# Ki (chi, qi, internal energy) in aikido



## SET_Coo (Nov 21, 2002)

So far I don't see were you use internal energy in aikido. Do any of you know anything about this subject?


----------



## Yari (Nov 22, 2002)

Define internal energy.

Because I belive that if you didn't have it you wouldn't be alive....


/Yari


----------



## arnisador (Sep 8, 2003)

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SET_Coo _
> *So far I don't see were you use internal energy in aikido. Do any of you know anything about this subject? *



I think that Chi is somthing thats been with you your whole life.
I try to explain my uderstanding of it in a number of ways, but, the first thing I try to impress upon an individual is that its usefulness as a tool for Martial arts is only one aspect. Lets take the concept of "beginners luck". Have you ever tried somthing competly new and found that you were better the first time you tried it and not so good on subsequent tries? The truth is that you begin to muddle it all up as you "try" to master it. If you could just capture the grace you had that first time you would be getting somewhere. I would go on but I would start to use other examples of this elusive "force". I use typing as a method of describing a "skilled" chi. Lets say you type one hundred words per minute but one day Jupiter alines with Mars during a Virgo/Libra cusp and you are able to type at one hundred fifty words per minute. That is chi. I've only described two aspects of a much larger concept.


----------



## don bohrer (Sep 9, 2003)

I have found Aikidos concept of KI different than that of the few chinese arts that I have come across. My instructor said something like this. KI is your intention in motion! It's dynamic, contineous and unimpeeded in thought and movement. In Aikido it's about harmony and blending your KI (intention) with that of the attackers to survive. Any help?


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by don bohrer _
> *I have found Aikidos concept of KI different than that of the few chinese arts that I have come across. My instructor said something like this. KI is your intention in motion! It's dynamic, contineous and unimpeeded in thought and movement. In Aikido it's about harmony and blending your KI (intention) with that of the attackers to survive. Any help? *



I don't see how this is different from the Chinese understanding.  We don't talk about "blending" much, but the idea is the same.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 11, 2003)

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Kempo Guy (Sep 11, 2003)

Technically, the harmony and blending would be "Aiki". 

As for Ki principles not being taught, it depends on the school. For instance Seidokan and Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido both emphasize these.

By the way "internal" and "ki" are not the same things... 
I agree with the others that every living being has ki. Some more, some less... but without it you'd be dead. 

As for what makes something internal (or external for that matter), I've posted this in a couple of other forums:

"I was taught that Internal has nothing to do with whether an art is soft, uses Qi or what not. It has to do with how you manifest your 'jing', i.e. the issuance of whole-body power using proper biomechanics and being in a state of dynamic relaxation. IMA's (internal martial arts) also seek to develop the feel of a "united body" over strength, and uniting your mind and body to direct your "jing". One of the requirements during the issuance of force in IMA is using a unified body. 

External MA then uses sectional power, meaning the body is not united in it's issuance of force. An external artist may strike using a lot of rotational power from the hip which generates a whip like motion to the fist (as an example). While the external practitioner may be relaxed during the strike (until the final moment of impact), the issuance of power differs from the 'whole-body power' used in IMA.

Of course one of the GENERAL differences in characteristics between IMA and EMA imho is the difference in it's application. 
IMA's characteristics are to never issue force until you are in an advantageous position by trying to 'borrow the opponents energy'; sticking and following the incoming force vector; and lastly avoidance of direct contact (never meet power with power).

These principles hold true for most biomechanically efficient styles.
Just some thoughts from the cheapseats...

Also in regards to Qi/Ki, I believe it means 'life force', nothing more nothing less. Hence, without ki we would be unable to live. Everybody/thing has ki some stronger, some weaker."

Here's an addendum to the above in the same thread:

"I want to make myself a little clearer so theres no confusion. 

An external martial artists may shift his whole body to engage a strike, but often uses compartmentalized power to generate force. When looking at issuing power there are definitely a couple of distinct ways it cam be issued. As discussed there are what I have come to call "sectional" and "whole body" power. When struck, you would very much be able to tell the difference between the two types of force. 

Having a long Karate (Kyokushinkai and Kempo) background I can certainly relate to the 'sectional power' theory. For instance, many Karate and Kung Fu styles will harden their fist (ala iron fist, iron palm training). Now this is never seen in IMA as the focus is never on the striking weapon but on the connection of mind, body and the ground to generate the force. The fist/leg or what not just happens to be there to be used.

As many of you know, different arts have different training methodologies. However, how you issue power is quite congruous between most external styles, the same can be said of internal styles... (since we're using these labels for the sake of this topic). There definitely are commonalities when you break down the biomechanics of each 'branch' (i.e. internal vs. external). 

As I mentioned, I don't like using the labels... but I look at the styles as biomechanically efficient vs. not. BTW, this by no means mean that one is more effective than another perhaps less efficient? 
Also, another thing I've observed is that most styles that fall within the biomechanically efficient systems (internal) are the focus on teaching principles over techniques, which may be the case of some Kenpo styles. Some of the internal systems may teach forms but most teach sequences of movement (kinetic chains) in order to program your neuromuscular system as opposed to external systems were they use rote memorization of techniques."

KG


----------



## don bohrer (Sep 11, 2003)

Ken JP Stuczynski 

I did for a short time attend a chinese martial arts school. The teacher and his students would use CHI to help heal. He liked to say many schools teach you how to harm, but I too teach you how to help heal. He was always explicite to say he couldn't actually heal only help it along. Often he would say injury impedes CHI flow, or causes it to pool. 

Just some insight into an experience

The instructor or a student would stand behind you and with open palms and wipe down the outsides of your arms. Before moving onto the spine I noticed they would almost touch certain spots at the base of the skull, neck and upper back region. Using two fingers they would trace (touching) down your spine 7 or 8 times. After that one hand would be placed on your chest the other on your back. 

Each session lasted several minutes and I would often feel an unusual amount of heat and some heaviness in my chest. A frail Japanese woman in her 70's could generate the most heat! Once I felt a cold feeling run down both arms at the same speed. The student ask the teacher what this meant. He said a blockage had been cleared. 

Well thats just a little experience I have had. Do I believe in CHI... yes. But not in the mystical sense that tv or the majority of martial arts community thinks it to be. Now why is Aikido's way more to my liking? I just found the reasoning an explinations better fit my perceptions. 

Off to class. I will get back to you for further discussion. 

Later


----------

