It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Any effective attack means the attacker must flow a burst of concentrated energy along a line directed at you. If the attack is a punch to the belly, the attacker's energy, embodied in his fist, moves along a line from his body to your belly. If it hits, you can be badly hurt. So you follow the first basic principle: you get off the line--you move or turn so that the energy of that punch does not connect with you.
The second principle is to blend or harmonize with the attack. You practice Ai. . . . To truly harmonize with the attack, you would not only get off the line, you also would not slow the punch down or oppose it in any way. In fact, you might put your hand on the punching arm and add energy to it in the direction it was already going. You have harmonized and blended with the energy of the attack. By projecting your energy in the same direction the attacker projects his, you see, as it were, your attacker's point of view. . . .
The third basic principle after you have gotten off the line and harmonized with your attacker's energy is to lead energy further than it originally intended to go, thus taking control of it. Then you can throw or otherwise control your attacker. The attacker thus provides most of the energy for handling his attack.
—Charles T. Tart, 'Aikido and the Concept of Ki', Psychological Perspectives, Fall 1987
Survival depends on what? Our own independent ability to pound others into the ground?
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Personally, I liked the root art, Aiki-jutsu.
Instead of spinning them away with love, you use their attack to spin them around a few joints, get a sequential joint lock and snap their arm, maybe a neck. Certainly how to proceed from a lock to a hard throw. Aiki-jutsu also teaches you how to add your energy back to Uke to make sure he does more than spin away, where Aikido does not.
It also teaches you how to initiate the attack in a way that Aikido does not. Most Aikidoka can switch to Aiki-jutsu pretty easily.
www.eastbayaikido.com...
O'Sensei: In my opinion, it can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This Universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the Universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the Universe, aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence. For this reason, aikido can be said to be another manifestation of the Creator of the Universe. In other words, aikido is like a giant (immense in nature). Therefore, in aikido, Heaven and Earth become the training grounds. The state of mind of the aikidoist must be peaceful and totally non-violent. That is to say, that special state of mind which brings violence into a state of harmony. And this I think is the true spirit of Japanese martial arts. We have been given this earth to transform into a heaven on earth. War-like activity is totally out of place.
Survival depends on what? Our own independent ability to pound others into the ground?
Yes, quite possibly. CQC teaches you that the more brutal you are to the first attacker you engage, the less likely the remaining attackers will follow.
B: [...] are there also many hoodlum-types who come to study aikido?
Kisshomaru Ueshiba: Of course, that sort of individual enrolls, too. But when this type of person studies aikido with the intention of using it as a tool for fighting, they don't last long. Budo is not like dancing or watching a movie. Rain or shine, you must practice at all times during your daily life in order to progress. In particular, aikido is like spiritual training practiced using a budo form. It can never be cultivated as a tool by those who would use it for fighting. Also, individuals inclined towards violence cease to behave in that manner when they learn aikido.
B: I see... through constant training they stop behaving like hoodlums.
O'Sensei: Since aikido is not a bu (martial method) of violence but rather a martial art of love, you do not behave violently. You convert the violent opponent in a gentle way. They cannot behave like hoodlums any longer.
B: I see. It is not controlling violence with violence, but transforming violence into love.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Please explain how Aiki-Jutsu is the root art of Aikido.
Violence is not Aikido...Brutality has no place in Aikido. Its purpose is to provide a path where any violence can be seen for what it is. Confusion of intent.
Is brutality more effective? Yes.
But what is the context of a hand-to-hand attack in a survival situation? Why are two people engaged in hand to hand combat and not using weapons like guns or military hardware? My question boils down like this: What if, the guy who is punching you, and who stepped out from behind a wall, is actually someone who is desperate and who has no weapon because they are poor?
Nobody is going to be changed, persuaded or paradigm-shifted by the bone-breaking actions like those you imaginatively describe above.
But you are saying that when we are in control of the attack, we should choose violence so as to deter the other persons who might be watching? I would say that is wholly inappropriate for any right Aikido practictioner.
Aikido is a way.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Aiki-jutsu predates O'Sensei's creation of Aikido. Many of the techniques in Aikido are derivatives of similar techniques in Aiki-jutsu, as judo is of jiu-jutsu. Surely you were taught that O'Sensei "purified Aiki-jutsu" or something similar. Ueshiba learned Aiki-jutsu from Takeda, and in fact taught it as his primary art until he moved to Iwama. To deny that Aikido is a derivation of Aiki-jutsu is specious at best. Ueshiba learned and taught Aiki-jutsu before he embraced Omoto-kyo, then over a period of years he removed the more aggressive aspects of it to form Aikido.
it is a sport or philosophy and not a combat art.
If my intent is to be violent, then violence is not confusion of intent but an proper expression of it.
Is brutality more effective? Yes.
We agree.
Doesn't your sensei also teach the sword as part of Aikido? Most schools do.
Why are they engaged in hand-to-hand? I can't count the reasons. I may not be packing when you attack me.
If the guy is poor and desperate, asking me for help might be a better alternative for him. Perhaps it is his Tao to fling himself on another's sword.
Who am I to deny him his path?
I doubt that an attacker will be persuaded or paradigm-shifted by being gently tossed on his head either. However, a broken arm might get his attention.
And yes, psychology teaches us that in a group attack, maiming the first attacker will generally deter further attack, or at a minimum, cause hesitation. As such, the sacrifice of the first attacker may prevent the need for further violence, surely a worthy goal. Is it better to somewhat damage a number of people, or greatly damage one?
Every art says this.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
No, because the intention toward violence arises from a state of mental confusion. A person is always confused when they lash out with an attack. They should be encouraged (by aikido) to see their error and change their heart. Anything other than this principle in your mind, and you are not practicing Aikido. You must understand that the attacker in the moment he attacks, reveals himself to be ignorant of Aikido, and therefore he is confused and must be shown the way of peace.
Yes but only more effective at destruction and pain. Brutality is not effective at winning people over or helping them see the true path to civilized behavior or personal peace. If you keep brutality as a tool in your belt, there will be consequences on a spiritual level.
No Aikido practitioner would ever lift a sword in real life combat. ...the violent emotion of the sword is to be understood and transcended through Aikido.
You would only be attacked by someone who is not a practitioner of Aikido, so there's a great moment to use the art of peace to discern the meaning of the attack.
Surely you see that the whole purpose and beauty of Aikido is to enable YOU to have that moment to discern the attack and deal with it mercifully in the spirit of harmony. Bone breaking has nothing to do with harmony or philosophy, which are the essence of Aikido.
Who are you? Well, if you were an Aikidoka with the spirit I recommend, you'd be able to help him through your selection of technique, to realize that Aikido is the better way. Every application of Aikido technique should be used to demonstrate the superiority of the Way of Harmony. I really can't relate to any other type of thinking in relation to Aikido.
OSensei was attacked as an old man on many occasions and he never had to toss anybody on their head. Well, he was hard in his youth, but once Aikido sprang forth in his mind, he would never do as you describe here. Aikido disallows the irresponsible actions of panel C as listed above, where the attacker is left to fall on his own neck. Not Aikido.
You will not need Aikido if your goal is brutality. I'd suggest sticking with the arts which were the road to Aikido, because yes, they are the supreme arts for breaking the human body. OSensei's art is of a whole different mindset, though others can ape the moves and call it what they wish.
Yes but only Aikido holds peace as its core philosophy. All other punching, grappling, opposing arts, are simply fighting styles and then the "way" of budo is tacked on. I don't dispute that punching and kicking are useful, as I have said. But there is a whole other level above that, and it is Aikido.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
The entire "If all the world knew Aikido" theme is pointless, as that will never be.
Good Lord. You believe this? Techniques are taught to be used, and I've seen some pretty good Aikidoka use edged weapons quite effectively.
Aikido isn't the right art in some situations, and Aiki-jutsu being a superset, allows you to choose whether you want to sort of help them to land without breaking something, or to amp up Uke's energy on the way down.
Again, is it kind to let the guy go on to knife the next victim? Have you helped either, or simply avoided the situation in a way that has damaged an innocent?
Does Omoto taste like grape, or is it more like cherry?
IIRC, Ueshiba wasn't all that old when he became a kick-ass Aiki artist, and I doubt he was the mystic innocent you are envisioning. Aikido didn't just spring forth in his mind, either, because IIRC he went through several Aiki style changes on the way there.
Again, every art I've done any formal training says this too. You should try getting out more, visiting some other schools, maybe talking to some of the more senior Aikido instructors instead of the one in your home town.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
About what? About the words of the founder of Aikido?
I do not think so. I think this future will come. In fact, I am certain of it.
Also, the reduction of Oomoto to a "kool-aid drinking cult" shows a lack of understanding. Such is not the case.
There are those aikido practitioners who see OSensei's Oomoto associations as cult-like. I know far more about cults than I do Aikido, so that conversation can be had, if you wish.
Yes I do believe this. I am certain you have never seen an Aikidoka use a sword on a human being in combat.
Well you are speaking contextually about the heat of the moment. I am speaking more generally about the philosophical alignment one must practice before that moment. Tom, you are not some brute without a philosophy, so instead of simplifying the idea of cults, why not share your philosophical views as they relate to combat?
As for your question, we both know that Aikido does not allow the knife-wielder to "go on". Aikido will disarm him, but you are naming Aiki-jutsu as better because you can hang uke up on his arm and throw him better. I am describing a much different value which Aikido has, and which you deride.
Yes, he did have a vision and he spoke about it in the interview I posted above. But is this interview just the elderly cultish hallucinating/lying OSensei you circumspectly are describing in your position? He said he had a vision of Aikido and then set out to use the finest destructive techniques and alter them slightly such that they could be more harmonious and together, an entirely different martial way.
Harmony. How much more senior can I get than the very words of OSensei himself?
In my opinion this is a key point which you skimmed over: What is the context of a hand to hand combat situation in a survival world? Is it better to learn aiki-jutsu and break bones but have no inner core discipline of peace? I think bullies will be killed by mobs in a survival situation. I think Aikido may actually preserve the Aikidoka alive because they were very careful in their use of force. You do not know whose wrist you are twisting, so it's always better to twist and direct it until you can find out that answer. In any survival situation, this answer is the correct one.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
On another ATS thread, someone mocked the art by pointing out the fact that there were no "Aikido Badasses" in the UFC tournaments (direct quote).
Would-be warriors would do well to remember that peace is the only reasonable, honorable, and justifiable goal in any war. If there is a shorter road leading to peace, apart from love, I'd like to know about it.
Actually, there was one, but that was the only one I ever saw. It was either 1 or 2, and one of the preliminary bouts. It wasn't pretty. I don't remember what the other guy was. It was over pretty fast, the Aikidoka got foot swept and once off his feet it was over in seconds.
A lack of further opposition? Grant you, it's drastic, but no enemies, no conflict. Rome had no more problems with the Carthaginians after the third Punic War using this philosophy. Had they done this in 241 BC, there wouldn't have been a second or third Punic war.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Anyway, on another note, how old was the guy? How long had he been training? I'm guessing twenties and one year respectively. Is that an adequate measure of Aikido?
Victory is a cessation of hostilities on favorable terms, it's not conditional on massive bloodshed or widespread destruction.
If there is no other way, then so be it, but in just about every case, victory can be realized without resorting to such measures. The Roman empire (which you made mention of) and the Muslim empire of the 12th century were most successful in taking and holding territory when they opened with a reasonable offer, followed with a firm and uncompromising threat if necessary, and ended with overwhelming and rapid application of force to achieve submission in lieu of a scorched earth approach (which serves only to reinforce future threats, and nets little in the way of resources).
What is that methodology similar to, if not Aikido?