Martial Arts: What Were They Designed For?

[Kung Fu Wang]

But, at the end of the day... it's all about doing damage.

Agree with you 100% on this. No matter how many fancy words that you may use to wrap around it, it's just as simple as "fist meets face" or "sword cuts through body".

When you teach a class in an Anti-terrorism school, if you don't teach "how to kill", what will you teach?

 

[Mark Lynn]

Chris since you referenced my posts I'll respond only to those. Well I did respond to a coupe of others as well.

Hmm... no, can't say I'd agree with that. For one thing, it's just not that simple. I can name systems that are 600 years old that are centred on personal development and spiritual emphasis, and modern ones that don't care about it at all. Out of all the arts I study, which (when you add them up) is around a dozen, none of them are for self defence, let alone "first and foremost". There are some aspects that are related to self defence, but not in a modern context... the closest are my Iai methods. Some were created, as many of the older Japanese arts were, as a method of instructing in strategic and tactical thinking and application, more than as combative techniques per se.

When I said first and foremost I meant that in the beginning the defense of one's tribe, city, what ever started it all. For instance; there was not a need for practicing archery (well maybe for hunting, I'll give you that) if not at the beginning there was not conflict. Likewise people didn't develop the bow and arrow for personal development it was for killing, taking something from someone (i.e. a life, their land, their property, loved ones etc. etc.) and since the bow was also used for hunting it naturally was used for warfare. Much later it became used for spiritual and personal development. Since many martial arts developed from military needs it was meant as a general comment.

I stated
"I do believe they were created and practiced for self defense purposes first and foremost. Self defense of a person, defense of one's tribe, city, militia, etc. etc. I believe it started there over time especially during times of peace or forced occupation they morphed into something more spiritual or training of one's mind etc. etc. Later on it grew into sports and character development programs for students. So I believe they have developed in a progressive manner that people see as different things and all call it "martial arts".

I tried to leave room for the arts that have evolved into building the spirit, the mind, self development, sports, etc. etc. and acknowledged that. So I wasn't saying all arts, modern day arts, nor all arts developed in the last 600 hundred years were for self defense. The part of my comment "during times of peace or forced occupation" I was referring to Japan, Okinawa, Korea etc. etc. who all developed martial arts for different reasons.

I get it that not all arts are practiced for SD, but in many arts you are learning how to kill, maim, hurt, or control someone. Or you are learning how to use weapons etc. etc. You are not to my knowledge learning the tea ceremony, calligraphy, how to do flower arranging, paint etc. etc. all of which are artistic expressions as well, and can be used to train one's mind and body.

The Essence of Okinawan Karate Do by Shoshin Nagamine Chapter 1 pg 19
"The martial arts arose out of the fundamental human instinct for self preservation. This instinct caused primitive man, living without effective weapons in caves and trees to defend himself by using his hands, feet, or other parts of his body. The manner in which the art of self defense developed took many forms."


There's a difference between hyperbole describing benefits and accurate description of the purpose of a martial art...

I get that as well. But all of the quotes were describing the self defense aspects of their art, whether or not the average man can triumph over a gun wielding assailant with Juijutsu wasn't the point at all. It was that all of the quotes that I used from various books all described it as a method of self defense that was a description of the purpose of the arts. Since you don't like those viewpoints do we also discount all of the statements that support your view of them not being for self defense?

Dynamic Karate by MAsatoshi Nakayama in the Preface
"I feel that karate should be viewed from a broad standpoint. From the point of it's development as a modern martial art and the from the physical education aspect also, the ultimate goal of karate should be the attainment of a developed moral character built through hard and diligent training." While no where in the book is self defense shown (other than blocking and striking drills) the author did write a whole series on Practical Karate and self defense techniques etc. etc. played a big role in those books.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Yoshida was either rather misinformed of the history of Jujutsu, or he was simplifying things to the point of inaccuracy. Personally, I think the latter.

The history per say wasn't the issue, the fact that he was stating that Jujitsu was an art of self defense method was, and that it was old. Simple yes but inaccurate?

Asian Fighting Arts by Donn. F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith 1969 pg 134 IN the Chapter of Japanese Martial Arts
"Jujitsu is a generic term applied to numerous systems of combat not all similar in appearance or technique...... But Jujitsu while stressing the unarmed techniques, also deals with small weapons techniques, which are, incidentally, equally applicable to to larger weapons. It is important to realize that combat jujtisu was always a secondary system of the bugei, a method of combat complementing the techniques of swordsman ship of the different ryu."

The author continues describing how Jujitsu split into two methods in about the 17th century one dealing with the combative and another the aesthetic.

Again, I'd caution against the acceptance of hyperbole as fact... I mean, if we're talking about Japanese Jujutsu (as indicated by the prior quote), then the gun defence would have been non-existant... and the knife defence rather different.

Why? This book was written in 1958 the author was describing how Jujitsu was a method of SD in modern days, heck the drawings all show the guys in suits. I just checked the book and the two knife defenses are very similar to ones I've seen in various military manuals or the book on SD by Sitgwald I referenced that you take issue with as well.

The Draeger quote above demonstrates that Jujitsu was around for a long time 100's of years, it was used as a method of war dealing with unarmed defense against weapons and against unarmed attackers. Why are you nitpicking this crap. A wrist lock is a wrist lock, a throw is a throw, someone stabbing at you in the 1700's (that's trying to kill you) would have a similar delivery method as that of a person trying to kill you today.

Cool, except that that's a self defence system (in the form of a book), not a martial art. Additionally, if it's only dealing with techniques, it's the least of all aspects for self defence.

Yeah you right there, however the techniques in the book are all very similar to the techniques shown in the other books. But it was handy so I quoted it. I was trying to show continuity how these techniques were used for SD.

"Were used" and "were designed for" are, again, different. Each art is designed for a specific context, the trick is recognizing what that context is, and how it influences an art (when you can see that, you can see what the art is actually designed for)

I agree. Techniques like sticking your fingers into the eye of a person, fish hooking the mouth, grabbing the head and taking the person down to the ground at your feet, twisting the head, arm bars etc. etc. are all violent acts in some base form. One in which outside of military applications if applied gets you into a lot of trouble with the law. But again those type of techniques are designed to protect your life, not arrange flowers or pour tea. Just like learning quick draw methods of the sword, drawing the sword slow could mean death (if you needed to draw), drawing fast means life. Draw the wrong way enough and you lose your fingers. At one time this was a matter of life or death maybe not now by it was important at one time. I believe self preservation was a big influence on the arts as a whole. It seems to be a common thread as to why they might have been developed in the first place.

Even there, it's not that simple... there are a range of arts that simply aren't designed for combative usage in their construction, at least, not in the basic understanding of it.

I agree it's not that simple. But at some point the basic need for all the arts developed out of the need for self preservation in some form or another. I mistakenly was using the SD as the same thing.

I'm actually watching a documentary on Bruce Lee at the moment... and it's striking me just how much I'd argue with a lot of what he said about the reasons for martial arts. If he was around now, and on the forums, I'd be telling him he's missed the point on a lot of things... hmm... but to the point, Bruce's take on martial arts is that they are about personal self expression, pure and simple, above and beyond, well and truly before the idea of self defence.

I tend to disagree here, yes I've heard Bruce go on about self expression etc. etc. but his whole JKD was about hitting the other person first. It was about putting the person before systems etc. etc. Hitting someone first while on the surface might not seem like self defense, but here is where I apply the term self preservation, in that I don't want to be hit so I'll learn how to hit fast and hopefully ways to hit first. Kind of like quick drawing the sword in days of old. :shrug:

Most RBSD systems are designed to be methods of approaching training, not methods of techniques etc themselves. As a result, they don't need to be concerned with longevity... they're not martial arts.

Look I was replying to the OP's post, he asked for what our thoughts were, I was responding to them and making a distinction between the RBSD systems, methods, or whatever and the TMAs. I know they aren't concerned with longevity per say and yet in a sense they are. Because it just makes good business sense for the consumer to be coming back to the trough to learn more and more from the creator of the RBSD system method or whatever. However the TMAs offer something different to the practitioner than the RBSD do, which is what I was referring to.

Again, martial arts does not equal unarmed. Additionally, they're simply not all designed for self defence. Some are designed with duelling in mind, for example. It's hardly self defence if you're going out to meet someone for a fight...

Ah but not if you've been challenged to a duel. For instance like in Japan were you inadvertently touch another samurai's scabbard and you are about to be cut down. I'd call it SD. Or you get challenged for a duel to prove who's better by a visiting student, or just someone wanting to test you, or someone wants to take your property or money, again I'd say that is SD.

No, I'd disagree... Aikido (as many other arts) can be trained in a reality based way, but that doesn't make it an RBSD system... to make it that, you'd need to lose 90% of the system, and change a lot of what's left. With regards to the Goju Kai (Yamaguchi) analogy, no, I don't think I'd say they're the same thing at all. Ueshiba was rather vocal about the influence of the Otomo Sect on his Aikido post WWII, so to make that connection (with Aikido) can be fair for the most part. Obviously different forms have different emphasises, but it's still there (when dealing with Takemusu/Iwama Ryu it's far more obvious, Yoshinkan far less etc).

You said it, I didn't.

"Jutsu" doesn't actually mean anything to do with "battlefield"... the "jutsu/do" distinction is more one of preferential terminology of the time than anything else, really. Iaijutsu, for instance, isn't anything to do with a battlefield/combat in war... nor are most Kenjutsu systems. I agree that it's just not that cut-and-dried, but that extends even through to the examples given... there just isn't a yes/no answer to this.

But modern Kenjutsu came out of, were inspired by, or whatever, from battlefield sword arts. They might have morphed into what they are today but they came from a battlefield environment, which again goes back to either protecting your life or taking someone else's.

Maybe some TMA's, but certainly not all, not even most, I'd say. Most just weren't designed as "civilian self defence" at all. It's even more of a gap when you look at specific cultural approaches... Japanese arts, more than anything else, are completely removed from the idea of civilian self defence. The main reason is that they were created by a warrior class, for use by the warrior class, typically against other members of the warrior class. Rory Miller has noted that most martial arts don't teach you to fight against someone untrained, they teach fighters to fight other fighters... which most don't realise or recognise. Anything military is designed to go up against other military systems/approaches, anything culturally based is going to be designed to go up against similar things from the same culture... which isn't necessarily just the same time and place, it means specific social groups etc, as well as the context it's designed for (strategic education, duelling, sporting contest, etc).

I agree with part of this in regards to the Japanese arts there is a gap because of the type of society. However the TMAs such as karate, Kung Fu, eskrima (or the FMAs), and others were designed for civilians then morphed into sports or what have you.

However arts such as Okinawan Karate were designed to go against untrained attackers as a method of SD, not against duels such as mutual combatants which is has evolved into. This came about mainly after karate was imported to Japan.

But martial arts over time evolve to suit the current times needs unless they are a time capsule (like some of the traditional Japanese weapon arts) that are studied for various reasons.

So, what were martial arts designed for? Well, that depends on the art itself. No two martial arts are designed for the exact same reason... sometimes it's a direct response to a situation, sometimes it's to provide a particular role in education, sometimes it's to give an advantage in a specific context/situation... but most commonly, it's not to handle "common" violence (untrained assaults). It's to handle trained, or skilled opponents. Which actually takes it away from being designed for self defence.

How can you make such a sweeping statement when this is simply not true. Maybe for the arts you studied but....... Karate as it was designed for was against unarmed attackers the main old time masters write this. Modern Arnis was designed as a self defense system. Savate, was designed as a SD system first then a sport, and many others.

There is a big difference between SD and dueling and I agree with Rory Miller in what is often taught, is against trained attackers in the context of sport or tournament fighting even martial or military. In dueling you have feints, strategies, combinations etc. etc. SD is often against wild attacks, grabs, restraints etc. etc.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I'm not taking it that you are running down Aikido, just pointing out that you are as far from the truth of Aikido that you could possibly be.

You know I don't doubt it, I'm not an Aikidoist, I have never studied Aikido in any depth, but I have talked with many martial artists who did study Aikido over the years so I'm not some idiot who just posted something because I looked it up on Wikipedia, I actually thought about studying it, so I looked into it.

This discussion between us all stemmed by my comment about Aikido being an expression of the founder's religious beliefs. I never said that he tried to convert anyone, I never said that was all he taught (referring to his religion) etc. etc. what I meant was that his religious beliefs impacted his creation of his art. Not anyone else's Aikido, his Aikido and since he created the art and taught the art, then the martial art was his expression.

Kind of like a painter painting, a writer writing, a singer singing, a photographer taking photos, while all of these are done and taught by many other individuals each one puts their won imprint on it. Ueshiba sensei created his own method or his own martial art so I believe it is accurate to say it was his expression.

The Essence of Aikido by Bill Sosa ad Bryan Robbins
Pg 14 Introduction
"Master Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, concluded that the purpose of martial arts was the perfection of the spirit, not merely perfection of physical technique. Although the modern forms of budo, such as kendo, karate andjudo stress the importance of mind-body training, they also emphasize competition and tournaments and therefore place an emphasis on winning. It is at this juncture that Aikido shows itself to be unique, Aikido holds no tournaments or contests and refuses competition as it is detrimental to progress on the spiritual path. The temptation always to be a winner would lead people to egotisical and self-centered and develop a win-at-all costs attitude. Defeating others was seen as a road block in the path to harmony in the universe.
Students of aikido are constanly reminded to let go of the "fighting mind".......The true path to budo is the path toward spiritual enlightment."

pg15 History and Philosophy
"....The Omoto-kyo religion was a mixture of Shinto mythology, shamanism, and faith healing. Morihei was deeply affected and commented that while Sokaku (Takeda) opened his eyes to the essence of budo, his enlightenment came through the Omoto-kyo experiences.
"Moerihei vividly recalls that enlightenment took place one spring day in 1925." (During a match with a kendo instructor and afterwards he went to his garden and had his enlightenment where he was) ".....bathed in heavenly light; the ground quaked and a golden could came up from earth and entered his body. It was if the barriers between the spiritual and material worlds crumbled - "I am the universe". .... It was in a flash of light that he perceived the truth and realized he become one with the universe. At that moment he felt the true purpose of budo was love, love that cherishes and nourishes all beings he was 42 at the time."
pg 16
"The aim of the martial arts should be to achieve a state of mind united with the universe itself. His new art would become a physical reflection of spiritual beliefs.

But this could all be revisionist history right.

Akido and the Dynamic Sphere by A. Westbrook and O.Ratti
Chapter 2 pg 29
"Master Ueshiba himself marks the year 1925 as the year in which his thus far unsatisfied search for a deeper meaning to be attributed to the martial arts came to an end, or rather to the threshold of a new dimension which was to be explored further by him and his followers. It was in this year that he succeeded in blending the highest ethics of mankind with the practice of the martial arts; he developed that practice into a particular, truly defensive art in accordance with the highest dictates of those ethics.


Hmmmmm. Now what did I get wrong here? According to the writers above it is documented that Ueshiba had a religious experience in 1925 after which he created his art of Aikido. Now we can argue that well no he was teaching before and that was Aikido. But I disagree, he was teaching before, he changed things afterwards because of his religious experience (his enlightenment). So I stand by my statement.

You wrote
But let's look a little closer. Different masters trained with Ueshiba at different times through his journey. Those that trained pre-war generally have a more physical aikido than those who trained post-war. Ueshiba's wartime experience really turned him away from violence. Aikido never was a battlefield MA unlike its parent Daito Ryu. I'm not sure that Wiki is strictly correct when it attributes the changes from Daito Ryu in the early days to Ueshiba's involvement in the Omoto religion. More that Ueshiba was taking the bits that worked well and developing his own style of basically Jujutsu. In its totality, Aikido has strikes and kicks. It also has limb destruction and neck cranks so to say it is designed with the well being of the aggressor in mind is possibly a matter of degree. But it does have the ability to start soft and ratchet up the intensity as required.

His involvement with the Omoto religion predates WW2 what war are you talking about? If you are talking about WW2 then it is possible that as he grew older and changed his teaching that his art grew less physical as he grew older (after WW2) but...... his enlightenment came about in 1925 and he changed his method around then. The Draeger quote below in another answer might actually clear this up and if so it still doesn't take away my point.

Don't get me wrong but I think you are being misleading here with the neck cranks, limb destruction etc. etc. Sure it will have those things but that was not the intent. In fact that would be considered bad Aikido. To illustrate my point these quotes taken from the book by Bill Sosa I referenced earlier.

pg. 17
"Injuring your opponent is a sign of lack of control and skill and is certainly not a display of the highest level of ethics"
"A man's body (arms, legs, head, joints) has obvious structural limitations as to how far it can be twisted or bent before it will break. Aikido techniques are employed to neutralize the aggressor and not harm or seriously injure him. To be able to do this requires that aikidoist has the highest ethical intention known to man; love and respect for one another."

Again you wrote
With respect, I feel your understanding of Aikido based on Wiki is very superficial. Certainly Aikido means the way of harmony of the spirit, but this spirit is Ki or energy, not a religious connotation. I don't expect you to necessarily understand Ki but it is pretty much the sole reason I began learning Aikido. I joined MT for the same reason to see if there were some like minded people with whom I could compare training notes. To be honest, both have been interesting. The Aikido is amazing and the reaction on MT was incredibly interesting to say the least. There are those that believe in Ki and those who don't.

OK your first statement about how you feel my understanding of Aikido is very superficial is dead on. I don't know much about Aikido, I've discussed it many times with other practitioners but ....... so far I think aside from your putting me down with my lack of understanding I was spot on with my original statement and backed it up without Wiki. But your next statement to me is again misleading because his whole arts philosophy was about blending, being harmonious with the attacker, to neutralize him by blending with his actions.

But again how's this.
Pg 14 from Bill Sosa's book
"The question of humanity is when will we learn to harmonize (aiki) with one another and stop the eternal fighting. When will we learn to blend with nature and quit our constant destruction and pollution of our planet? Many people from all over the world feel that aikido is the most suited martial art of our age."

Ueshiba said "I under took the training of my body through budo, and when I realized it's ultimate essence, I gained an even higher truth. I saw clearly that human beings must unify mind and body and the ki that connects the two and that a person must harmonize his activity of all things in the universe. Through the subtle working of ki mind and body are harmonized and the relationship between the individual and the universe is harmonized.
If the subtle working of ki is not properly utilized, a person's mind and body will become unhealthy, the world will become chaotic, and the entire universe will be thrown into disorder."

I don't understand KI, however the name of his art reflects his religious experience of harmonizing with the universe, heck he even became the universe during his experience. He changed his art to reflect this, principle of harmonizing, which is shown in his intent is to blend with the opponent not to clash with him nor hurt him. To deny this well I think is misguided.

Just so we are clear I view things such as being spiritual, being one with the universe etc. etc. as religious in nature. Considering Ueshiba's involvement with the Omoto religion, his enlightenment because of that religion etc. etc. I think he is using KI as an one type of expression of his religious views.

Your wrote again
But I digress. I don't agree that it was Ueshiba's goal to design an art that protected the attacker. That became his philosophy later. And if you think about it, it is not a bad philosophy.

It's not that the art was created not to hurt the attacker but rather to blend and harmonize with him, neutralize him and not cause him harm. There is a difference between creating an art that is totally passive such as turn the other cheek and let the attacker slap you there too because you are a non violent passive individual, and you blending with the guy's energy so as not to harm him as part of your SD philosophy. In fact you blend with him and not causing him harm is the highest form of practice. Can you tell me when he developed this philosophy, since you say it wasn't the time of his enlightenment experience in 1925?


Remember, Aikido is for self defence, not warfare. Say my drunken neighbour started beating his wife and I intervened. In the first scenario I use my karate skills and break his nose and rip the ligaments in his shoulder requiring a reconstruction. Now I may or may not have to face charges for assault using unreasonable force and I may be sued in a civil court for damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income. It is unlikely my neighbour will ever have a relationship with me again and if I'm really unlucky he might even be inclined to hire someone to even the score. Scenario two, I use my Aikido skills to restrain the guy with just a little pain until he settles down and sees the error of his ways. Problem solved, no injury, no recrimination.

OK what are you talking about, do you mean that you couldn't use your karate skills to restrain the guy with little pain and maintain a relationship with him? Are you saying that Aikido doesn't have skills (like you mentioned involving neck cranks, arm breaks etc. etc.) Give me a break, either art taken in one direction can hurt the person, likewise either art taken in the other direction can not hurt the person. This really has nothing to do the discussion.

I wrote
The OP asked what martial arts were designed for; Aikido is an expression of Ueshiba sensei's personal philosophy of universal peace and reconciliation.

Then you replied
That is not what it was designed for and it is not the way it is taught or applied. Whatever Ueshiba's religious convictions as he aged had no effect on the practice of Aikido. His students were teaching Aikido the way they had been taught and they continued to teach that way after his death.

My reply
Wow I guess everyone is wrong here, I guess Bill Sosa got it wrong, his teacher, and his teacher's teacher, the guy's from Wiki who wrote in.

To be fair
Asian Fighting Arts by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith pg 139
IN 1925 Ueshiba organized what can be referred to as his style of aiki-jujutsu, largely for his own personal and spiritual and physical development. .......(talking about aiki-jujutsu)..... He did however use it as a starting point from which to elaborate on his own system. (speaking of aikido) It can be thought of as a mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along the lines of conntinuity. This is a concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature." "Essentially a religious man, Ueshiba emerged in 1942 with a mature , modified form which he called Aikido.
In the foot notes he writes
"Ueshiba's aikido, the "mother" system, is not the only form of aikido in Japan. Several of his former disciples have broken away from his teachings and have established their own styles......"

OK so we have Draeger a martial arts historian putting Aikido at 1942 and Ueshiba stating it was 1925. It's in reality probably both in that he was teaching the aiki-jujutsu (based on the martial arts he had studied), had his enlightenment experience, started his transition in his teaching and maybe formalized things in 1942. However it still backs up all things considered that Aikido as Ueshiba practiced it and created it was a expression of his religious views.

I wrote
The name even reflects this view point. To deny it or to call my statement silly (I'm not sure which you were calling silly) that Aikido was based on a SD system that became an religious expression, I think is wrong.

You replied
Aikido is an internal martial art. It is all about utilising Ki. That is what is embodied in the name, nothing less, nothing more. Your statement is in the para above. It is patently wrong and I pointed out that Gogen Yamaguchi was also involved in religion but no one would ever suggest his art of Goju Kai was a self defence art that became a religious expression. I have said before and I will say again, the most effective martial artist I have ever met is an Aikidoka.

I once again disagree; by Ueshiba's own statements, his experience, etc. etc. I believe the name reflects his view of the martial arts as it was influenced by his own spiritual enlightenment. I believe other Aikidoist understand this why do you deny it. It is a name, people name their arts to distinguish themselves from other arts. Remember I was talking about Ueshiba's art he named it, even the students who broke away are in effect Johnny come Latelys so you have to look at what he says not what your instructor says. From what I quoted (from different sources) so far I believe I've backed up my point, please do the same. Telling me that "the most effective martial artist I have ever met is an Aikidoka" means nothing to the discussion. Throwing in Yamaguchi's name also is misleading. He was claiming successor ship to Goju and used that name, so it means nothing. My comment was about Ueshiba's Aikido no one elses, because he created it.


I wrote
Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I know of no other RBSD systems or other TMAs etc. etc. where the well being of the attacker was a primary concern of the defender.

I think that is also not quite correct. The primary concern is for the safety of the practitioner and his friends and family. The well being of the attacker is a secondary concern. If necessary Aikido could cause the total destruction of the attacker but that is not the primary aim.

That is true but it would be bad Aikido, good SD maybe but bad Aikido. In fact the primary concern for Ueshiba's Aikido appears to be to bring about a more unified person, both spiritually and physically to live in harmony with the rest of the world, nature and the universe at large. Not defending oneself.

I might not know Aikido physically, but my view points and how I expressed them (several days ago) are backed up (I feel) by the quotes I posted today. If you have other sources other than you knowing someone who is a great aikidoka, or your own personal training please prove my view wrong. In fact if you have source material on Aikido and on Ueshiba's life or view point on aikido that contradict what these author's and Ueshiba says than please post them. Not that it would invalidate my view but I would appreciate the counter view point.

I don't have a lot of material on Aikido since I didn't choose to study the art, so I'm not going to dig out more quotes. But I would like you to provide some sources so I can learn more.

Thanks
Mark

 

[K-man]

You know I don't doubt it, I'm not an Aikidoist, I have never studied Aikido in any depth, but I have talked with many martial artists who did study Aikido over the years so I'm not some idiot who just posted something because I looked it up on Wikipedia, I actually thought about studying it, so I looked into it.

This discussion between us all stemmed by my comment about Aikido being an expression of the founder's religious beliefs. I never said that he tried to convert anyone, I never said that was all he taught (referring to his religion) etc. etc. what I meant was that his religious beliefs impacted his creation of his art. Not anyone else's Aikido, his Aikido and since he created the art and taught the art, then the martial art was his expression.


Kind of like a painter painting, a writer writing, a singer singing, a photographer taking photos, while all of these are done and taught by many other individuals each one puts their won imprint on it. Ueshiba sensei created his own method or his own martial art so I believe it is accurate to say it was his expression.


Ueshiba gained his teaching licence for a Daito Ryu in 1922. His religious views had nothing to do with anything at that time.


The Essence of Aikido by Bill Sosa ad Bryan Robbins
Pg 14 Introduction
"Master Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, concluded that the purpose of martial arts was the perfection of the spirit, not merely perfection of physical technique. Although the modern forms of budo, such as kendo, karate andjudo stress the importance of mind-body training, they also emphasize competition and tournaments and therefore place an emphasis on winning. It is at this juncture that Aikido shows itself to be unique, Aikido holds no tournaments or contests and refuses competition as it is detrimental to progress on the spiritual path. The temptation always to be a winner would lead people to egotisical and self-centered and develop a win-at-all costs attitude. Defeating others was seen as a road block in the path to harmony in the universe.
Students of aikido are constanly reminded to let go of the "fighting mind".......The true path to budo is the path toward spiritual enlightment."

pg15 History and Philosophy
"....The Omoto-kyo religion was a mixture of Shinto mythology, shamanism, and faith healing. Morihei was deeply affected and commented that while Sokaku (Takeda) opened his eyes to the essence of budo, his enlightenment came through the Omoto-kyo experiences.
"Moerihei vividly recalls that enlightenment took place one spring day in 1925." (During a match with a kendo instructor and afterwards he went to his garden and had his enlightenment where he was) ".....bathed in heavenly light; the ground quaked and a golden could came up from earth and entered his body. It was if the barriers between the spiritual and material worlds crumbled - "I am the universe". .... It was in a flash of light that he perceived the truth and realized he become one with the universe. At that moment he felt the true purpose of budo was love, love that cherishes and nourishes all beings he was 42 at the time."
pg 16
"The aim of the martial arts should be to achieve a state of mind united with the universe itself. His new art would become a physical reflection of spiritual beliefs.

But this could all be revisionist history right.

Akido and the Dynamic Sphere by A. Westbrook and O.Ratti
Chapter 2 pg 29
"Master Ueshiba himself marks the year 1925 as the year in which his thus far unsatisfied search for a deeper meaning to be attributed to the martial arts came to an end, or rather to the threshold of a new dimension which was to be explored further by him and his followers. It was in this year that he succeeded in blending the highest ethics of mankind with the practice of the martial arts; he developed that practice into a particular, truly defensive art in accordance with the highest dictates of those ethics.


Hmmmmm. Now what did I get wrong here? According to the writers above it is documented that Ueshiba had a religious experience in 1925 after which he created his art of Aikido. Now we can argue that well no he was teaching before and that was Aikido. But I disagree, he was teaching before, he changed things afterwards because of his religious experience (his enlightenment). So I stand by my statement.

That is fine. He had religious experiences and his religion played a big part in his teaching. The fact that his main students, Shioda, Tohei, Saito, Tomiki, etc and his son Kisshomaru teach or taught a physical form of Aikido while Ueshiba was still alive must mean that he was not opposed to the physical, just that he was moving on in his training to a higher level.

Don't get me wrong but I think you are being misleading here with the neck cranks, limb destruction etc. etc. Sure it will have those things but that was not the intent. In fact that would be considered bad Aikido.

Depends on your definition of 'bad'. It might be against the spirit of Aikido to cause harm, just as it is the same in any fight in a legal sense. But if you are in a bad place and in physical danger against a gang of thugs, I'm sure Ueshiba might forgive the odd broken arm here or there. The beauty of Aikido is you can choose the level of aggression. That is a little difficult in a predominantly striking art.

Again you wrote
With respect, I feel your understanding of Aikido based on Wiki is very superficial. Certainly Aikido means the way of harmony of the spirit, but this spirit is Ki or energy, not a religious connotation. I don't expect you to necessarily understand Ki but it is pretty much the sole reason I began learning Aikido. I joined MT for the same reason to see if there were some like minded people with whom I could compare training notes. To be honest, both have been interesting. The Aikido is amazing and the reaction on MT was incredibly interesting to say the least. There are those that believe in Ki and those who don't.
OK your first statement about how you feel my understanding of Aikido is very superficial is dead on. I don't know much about Aikido, I've discussed it many times with other practitioners but ....... so far I think aside from your putting me down with my lack of understanding I was spot on with my original statement and backed it up without Wiki. But your next statement to me is again misleading because his whole arts philosophy was about blending, being harmonious with the attacker, to neutralize him by blending with his actions.

And that is 100% correct.

But again how's this.
Pg 14 from Bill Sosa's book
"The question of humanity is when will we learn to harmonize (aiki) with one another and stop the eternal fighting. When will we learn to blend with nature and quit our constant destruction and pollution of our planet? Many people from all over the world feel that aikido is the most suited martial art of our age."

I'm not sure how you think this goes against anything I have said. That is his philosophy.

Ueshiba said "I under took the training of my body through budo, and when I realized it's ultimate essence, I gained an even higher truth. I saw clearly that human beings must unify mind and body and the ki that connects the two and that a person must harmonize his activity of all things in the universe. Through the subtle working of ki mind and body are harmonized and the relationship between the individual and the universe is harmonized.
If the subtle working of ki is not properly utilized, a person's mind and body will become unhealthy, the world will become chaotic, and the entire universe will be thrown into disorder."

Again, that is his philosophy.

I don't understand KI, however the name of his art reflects his religious experience of harmonizing with the universe, heck he even became the universe during his experience. He changed his art to reflect this, principle of harmonizing, which is shown in his intent is to blend with the opponent not to clash with him nor hurt him. To deny this well I think is misguided.

Few people do understand Ki. I had never experienced it until about 8 years ago and I have been training it ever since. It has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Just the mind. Harmonising can be mental as well as physical.

Just so we are clear I view things such as being spiritual, being one with the universe etc. etc. as religious in nature. Considering Ueshiba's involvement with the Omoto religion, his enlightenment because of that religion etc. etc. I think he is using KI as an one type of expression of his religious views.

And that is BS. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in anything spiritual. Utilising Ki or Chi is an Eastern concept and nothing to do with religion etc.

Your wrote again
But I digress. I don't agree that it was Ueshiba's goal to design an art that protected the attacker. That became his philosophy later. And if you think about it, it is not a bad philosophy. It's not that the art was created not to hurt the attacker but rather to blend and harmonize with him, neutralize him and not cause him harm. There is a difference between creating an art that is totally passive such as turn the other cheek and let the attacker slap you there too because you are a non violent passive individual, and you blending with the guy's energy so as not to harm him as part of your SD philosophy. In fact you blend with him and not causing him harm is the highest form of practice. Can you tell me when he developed this philosophy, since you say it wasn't the time of his enlightenment experience in 1925?

Blending and harmonising is nothing to do with not causing harm. It is the principal of most martial arts where you do not clash. In a sense harmonising means that your opponent doesn't realise he has been disadvantaged until it is too late. Clashing, as in blocking, simply leads to the next attack.

Remember, Aikido is for self defence, not warfare. Say my drunken neighbour started beating his wife and I intervened. In the first scenario I use my karate skills and break his nose and rip the ligaments in his shoulder requiring a reconstruction. Now I may or may not have to face charges for assault using unreasonable force and I may be sued in a civil court for damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income. It is unlikely my neighbour will ever have a relationship with me again and if I'm really unlucky he might even be inclined to hire someone to even the score. Scenario two, I use my Aikido skills to restrain the guy with just a little pain until he settles down and sees the error of his ways. Problem solved, no injury, no recrimination.

OK what are you talking about, do you mean that you couldn't use your karate skills to restrain the guy with little pain and maintain a relationship with him? Are you saying that Aikido doesn't have skills (like you mentioned involving neck cranks, arm breaks etc. etc.) Give me a break, either art taken in one direction can hurt the person, likewise either art taken in the other direction can not hurt the person. This really has nothing to do the discussion.

Possibly not. Aikido just has greater flexibility in the amount of force you use.

I wrote
The OP asked what martial arts were designed for; Aikido is an expression of Ueshiba sensei's personal philosophy of universal peace and reconciliation.
Then you repliedThat is not what it was designed for and it is not the way it is taught or applied. Whatever Ueshiba's religious convictions as he aged had no effect on the practice of Aikido. His students were teaching Aikido the way they had been taught and they continued to teach that way after his death.My reply
Wow I guess everyone is wrong here, I guess Bill Sosa got it wrong, his teacher, and his teacher's teacher, the guy's from Wiki who wrote in.

Quite possibly, but I tried to read a little on Bill Sosa. He was expressing his philosophy, as is his right. It's not an issue of right or wrong, except in your understanding, or lack thereof.

To be fair
Asian Fighting Arts by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith pg 139
IN 1925 Ueshiba organized what can be referred to as his style of aiki-jujutsu, largely for his own personal and spiritual and physical development. .......(talking about aiki-jujutsu)..... He did however use it as a starting point from which to elaborate on his own system. (speaking of aikido) It can be thought of as a mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along the lines of conntinuity. This is a concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature." "Essentially a religious man, Ueshiba emerged in 1942 with a mature , modified form which he called Aikido.
In the foot notes he writes
"Ueshiba's aikido, the "mother" system, is not the only form of aikido in Japan. Several of his former disciples have broken away from his teachings and have established their own styles......"

I'm not sure why you excluded the rest of the excerpt unless it didn't suit your agenda:

Aikido is not simply an exercise, a sport, a combat form, nor purely physical education. But it is in some sense all of these things, although it aspires to higher ideals. It can be thought of as mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along lines of continuity. This is the concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature. This expression is infinitely varied, and for this reason its techniques are unlimited. Its physical techniques involve throwing and grappling, the latter largely confined to joint locking techniques. In its original jujitsu form, consideration was given to atemi and resuscitation, but nowadays these factors are not stressed.

OK so we have Draeger a martial arts historian putting Aikido at 1942 and Ueshiba stating it was 1925. It's in reality probably both in that he was teaching the aiki-jujutsu (based on the martial arts he had studied), had his enlightenment experience, started his transition in his teaching and maybe formalized things in 1942. However it still backs up all things considered that Aikido as Ueshiba practiced it and created it was a expression of his religious views.

Again you are confusing philosophy with religious views.

I wrote
The name even reflects this view point. To deny it or to call my statement silly (I'm not sure which you were calling silly) that Aikido was based on a SD system that became an religious expression, I think is wrong.

You replied
Aikido is an internal martial art. It is all about utilising Ki. That is what is embodied in the name, nothing less, nothing more. Your statement is in the para above. It is patently wrong and I pointed out that Gogen Yamaguchi was also involved in religion but no one would ever suggest his art of Goju Kai was a self defence art that became a religious expression. I have said before and I will say again, the most effective martial artist I have ever met is an Aikidoka.
I once again disagree; by Ueshiba's own statements, his experience, etc. etc. I believe the name reflects his view of the martial arts as it was influenced by his own spiritual enlightenment. I believe other Aikidoist understand this why do you deny it. It is a name, people name their arts to distinguish themselves from other arts. Remember I was talking about Ueshiba's art he named it, even the students who broke away are in effect Johnny come Latelys so you have to look at what he says not what your instructor says. From what I quoted (from different sources) so far I believe I've backed up my point, please do the same. Telling me that "the most effective martial artist I have ever met is an Aikidoka" means nothing to the discussion. Throwing in Yamaguchi's name also is misleading. He was claiming successor ship to Goju and used that name, so it means nothing. My comment was about Ueshiba's Aikido no one elses, because he created it.

All you have done here is demonstrated an ignorance of Ki. The Chinese utilise Chi. It is also in Hapkido and if you read of the great swordsmen they also discuss Ki. Nothing at all to do with spiritual enlightenment.

I wrote
Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I know of no other RBSD systems or other TMAs etc. etc. where the well being of the attacker was a primary concern of the defender.
I think that is also not quite correct. The primary concern is for the safety of the practitioner and his friends and family. The well being of the attacker is a secondary concern. If necessary Aikido could cause the total destruction of the attacker but that is not the primary aim.

That is true but it would be bad Aikido, good SD maybe but bad Aikido. In fact the primary concern for Ueshiba's Aikido appears to be to bring about a more unified person, both spiritually and physically to live in harmony with the rest of the world, nature and the universe at large. Not defending oneself.

Absolute garbage! Police forces around the world train Aikido to apprehend and control without harming. I learn it as self defence as does every other Aikido person I know.

I might not know Aikido physically, but my view points and how I expressed them (several days ago) are backed up (I feel) by the quotes I posted today. If you have other sources other than you knowing someone who is a great aikidoka, or your own personal training please prove my view wrong. In fact if you have source material on Aikido and on Ueshiba's life or view point on aikido that contradict what these author's and Ueshiba says than please post them. Not that it would invalidate my view but I would appreciate the counter view point.

You have demonstrated beyond doubt your ignorance of Aikido and selective quotes will never change that. Go and aquaint yourself with a good Aikido school then we might be able to have a proper conversation.

I don't have a lot of material on Aikido since I didn't choose to study the art, so I'm not going to dig out more quotes. But I would like you to provide some sources so I can learn more.

From the biographical book "The Founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba", written by Ueshiba Kisshomaru (translated and reprinted in Aiki News #62). Excerpt originally written by Okamoto Ippei and published in the November 1933 issue of Budo magazine.

"[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. [The Founder] said, 'My technique is 70 percent atemi (striking) and 30 percent nage (throwing).' "

From the book "Aikido Shugyo: Tai Sureba Aiwasu" (Aikido Shugyo: Harmony in Confrontation), written by Shioda Gozo; Translated into English by Jacques Payet and Christopher Johnston as "Aikido Shugyo".

pg. 101 - "According to what Ueshiba Sensei taught, you must manoeuvre your opponent so that he is drained of his fighting spirit. He will then move in on you as you wish and you should then be able to handle him at will."

pg. 165 - "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. ."

For what it's worth, in this context 'fighting spirit' means Ki.

From the book "Traditional Aikido", written by Saito Morihiro; Vol 5.

pg. 38 - ATEMI (Body blow prior to applying technique).

"Atemi accounts for 99% of Aikido was a remark once uttered by the founder. I introduced atemi at some length in Vol. 4. Atemi is virtually omitted in Aikido training on the ground that [a] preliminary blow should not become a matter of predominant concern. However, there are quite a few cases in which the meaning of a technique becomes incomprehensible if the attendant atemi is left out. I suggest therefore that after reading through Vol. 4, study should be made as to when atemi should be delivered in the execution of a technique and cases of it's omission."

 

[Mark Lynn]

K frame

Why are you fixated on the whole KI issue, or atemi, or how great aikido is etc. etc. All I stated and what I backed up is what Ueshiba said in his own words, and what others had wrote about him that practice his art; simply put he had a religious experience (enlightenment), it changed the course of how or what he was teaching in some manner, he later called his art Aikido. The translation of Aiki as to harmonizing as was referenced fits within the name of his art. In fact it is an important concept within his art, and one that fits into his religious views.

you wrote
Ueshiba gained his teaching licence for a Daito Ryu in 1922. His religious views had nothing to do with anything at that time.


But the discussion was around him naming his art, at that time he was teaching aiki-jujutsu (per Draeger's view) and later (3 years) he had his enlightenment experience and later still per Draeger he formed Aikido in 1942. Even your quote by Saito "Traditional Aikido" seems to back up that a change took place because he had to reintroduce atemi because it was virtually omitted in aikido
" Atemi is virtually omitted in Aikido training on the ground that [a] preliminary blow should not become a matter of predominant concern. "

you wrote
That is fine. He had religious experiences and his religion played a big part in his teaching. The fact that his main students, Shioda, Tohei, Saito, Tomiki, etc and his son Kisshomaru teach or taught a physical form of Aikido while Ueshiba was still alive must mean that he was not opposed to the physical, just that he was moving on in his training to a higher level.

Just because others teach a more physical method of Aikido doesn't mean that Ueshiba agreed with it, and that he looked at it as the art that he did. Maybe he didn't care because of his philosophical views, maybe he was harmonizing with them, who knows. The fact is; we do have his view points recorded on his enlightenment experience, we do know he was a deeply religious man, we know (as you admitted) that his religion played a big part in his teaching, and that he changed his method and manner of teaching at some point after his enlightenment, oh and he named his art. And it appears that he was moving onto a higher level of training.

you wrote
Certainly Aikido means the way of harmony of the spirit, but this spirit is Ki or energy, not a religious connotation.

Going back to Ueshiba's own words
Ueshiba said "I under took the training of my body through budo, and when I realized it's ultimate essence, I gained an even higher truth. I saw clearly that human beings must unify mind and body and the ki that connects the two and that a person must harmonize his activity of all things in the universe. Through the subtle working of ki mind and body are harmonized and the relationship between the individual and the universe is harmonized.
If the subtle working of ki is not properly utilized, a person's mind and body will become unhealthy, the world will become chaotic, and the entire universe will be thrown into disorder."

While this is his personal philosophy becoming one with the universe as he did in his enlightenment experience through the teachings of the Omoto religion I don't think are separated but linked.

you wrote
Few people do understand Ki. I had never experienced it until about 8 years ago and I have been training it ever since. It has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Just the mind. Harmonising can be mental as well as physical.

However we know from Ueshiba's view harmonizing is more than just mental and physical for he wrote that.
".....bathed in heavenly light; the ground quaked and a golden cloud came up from earth and entered his body. It was if the barriers between the spiritual and material worlds crumbled - "I am the universe". .... It was in a flash of light that he perceived the truth and realized he become one with the universe.

It was the breaking down of barriers between the spiritual and the material; hmmm sounds religious to me.

you wrote
And that is BS. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in anything spiritual. Utilising Ki or Chi is an Eastern concept and nothing to do with religion etc.

This discussion wasn't about your views on things magical or spiritual; it was about Ueshiba naming his art and if the name, his teachings, and his art reflected his religious views. To discuss the naming of his art, his teachings, etc. etc. you must look at his view point, you must look at history, his students, and those that have studied the art and have studied him etc. etc. I don't care what you believe in relation to KI or how you understand it, rather how did Ueshiba view it.

you wrote
Blending and harmonising is nothing to do with not causing harm. It is the principal of most martial arts where you do not clash. In a sense harmonising means that your opponent doesn't realise he has been disadvantaged until it is too late. Clashing, as in blocking, simply leads to the next attack.

OK on one level harmonizing doesn't mean to not cause harm, but on a different level a deeper level if you are harmonizing with an opponent and with the universe then your opponent is you and to do him harm is to do yourself harm. Just kidding. Seriously though, Ueshiba speaks of harmonizing on a much bigger picture or deeper level of understanding than just having your opponent realized that he has been disadvantaged.

you wrote
Quite possibly, but I tried to read a little on Bill Sosa. He was expressing his philosophy, as is his right. It's not an issue of right or wrong, except in your understanding, or lack thereof.

Come on really. From your answers you seem to dance around a lot of the issue, I mean you have different views on harmonizing than Ueshiba, you have different views on anything spiritual than Ueshiba, you say that his religious views impacted his teaching, but because others don't teach that way that his art wasn't his expression of his views, especially stemming from his enlightenment experience. You keep saying that I'm wrong but..... I don't see it. Again I'm speaking strictly to my original post of his art being his expression of his religous views. You can claim all you want about your understanding of KI, how others don't understand KI, your joining MT, your training in Aikido, your experiences with KI and use all of that to say I don't know anything about Aikido; cool you have no argument from me. I have fully admitted that and that has never been part of the discussion for me. But let's get back to the what Ueshiba did in that he changed his art after his enlightenment experience (which was brought about from his involvement with the Otomo religion) and he called it Aikido.

Like the sources that you mentioned at the end of your post, interesting yes, thanks for looking them up. However, even though they speak of atemi (preemptive striking) this still doesn't really get down to the my original post on Aikido being a expression of his beliefs. The fact that the one instructor (Saito) had to put them back in backs up that what some people taught is different than what Ueshiba taught. But we were only talking about Ueshiba's Aikido in my post that you took issue with.

You wrote
I'm not sure why you excluded the rest of the excerpt unless it didn't suit your agenda:

I excluded it because I was tired of typing without my reading glasses on and I felt I made my point. I was trying to be fair and to settle a difference of opinion when Aikido was created and to add to the discussion we were having.

IN 1925 Ueshiba organized what can be referred to as his style of aiki-jujutsu, largely for his own personal and spiritual and physical development. .......(talking about aiki-jujutsu)..... He did however use it as a starting point from which to elaborate on his own system. (speaking of aikido) It can be thought of as a mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along the lines of conntinuity. This is a concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature."

The above sheds light on a point of contention that we were having in that what Ueshiba was teaching in 1925 with his form of aiki-jujutsu (no doubt based or coming from Daito Ryu) and that he later in 1942 formalized his own system which became Aikido. Again this was Draeger's and Westbrooks version of history but I felt it was worth mentioning. The material you added that I left out didn't have any bearing on the point being made.

Rereading my post and the paragraph in the book, I was also tying together his system of Aikido "mind and body unified harmoniously in a system...." I can understand where you might think I was leaving things out, but I didn't think it added to the point I was trying to make. There was no hidden agenda on my part to mislead anyone.

However since you mentioned it.
Aikido is not simply an exercise, a sport, a combat form, nor purely physical education. But it is in some sense all of these things, although it aspires to higher ideals. It can be thought of as mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along lines of continuity. This is the concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature. This expression is infinitely varied, and for this reason its techniques are unlimited. Its physical techniques involve throwing and grappling, the latter largely confined to joint locking techniques. In its original jujitsu form, consideration was given to atemi and resuscitation, but nowadays these factors are not stressed.

What you bolded once again shows how his art changed because "In it's original jujitsu form, consideration was given to atemi and resuscitation, but now a days these factors are not stressed." So his earlier students might have learned this type of material which in later times he discarded. It still doesn't disprove my view.

You wrote
All you have done here is demonstrated an ignorance of Ki. The Chinese utilise Chi. It is also in Hapkido and if you read of the great swordsmen they also discuss Ki. Nothing at all to do with spiritual enlightenment.

How? See this is an example of you dancing around the question or my point Take apart my statement and tell me how it shows my ignorance of KI? What did KI have to do with my statement anyhow?


you wrote
Absolute garbage! Police forces around the world train Aikido to apprehend and control without harming. I learn it as self defence as does every other Aikido person I know.

Is this Ueshiba's Aikido, Saito's, is it Tomiki, or Yoshin or any of the mutitudes of different styles out there? Are they learning the whole art, or a few techniques, are they also studying the sword and the jo with it? Come on quit grasping at straws. My statement was about what possibly Ueshiba's (from his statements) views were not what your view is or any Aikido student that you know, or the Police forces around the world. I guess the dancing continues.

you wrote
You have demonstrated beyond doubt your ignorance of Aikido and selective quotes will never change that. Go and aquaint yourself with a good Aikido school then we might be able to have a proper conversation.

Well I had hoped we might have a proper conversation, but it is a two way street. See it is easy to dismiss someone who doesn't know anything about an art when they are like me someone who admits he doesn't know anything about Aikido if we were talking about; Aikido training, exercises or drills, methods of learning and such. But frankly it isn't worth my time to go and study or acquaint myself with a good Aikido school, because the moment we might disagree, you would dismiss me again and say go find another, or how I don't understand this or that, or you know the greatest SD defense guy etc. etc. All of which is totally not what my post was originally about which you took issue with and then made cracks about later. Since you can't stay on topic (my post) we can't have a decent two way conversation.

However I still haven't seen a good refute of my original post except that your an Aikidoka and you know about KI and I'm wrong. In fact all I see is your dancing around the issue which was my original statement that Ueshiba's Aikido was an expression of his religious views that stemmed from his enlightenment from the Otomo religion (and others). So why don't you find some quotes from some sources that speak to the development of Ueshiba's Aikido and why he formed the art as he did, and named it as such. Than perhaps we can have a decent conversation on the matter. Start a new thread if you want to discuss KI.

To thread starter: to the best of my ability I've tried to stay on topic even though it appears we've been hashing out this Aikido thing. My original comment was in the spirit of your post. Quoting other written sources to back up my view, I feel also tends to stay within the spirit of the thread, although it appears this discussion has reached an impasse Yeah Haaaaa.

 

[Mark Lynn]

K frame

Not to continue to beat on a dead horse but during the Aikido discussion you mentioned Yamaguchi. He too had a religious experience that effected his training in the martial arts.

you wrote
Gogen Yamaguchi was also involved in religion but no one would ever suggest his art of Goju Kai was a self defence art that became a religious expression.

My response
From an article in Dragon Times entitled The Life Story of Karate Master Gogen Yamaguchi pg30
"Another effect of his divine revelation was to turn Yamaguchi's mind once more to religion and mysticism....before long he became a master of Shinto himself. He also studied yoga under Tengai Noda, "Japan's highest authority" on the art."
"In due course Yamaguchi formulated his own system of "Goju Shinto" a combination of Goju style karate, yoga and shinto, with some zen included too. We should note however, that this is more a personal thing with Gogen Yamaguchi and the yoga and shinto aspect does not affect the vast majority of Goju kai practitioners; they practice their karate just as other karatemen do."

So while your statement is correct that no one would claim his system of Goju kai went from a system of a self defense art that became a religious expression, his own personal style Goju Shinto seems though to have followed that course. His belief in Shinto was religious in nature for
"Yamaguchi seems fully versed in shinto rituals and practices, and can communicate with spirits (kami). He uses the crystal ball for this, and also predicting earth quakes and similar things." ....... "In all the subject of Yoga occupies 35 pages of Karate Goju ryu by the Cat., so obliviously Yamaguchi deems it of importance."

Later in the article someone describes a Yoga training class at his karate college (during the 1970's) that Yamaguchi and his wife lead and some students took part in; where they go through yoga postures and meditations and ended in a ritual that consisted of waking up the spirits, uttering certain incantations, sprinkling slat for purification etc. etc.

So some, not all, Goju practioners under Yamaguchi were taught more of his personal style at his karate college during some period of his life. The style he created "Goju Shinto".

Not knowing anything about Japanese Goju ryu I'm just saying that he too because of his divine revelation changed his direction in life and teaching to some degree.

 

[K-man]

K frame

No! Wrong again.

Why are you fixated on the whole KI issue, or atemi, or how great aikido is etc. etc.

You dissed Aikido. You said it was purely spiritual, not martial as in not for self defence. I never said it was great, just that it is an effective martial art.

All I stated and what I backed up is what Ueshiba said in his own words, and what others had wrote about him that practice his art; simply put he had a religious experience (enlightenment), it changed the course of how or what he was teaching in some manner, he later called his art Aikido.

It didn't change how he taught it. It changed his emphasis in the way he practised it.

The translation of Aiki as to harmonizing as was referenced fits within the name of his art. In fact it is an important concept within his art, and one that fits into his religious views.

Aiki is the harmonising of Ki but you have no concept of Ki! It has nothing to do with his religious views. Ki is Ki as is Chi in CMA.

you wrote
Ueshiba gained his teaching licence for a Daito Ryu in 1922. His religious views had nothing to do with anything at that time.But the discussion was around him naming his art, at that time he was teaching aiki-jujutsu (per Draeger's view) and later (3 years) he had his enlightenment experience and later still per Draeger he formed Aikido in 1942. Even your quote by Saito "Traditional Aikido" seems to back up that a change took place because he had to reintroduce atemi because it was virtually omitted in aikido
" Atemi is virtually omitted in Aikido training on the ground that [a] preliminary blow should not become a matter of predominant concern. "

Get your facts straight. Atom is and always was an important part of Aikido. And, as an aside, if 'ki' as in Aiki is to do with religion, how come he was teaching Aiki-jujutsu?

you wrote
That is fine. He had religious experiences and his religion played a big part in his teaching. The fact that his main students, Shioda, Tohei, Saito, Tomiki, etc and his son Kisshomaru teach or taught a physical form of Aikido while Ueshiba was still alive must mean that he was not opposed to the physical, just that he was moving on in his training to a higher level.

Just because others teach a more physical method of Aikido doesn't mean that Ueshiba agreed with it, and that he looked at it as the art that he did. Maybe he didn't care because of his philosophical views, maybe he was harmonizing with them, who knows. The fact is; we do have his view points recorded on his enlightenment experience, we do know he was a deeply religious man, we know (as you admitted) that his religion played a big part in his teaching, and that he changed his method and manner of teaching at some point after his enlightenment, oh and he named his art. And it appears that he was moving onto a higher level of training.

No! His religion played an important part in his philosophy. And you are saying his son and successor went against his teaching, yeah good one!

you wrote
Certainly Aikido means the way of harmony of the spirit, but this spirit is Ki or energy, not a religious connotation.

Going back to Ueshiba's own words
Ueshiba said "I under took the training of my body through budo, and when I realized it's ultimate essence, I gained an even higher truth. I saw clearly that human beings must unify mind and body and the ki that connects the two and that a person must harmonize his activity of all things in the universe. Through the subtle working of ki mind and body are harmonized and the relationship between the individual and the universe is harmonized.
If the subtle working of ki is not properly utilized, a person's mind and body will become unhealthy, the world will become chaotic, and the entire universe will be thrown into disorder."

Perhaps if you understood Ki you would understand what he is saying. This makes perfect sense but is nothing to do with his religeon.

While this is his personal philosophy becoming one with the universe as he did in his enlightenment experience through the teachings of the Omoto religion I don't think are separated but linked.

​You think! You who have admitted you have no knowledge of Aikido. Right!

you wrote
Few people do understand Ki. I had never experienced it until about 8 years ago and I have been training it ever since. It has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Just the mind. Harmonising can be mental as well as physical.

However we know from Ueshiba's view harmonizing is more than just mental and physical for he wrote that.
".....bathed in heavenly light; the ground quaked and a golden cloud came up from earth and entered his body. It was if the barriers between the spiritual and material worlds crumbled - "I am the universe". .... It was in a flash of light that he perceived the truth and realized he become one with the universe.

It was the breaking down of barriers between the spiritual and the material; hmmm sounds religious to me.

​Again, this is his philosophy, not his art.

you wrote
And that is BS. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in anything spiritual. Utilising Ki or Chi is an Eastern concept and nothing to do with religion etc.

This discussion wasn't about your views on things magical or spiritual; it was about Ueshiba naming his art and if the name, his teachings, and his art reflected his religious views. To discuss the naming of his art, his teachings, etc. etc. you must look at his view point, you must look at history, his students, and those that have studied the art and have studied him etc. etc. I don't care what you believe in relation to KI or how you understand it, rather how did Ueshiba view it.

Ueshiba viewed Ki the same way as all martial artists viewed Ki. I understand it as Ueshiba taught it in particular to Tohei.

you wrote
Blending and harmonising is nothing to do with not causing harm. It is the principal of most martial arts where you do not clash. In a sense harmonising means that your opponent doesn't realise he has been disadvantaged until it is too late. Clashing, as in blocking, simply leads to the next attack.
OK on one level harmonizing doesn't mean to not cause harm, but on a different level a deeper level if you are harmonizing with an opponent and with the universe then your opponent is you and to do him harm is to do yourself harm. Just kidding. Seriously though, Ueshiba speaks of harmonizing on a much bigger picture or deeper level of understanding than just having your opponent realized that he has been disadvantaged.

​Again, this comes from your profound knowledge of Aikido?

you wrote
Quite possibly, but I tried to read a little on Bill Sosa. He was expressing his philosophy, as is his right. It's not an issue of right or wrong, except in your understanding, or lack thereof.

Come on really. From your answers you seem to dance around a lot of the issue, I mean you have different views on harmonizing than Ueshiba, you have different views on anything spiritual than Ueshiba, you say that his religious views impacted his teaching, but because others don't teach that way that his art wasn't his expression of his views, especially stemming from his enlightenment experience. You keep saying that I'm wrong but..... I don't see it. Again I'm speaking strictly to my original post of his art being his expression of his religous views.

What a load of crap. You are pretending to be an expert on Aikido yet you don't understand what Ueshiba is saying.

You can claim all you want about your understanding of KI, how others don't understand KI, your joining MT, your training in Aikido, your experiences with KI and use all of that to say I don't know anything about Aikido; cool you have no argument from me. I have fully admitted that and that has never been part of the discussion for me. But let's get back to the what Ueshiba did in that he changed his art after his enlightenment experience (which was brought about from his involvement with the Otomo religion) and he called it Aikido.

Yes he changed it from Aiki-jujutsu to Aiki-do, just as Kano changed his art from Ju-Jutsu to Ju-do.

Like the sources that you mentioned at the end of your post, interesting yes, thanks for looking them up. However, even though they speak of atemi (preemptive striking) this still doesn't really get down to the my original post on Aikido being a expression of his beliefs. The fact that the one instructor (Saito) had to put them back in backs up that what some people taught is different than what Ueshiba taught. But we were only talking about Ueshiba's Aikido in my post that you took issue with.

Mate, atemi has always been part of Aikido. I quoted Saito because Saito was quoting Ueshiba. His teacher!

You wrote
I'm not sure why you excluded the rest of the excerpt unless it didn't suit your agenda:
I excluded it because I was tired of typing without my reading glasses on and I felt I made my point. I was trying to be fair and to settle a difference of opinion when Aikido was created and to add to the discussion we were having.

Except that what he went on to say total contradicted your position.

IN 1925 Ueshiba organized what can be referred to as his style of aiki-jujutsu, largely for his own personal and spiritual and physical development. .......(talking about aiki-jujutsu)..... He did however use it as a starting point from which to elaborate on his own system. (speaking of aikido) It can be thought of as a mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along the lines of conntinuity. This is a concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature."

The above sheds light on a point of contention that we were having in that what Ueshiba was teaching in 1925 with his form of aiki-jujutsu (no doubt based or coming from Daito Ryu) and that he later in 1942 formalized his own system which became Aikido. Again this was Draeger's and Westbrooks version of history but I felt it was worth mentioning. The material you added that I left out didn't have any bearing on the point being made.

Rereading my post and the paragraph in the book, I was also tying together his system of Aikido "mind and body unified harmoniously in a system...." I can understand where you might think I was leaving things out, but I didn't think it added to the point I was trying to make. There was no hidden agenda on my part to mislead anyone.

However since you mentioned it.
Aikido is not simply an exercise, a sport, a combat form, nor purely physical education. But it is in some sense all of these things, although it aspires to higher ideals. It can be thought of as mind and body unified harmoniously in a system of mechanics based on force applied along lines of continuity. This is the concept of natural rhythm, a free flow of personal expression that offers no conflict with nature. This expression is infinitely varied, and for this reason its techniques are unlimited. Its physical techniques involve throwing and grappling, the latter largely confined to joint locking techniques. In its original jujitsu form, consideration was given to atemi and resuscitation, but nowadays these factors are not stressed.

What you bolded once again shows how his art changed because "In it's original jujitsu form, consideration was given to atemi and resuscitation, but now a days these factors are not stressed." So his earlier students might have learned this type of material which in later times he discarded. It still doesn't disprove my view.

You can have whatever view you like, just that it is a view based on your ignorance of Aikido and its principles.

You wrote
All you have done here is demonstrated an ignorance of Ki. The Chinese utilise Chi. It is also in Hapkido and if you read of the great swordsmen they also discuss Ki. Nothing at all to do with spiritual enlightenment.

How? See this is an example of you dancing around the question or my point Take apart my statement and tell me how it shows my ignorance of KI? What did KI have to do with my statement anyhow?

If you take Ki out of Aikido you no longer have Aikido. It's not dancing around anything. Because Ueshiba understood Ki he could soften his martial art.

you wrote
Absolute garbage! Police forces around the world train Aikido to apprehend and control without harming. I learn it as self defence as does every other Aikido person I know.

Is this Ueshiba's Aikido, Saito's, is it Tomiki, or Yoshin or any of the mutitudes of different styles out there? Are they learning the whole art, or a few techniques, are they also studying the sword and the jo with it? Come on quit grasping at straws. My statement was about what possibly Ueshiba's (from his statements) views were not what your view is or any Aikido student that you know, or the Police forces around the world. I guess the dancing continues.

​All mainstream Aikido is Ueshiba's Aikido. The one he wasn't happy with was Tomiki's because that involved competition. There are not multitudes of styles out there. That is you own exaggeration.

you wrote
You have demonstrated beyond doubt your ignorance of Aikido and selective quotes will never change that. Go and aquaint yourself with a good Aikido school then we might be able to have a proper conversation.

Well I had hoped we might have a proper conversation, but it is a two way street. See it is easy to dismiss someone who doesn't know anything about an art when they are like me someone who admits he doesn't know anything about Aikido if we were talking about; Aikido training, exercises or drills, methods of learning and such. But frankly it isn't worth my time to go and study or acquaint myself with a good Aikido school, because the moment we might disagree, you would dismiss me again and say go find another, or how I don't understand this or that, or you know the greatest SD defense guy etc. etc. All of which is totally not what my post was originally about which you took issue with and then made cracks about later. Since you can't stay on topic (my post) we can't have a decent two way conversation.

I have addressed everything you have posted. It is probably the biggest load of misinformation I have ever seen posted on MT and that is the only reason I have taken this amount of time to refute your claims.

However I still haven't seen a good refute of my original post except that your an Aikidoka and you know about KI and I'm wrong. In fact all I see is your dancing around the issue which was my original statement that Ueshiba's Aikido was an expression of his religious views that stemmed from his enlightenment from the Otomo religion (and others). So why don't you find some quotes from some sources that speak to the development of Ueshiba's Aikido and why he formed the art as he did, and named it as such. Than perhaps we can have a decent conversation on the matter. Start a new thread if you want to discuss KI.

As I said before., Ki is central to this discussion. It is your confusion of Ki that has caused you to think that Aikido is a religious experience.

To thread starter: to the best of my ability I've tried to stay on topic even though it appears we've been hashing out this Aikido thing. My original comment was in the spirit of your post. Quoting other written sources to back up my view, I feel also tends to stay within the spirit of the thread, although it appears this discussion has reached an impasse Yeah Haaaaa.

You dissed Aikido in your original post ..
"Aikido is an example of an art that came from a self defense art that became an religious expression."

That is just not true!

 

[K-man]

K frame

Not to continue to beat on a dead horse but during the Aikido discussion you mentioned Yamaguchi. He too had a religious experience that effected his training in the martial arts.

you wrote
Gogen Yamaguchi was also involved in religion but no one would ever suggest his art of Goju Kai was a self defence art that became a religious expression.

My response
From an article in Dragon Times entitled The Life Story of Karate Master Gogen Yamaguchi pg30
"Another effect of his divine revelation was to turn Yamaguchi's mind once more to religion and mysticism....before long he became a master of Shinto himself. He also studied yoga under Tengai Noda, "Japan's highest authority" on the art."
"In due course Yamaguchi formulated his own system of "Goju Shinto" a combination of Goju style karate, yoga and shinto, with some zen included too. We should note however, that this is more a personal thing with Gogen Yamaguchi and the yoga and shinto aspect does not affect the vast majority of Goju kai practitioners; they practice their karate just as other karatemen do."

So while your statement is correct that no one would claim his system of Goju kai went from a system of a self defense art that became a religious expression, his own personal style Goju Shinto seems though to have followed that course. His belief in Shinto was religious in nature for
"Yamaguchi seems fully versed in shinto rituals and practices, and can communicate with spirits (kami). He uses the crystal ball for this, and also predicting earth quakes and similar things." ....... "In all the subject of Yoga occupies 35 pages of Karate Goju ryu by the Cat., so obliviously Yamaguchi deems it of importance."

Later in the article someone describes a Yoga training class at his karate college (during the 1970's) that Yamaguchi and his wife lead and some students took part in; where they go through yoga postures and meditations and ended in a ritual that consisted of waking up the spirits, uttering certain incantations, sprinkling slat for purification etc. etc.

So some, not all, Goju practioners under Yamaguchi were taught more of his personal style at his karate college during some period of his life. The style he created "Goju Shinto".

Not knowing anything about Japanese Goju ryu I'm just saying that he too because of his divine revelation changed his direction in life and teaching to some degree.

And in the time I trained Goju Kai under Yamaguchi we trained the hard style he had developed. Nothing to do with his religious philosophy. Why would Ueshiba be any different? He had his martial art and he had his religious philosophy.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'd say the RBSD arts are more designed for fighting, plain and simple. While the other arts have different reasons, I still feel that the main reason was fighting. Sure, the inner peace, self control, blah, blah, are part of it, but I doubt it was the sole purpose. And no, of course the structure is going to be different, so I didn't mean to imply the classes will be like your typical class in TKD. Like I said, the average RBSD system is the bare bones, stripped down version of what you'd find in other arts. More meat and less fluff.

Serious question, Mike, how much experience do you have with RBSD systems? I'm talking Jim Wagner, Tony Blauer, Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, Geoff Thompson etc here. The reason I ask is that they really aren't "arts", or really even "systems"... they're really more "approaches", and can be equally applied to a vast cross-section of arts, rather than having their own methodology. The core, central underlying connection between them is an understanding of modern violence... which then allows the training (of any art) to be geared towards that understanding. Some approaches focus on the initial engagement (such as Deane Lawler's R-SULT, Geoff Thompson's Animal Day training, and so on), others are more about pre-fight and de-escalation, others are simply about handling a modern assault (but not really providing much in the way of "techniques", beyond the occasional conceptual action, such as Richard Dmitri's Shredder, or Tony Blauer's SPEAR). So, when it all comes down to it, they are concerned with violence, but not really with "fighting". Additionally, they're more designed for you to take back to your TKD class, and integrate the training/conditioning (more mental than physical) methods into the way you train that art.

To give an example, training in one of Deane Lawler's programs, we really only did one "technique", which was a simultaneous cover/half spear to protect yourself as you began to move from prey to predator. Over the day, we dealt with common set-ups, adrenaline training, group situations and scenarios, armed assaults, and so on... but no real techniques. Why? Because RBSD systems don't really have them... it's pretty much expected that all participants have some combative background (martial arts, military, bouncing, whatever), which would then be used within the different scenarios. Of course, any of the more "unrealistic" responses were quite quickly exposed, which was fun, and some alternative suggestions were made... but nothing was presented as a "technique". More just "Yeah, if you try that against something real, this happens.... (picks guy back up)... See?"

Agree with you 100% on this. No matter how many fancy words that you may use to wrap around it, it's just as simple as "fist meets face" or "sword cuts through body".

When you teach a class in an Anti-terrorism school, if you don't teach "how to kill", what will you teach?

Intelligence gathering, interrogation, problem solving, creative thinking, psychological schooling, language and culture, infiltration, espionage, technology, and a hell of a lot more besides. "How to kill" really isn't part of "anti-terrorism" (shouldn't that be "counter-terrorism"?), it's more a part of "terrorism" itself... and, in that end, it's bomb making, reading blueprints, psychological domination and compliance...

It's far from that simple.

Chris since you referenced my posts I'll respond only to those. Well I did respond to a coupe of others as well.

Cool.

When I said first and foremost I meant that in the beginning the defense of one's tribe, city, what ever started it all. For instance; there was not a need for practicing archery (well maybe for hunting, I'll give you that) if not at the beginning there was not conflict. Likewise people didn't develop the bow and arrow for personal development it was for killing, taking something from someone (i.e. a life, their land, their property, loved ones etc. etc.) and since the bow was also used for hunting it naturally was used for warfare. Much later it became used for spiritual and personal development. Since many martial arts developed from military needs it was meant as a general comment.

There's a big difference between the development of a weapon and the development of a martial art using that weapon, though. And I'd still disagree with labelling military methods as "self defence", even as defence of a tribe/village etc... after all, there'd be no need to have such defensive capabilities if the other village didn't already have a threatening force... which implies that they were developing military technologies for offence first. But I'm not that concerned with who threw the first stone, I'm looking at why this approach to throwing stones developed.

I stated
"I do believe they were created and practiced for self defense purposes first and foremost. Self defense of a person, defense of one's tribe, city, militia, etc. etc. I believe it started there over time especially during times of peace or forced occupation they morphed into something more spiritual or training of one's mind etc. etc. Later on it grew into sports and character development programs for students. So I believe they have developed in a progressive manner that people see as different things and all call it "martial arts".

Depends on the culture and time, really. Sporting methods for training are as ancient as you can get, certainly they're not a more recent development (of course, a number of sporting arts are though). As for peace time development, the biggest influence on that is the complication and sophistication of methods... wartime arts tend to be far cruder and simpler, really.

I tried to leave room for the arts that have evolved into building the spirit, the mind, self development, sports, etc. etc. and acknowledged that. So I wasn't saying all arts, modern day arts, nor all arts developed in the last 600 hundred years were for self defense. The part of my comment "during times of peace or forced occupation" I was referring to Japan, Okinawa, Korea etc. etc. who all developed martial arts for different reasons.

Cool. My point was that it wasn't even necessarily anything to do with "later development"... some arts were designed as more development etc from the get-go. Nothing at all to do with peacetime or occupation. And yeah, all arts developed for different reasons... which was the thrust of my point. You simply can't say "martial arts developed for x reason", as many wouldn't fit the mould at all.

I get it that not all arts are practiced for SD, but in many arts you are learning how to kill, maim, hurt, or control someone. Or you are learning how to use weapons etc. etc. You are not to my knowledge learning the tea ceremony, calligraphy, how to do flower arranging, paint etc. etc. all of which are artistic expressions as well, and can be used to train one's mind and body.

You might be surprised at the connections between these different arts, though... to the point where you could very easily be learning them, or at least need to learn a lot about them. But, to the point here, learning to kill, maim, or use weapons are not necessarily self defence. Especially if you're learning to be the attacker. There are methods taught in many systems that are little more than plain cold-blooded murder.

The Essence of Okinawan Karate Do by Shoshin Nagamine Chapter 1 pg 19
"The martial arts arose out of the fundamental human instinct for self preservation. This instinct caused primitive man, living without effective weapons in caves and trees to defend himself by using his hands, feet, or other parts of his body. The manner in which the art of self defense developed took many forms."

Yeah... again, I'd say that's oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy again.

I get that as well. But all of the quotes were describing the self defense aspects of their art, whether or not the average man can triumph over a gun wielding assailant with Juijutsu wasn't the point at all. It was that all of the quotes that I used from various books all described it as a method of self defense that was a description of the purpose of the arts. Since you don't like those viewpoints do we also discount all of the statements that support your view of them not being for self defense?

Firstly, they weren't describing the purpose, they were describing stated application/benefits/usages of the systems. Of course they described them as self defence... that's how they were marketed (and still are, in many, if not most cases). As far as discounting statements that state they're not for self defence, I'd say to take comments on their merits, and to cross-reference them with a truly objective observation. If a martial art purports to be for self defence, yet deals with a form of violence/combative engagement that has no real relation or bearing on the forms of violence that prospective students might encounter, I'd question it's applicability in that regard.

Dynamic Karate by MAsatoshi Nakayama in the Preface
"I feel that karate should be viewed from a broad standpoint. From the point of it's development as a modern martial art and the from the physical education aspect also, the ultimate goal of karate should be the attainment of a developed moral character built through hard and diligent training." While no where in the book is self defense shown (other than blocking and striking drills) the author did write a whole series on Practical Karate and self defense techniques etc. etc. played a big role in those books.

And that would be Nakayama's take on things, his emphasis, and his focus. Again, a big difference between that and what it was designed for.

The history per say wasn't the issue, the fact that he was stating that Jujitsu was an art of self defense method was, and that it was old. Simple yes but inaccurate?

Yes, inaccurate.

Asian Fighting Arts by Donn. F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith 1969 pg 134 IN the Chapter of Japanese Martial Arts
"Jujitsu is a generic term applied to numerous systems of combat not all similar in appearance or technique...... But Jujitsu while stressing the unarmed techniques, also deals with small weapons techniques, which are, incidentally, equally applicable to to larger weapons. It is important to realize that combat jujtisu was always a secondary system of the bugei, a method of combat complementing the techniques of swordsman ship of the different ryu."

The author continues describing how Jujitsu split into two methods in about the 17th century one dealing with the combative and another the aesthetic.

That's far more accurate. Nothing about self defence there at all.

Why? This book was written in 1958 the author was describing how Jujitsu was a method of SD in modern days, heck the drawings all show the guys in suits. I just checked the book and the two knife defenses are very similar to ones I've seen in various military manuals or the book on SD by Sitgwald I referenced that you take issue with as well.

The Draeger quote above demonstrates that Jujitsu was around for a long time 100's of years, it was used as a method of war dealing with unarmed defense against weapons and against unarmed attackers. Why are you nitpicking this crap. A wrist lock is a wrist lock, a throw is a throw, someone stabbing at you in the 1700's (that's trying to kill you) would have a similar delivery method as that of a person trying to kill you today.

Suits only mean they were wearing suits. It has no real bearing on the methods of violence, and therefore, the actual focus of self defence. And the idea of techniques used in violent encounters equaling self defence is another delusion of many martial artists who think that such things are what makes their art "real", or "work". And, for the record, the application of a knife assault, although it can look rather similar (a low stab/shank, for instance), can be quite different when you actually see it.

Yeah you right there, however the techniques in the book are all very similar to the techniques shown in the other books. But it was handy so I quoted it. I was trying to show continuity how these techniques were used for SD.

Again, "were used for" and "was designed for" are two different things... and techniques aren't really the defining aspect.

I agree. Techniques like sticking your fingers into the eye of a person, fish hooking the mouth, grabbing the head and taking the person down to the ground at your feet, twisting the head, arm bars etc. etc. are all violent acts in some base form. One in which outside of military applications if applied gets you into a lot of trouble with the law. But again those type of techniques are designed to protect your life, not arrange flowers or pour tea. Just like learning quick draw methods of the sword, drawing the sword slow could mean death (if you needed to draw), drawing fast means life. Draw the wrong way enough and you lose your fingers. At one time this was a matter of life or death maybe not now by it was important at one time. I believe self preservation was a big influence on the arts as a whole. It seems to be a common thread as to why they might have been developed in the first place.

Uh... not really what I was getting at. And, again, it's a thread in some arts, far from all of them. There's a lot I could say here (specifically on Iai methods that are far from being about self preservation), but won't, at least, not in an open forum.

I agree it's not that simple. But at some point the basic need for all the arts developed out of the need for self preservation in some form or another. I mistakenly was using the SD as the same thing.

And again, some arts didn't develop for any kind of self preservation at all. Including a range of old weapon arts, for the record, as well as more modern ones.

I tend to disagree here, yes I've heard Bruce go on about self expression etc. etc. but his whole JKD was about hitting the other person first. It was about putting the person before systems etc. etc. Hitting someone first while on the surface might not seem like self defense, but here is where I apply the term self preservation, in that I don't want to be hit so I'll learn how to hit fast and hopefully ways to hit first. Kind of like quick drawing the sword in days of old.

I teach pre-emptive striking a lot... I'm not arguing with him on that idea. And, really, pre-emptive striking is just as much a part of self defence as covering/blocking/evasive actions are. That's not where I'd be pointing out where he was lacking.

Look I was replying to the OP's post, he asked for what our thoughts were, I was responding to them and making a distinction between the RBSD systems, methods, or whatever and the TMAs. I know they aren't concerned with longevity per say and yet in a sense they are. Because it just makes good business sense for the consumer to be coming back to the trough to learn more and more from the creator of the RBSD system method or whatever. However the TMAs offer something different to the practitioner than the RBSD do, which is what I was referring to.

Okay.

Ah but not if you've been challenged to a duel. For instance like in Japan were you inadvertently touch another samurai's scabbard and you are about to be cut down. I'd call it SD. Or you get challenged for a duel to prove who's better by a visiting student, or just someone wanting to test you, or someone wants to take your property or money, again I'd say that is SD.

I'd say it isn't. It's a challenge match, or a duel, or a fight. Not the same as self defence at all. The context is completely different the timeline is different, the risks are different, and so on.

You said it, I didn't.

Yep.

But modern Kenjutsu came out of, were inspired by, or whatever, from battlefield sword arts. They might have morphed into what they are today but they came from a battlefield environment, which again goes back to either protecting your life or taking someone else's.

What is "modern Kenjutsu"?

Oh, and very few Kenjutsu systems are really about battlefield application, for very good reasons.

I agree with part of this in regards to the Japanese arts there is a gap because of the type of society. However the TMAs such as karate, Kung Fu, eskrima (or the FMAs), and others were designed for civilians then morphed into sports or what have you.

However arts such as Okinawan Karate were designed to go against untrained attackers as a method of SD, not against duels such as mutual combatants which is has evolved into. This came about mainly after karate was imported to Japan.

But martial arts over time evolve to suit the current times needs unless they are a time capsule (like some of the traditional Japanese weapon arts) that are studied for various reasons.

Okay, can you describe the forms of assault and violence that, say, traditional karate are designed to deal with?

How can you make such a sweeping statement when this is simply not true. Maybe for the arts you studied but....... Karate as it was designed for was against unarmed attackers the main old time masters write this. Modern Arnis was designed as a self defense system. Savate, was designed as a SD system first then a sport, and many others.

Actually, karate makes a lot more sense when you look at it from a different perspective... that of dealing with skilled, trained, armed opponents... just sayin'... Arnis was also to deal with skilled opponents, as was Savate... look to the attacks they're trained against....

There is a big difference between SD and dueling and I agree with Rory Miller in what is often taught, is against trained attackers in the context of sport or tournament fighting even martial or military. In dueling you have feints, strategies, combinations etc. etc. SD is often against wild attacks, grabs, restraints etc. etc.

Yeah... that's not the difference. It's more in the set-up than the execution.

 

[chinto]

what were martial arts designed for? simple, SURVIVAL IN A COMBAT SITUATION! now some claim some were for civilian and others military. I would say that all were for both! weather you are talking Okinawan Karate and as was traditionally taught at the same time Kobujitsu/Kobudo ( weapons), or Kali, or Kungfu, or savat or what ever, a huge amount of work, blood sweat and pain went into the creation and development of that system.

So why would you put that much time, effort, and even expense to creat a system of combat? The obvious answer is SURVIVAL! if you do not have the need, you will very likely never ever develop such a system. even wrestling and sumo done right by some one knowledgable I would argue can kill the oponent. I know any karateka who has 3 months of training in Okinawan karate, taught properly, and a little knowledge of the human bodys structures can kill his attacker if he is given half a chance. ( humans are remarkably fragile, and at the same time quite tough.)

many systems teach weapons at one point or other as well. you do not teach weapons if its for sport normally. so in the end it comes down to Martial Arts are about Self Defense, at home, in the street or on the battlefeild. there is not one art out there that in its originally taught form is not suitable for all of them with the exception of something that has been developed from and modified for sport only.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm.

what were martial arts designed for? simple, SURVIVAL IN A COMBAT SITUATION!

Some, sure. Far from all, though.

now some claim some were for civilian and others military. I would say that all were for both!

"Both" would be quite rare, rather than "all", as they are quite different contexts. I can think of a small number which do deal with both contexts, but these particular systems have completely separated sections of their syllabus to deal with each of them (in other words, even in systems that do deal with both military/battlefield applications and civilian applications recognize that they are two different situations, and need to be dealt with separately).

weather you are talking Okinawan Karate and as was traditionally taught at the same time Kobujitsu/Kobudo ( weapons), or Kali, or Kungfu, or savat or what ever, a huge amount of work, blood sweat and pain went into the creation and development of that system.

Okay... but that doesn't really have anything to do with the reasons for the systems creation and development.

So why would you put that much time, effort, and even expense to creat a system of combat?

For any of a hundred thousand reasons, one of which might be your idea of "survival"... but doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with that.

The obvious answer is SURVIVAL!

Uh... no.

if you do not have the need, you will very likely never ever develop such a system.

Yeah, I think that you're looking at a very small cross-section, as even the systems you've listed don't support your idea, and are therefore making a rather incorrect assumption about the motivations behind many arts.

even wrestling and sumo done right by some one knowledgable I would argue can kill the oponent. I know any karateka who has 3 months of training in Okinawan karate, taught properly, and a little knowledge of the human bodys structures can kill his attacker if he is given half a chance. ( humans are remarkably fragile, and at the same time quite tough.)

So... because there's the potential (however slight) for lethality, therefore they're all designed specifically for survival and combat? Quite a reach there.... people get killed in car accidents far more often than anything to do with martial arts, so are cars designed for survival in combat?

many systems teach weapons at one point or other as well.

Okay... and many don't. The point?

you do not teach weapons if its for sport normally.

Kendo, Fencing (which has a number of different forms of sword taught), Atarashii Naginata, Kyudo, Archery, Competitive shooting, XMA forms, shotput, javelin, discus....

so in the end it comes down to Martial Arts are about Self Defense, at home, in the street or on the battlefeild.

The battlefield isn't self defence, to begin with. But, more to the point, there are plenty of systems that aren't about self defence at all, or might only have a small area that deals with it.

there is not one art out there that in its originally taught form is not suitable for all of them with the exception of something that has been developed from and modified for sport only.

I can think of perhaps half a dozen systems (total) that actually do deal with all those aspects/contexts. I can also think of a large number of systems that have nothing to do with self defence (contextually or in a modern form), and have no combative ideal as part of their origins.

In other words, no, wrong.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If I could, I'd like to propose a more useful mode for discussion of self-defense aspects of the martial arts than:
"X-fu was designed for self-defense."
"No it wasn't"
"You don't understand what self-defense is."
"No, you don't."
"You're wrong."
"No, you're wrong."

Much of the problem is that different people are using "self-defense" to mean different things. I'm not so interested in arguing over the "correct" definition. I'm interested in having meaningful conversation, which can only happen if we understand what people are using their words to mean. I gave my definition in this thread. I suspect that my definition is somewhat close to Chris's use of the term. Others are using very different meanings.

Judging from the discussions I've been reading here over the last few weeks, here are some of the more common usages:

a) the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison. Some of the relevant factors here include lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin. Actual fighting would be a very small part of this.

b) the methods for handling an actual violent confrontation after all the other methods listed above have failed.

c) any sort of fight, including challenge matches, LEO scenarios, and more.

The definition you are using will make a difference in whether you consider an art is useful for "self-defense." For example, there are plenty of techniques which might be appropriate in a voluntary challenge match that would be irrelevant in escaping a date rapist and vice-versa. Perhaps instead of arguing about the definitions we can just be more specific about the circumstances that we think our martial arts can be helpful in?

 

[SteveNC]

I agree Tony. Self defense is like an onion with many layers

I fully believe that if people were truthful to themselves about what they "should" want out of self defense they would spend far more time looking at the avoidance layers than the tactical layers. I've seen some very skilled "fighters" get beaten down over the years because they didn't understand the mental aspects of violence and how to keep themselves together. If people would focus on their head game first it would make the physical training quicker and more efficient.