hit
It is just not the preferred mode of action

[Itten]

Allen, you can't separate mind set from manner of training. This whole thread and so many others make that clear. Aikido isn't a philosophy, it is a training method based upon a philosophy, which in turn springs from the observation of nature and natural principle.

Many whole body training methods, semi-internal, sprang from people learning how to effectively survive non-stop back breaking work. Wether consciously or not, at first, people had to identify how to place the skeletal structure to take load, which muscles to engage, which to disengage, where and how to place their centre of gravity at any moment, etc. These awarenesses coupled with yogic study of mind/body control through breathing and mediation were mixed into Japanese and Chinese MA. Stillness became an intrinsic requirement for both internal observation and building energy, hence Chi Kung, Prana Yoga, Kokyo Ho, etc.

I don't know if I buy into the Ta Mo legend of how yoga found it's way into Shaolin training, or where, precisely, the Daoists got their start with what later became Tai Chi, but it is clear after more than 40 years training that I don't know much, but hey, better late than never.