Martial art of aikido

Well you do obviously still need a teacher and I think there's probably something lost in the translation.

Four Basic Principles of Ki:

1. Relax Completly: This does not refer to the "dead relaxation" of someone slumped on the couch watching T.V. Instead it refers to the state we are in when we don't feel threatend and are simply going about our business hassel free.
   
   In other words it's a state where you are not stressed or tense in anyway, but are still fully awake and capable of doing everything you need to do.
   
   
2. Keep Weight Underside: It's generally accepted in martial arts that it's good to keep the shoulders down. If you raise your shoulders, you raise the weight of your body. So your body weight would be top side. Objects which are top heavey are generally relatively easily knocked over. The human body is no different in this respect. So by allowing the shoulders (not this applies to the whole body) to rest at their natural position your body weight will be at a lower more centered position, makeing you more stable and harder to knock over.
   
   
3. Extend Ki: A major misconception about Ki Aikido is that you must "understand ki" or "beleive" for it to work. The truth is you don't. It's not magic.
   
   By extending Ki you are exstending your mind. Or to put it another way you are thinking and acting positivley. Someone earlier mentioned something about cutting through ukes intention. To cut through ukes intention would be an example extending Ki.
   
   
4. Keep Your One Point: The "one point" in Ki Aikido is equivilent to the ones center in every other style of Aikido.
   
   The theory goes that the one point is the only part of the human body that cannot ever become tense. That might sound like a load of crap but it is in fact true. The one point is located approxamately 2 inches below the belly button. It is the point at which your upper body pivots on your hips or the abslute dead center of your center of gravity. It cannot ever become tense because it is a hollow space. If you were a woman you would have a use for it. But for us men it's just a empty hollow space.
   
   Focusing the mind on this area is supposed to help students achieve the other three principles. The idea being if the one point cannot become tense or stressed then neither will the mind. If your not tense then the weight of your body will naturally be attracted to the ground by the force of gravity. And without stress to hold you back you will naturally be a far more confident person which means you will naturally extend more ki.

Five Basic Principles of Aikido:

1. Extending Your Mind: Essentially the same as extending Ki.
   
   
2. Know Your Partners Mind: To know your partners mind is to know your partners “intentions” or in others words to be able to read what's going on before you get hit.
   
   
3. Respect Your Partners Ki: An example of this would be blending with an attack rather than trying to stop it head on and then muscle your way through a technique.
   
   
4. Put Your Self In Your Partners Place: In order to push uke off posture we must become the center of ukes circle.
   
   
5. Perform With Confidence: This brings us back again to extending our minds and extending ki and involves the decisive application of technique. So if you decide to apply Nikkyo then you do it and don't pussy foot about.

In all honesty these principles probably sound grander or more meaning ful than they actually are. But as I said they are basics.

 

Principle: "when pushed, pull. When pulled, push." - learned from Judo

Principle: "when pushed, turn. When pulled, enter." - learned from Aikido

I would define principles as concepts that are always true within a context. I admit that there can be some big grey areas when trying to separate actual principles from interpretations of principles.

The difference between principles and interpretation of principles is that principles can be proven to be valid or not valid, interpretations are an expression and there is no right or wrong, just effective verse ineffective.

IMHO, stepping off the line of attack is a principle because it can be proved to be correct or not correct. This, speaking to AikiMac, is why I believe there are thousands or tens of thousands of principles. Yes, don't get hit is a good principle and it is related to stepping off the line of attack (so not to get hit) but each of those (don't get hit and step off the line of attack) can be proved to be true or not true independently of each other.

I like the idea that understanding one principle will lead to the understanding of more principles.

 

The idea behind these principles (as far as I understand them) goes a bit beyond just one leading to an understanding of the other. They take the student full circle so that they must all make sense together. In that respect if the student is lacking in one principle they must be lacking in the others as well. So there is a continuouse cycle of learning and development.

Both sets of principles are also obviousley connected. The four basic priniples of ki are meant to teach the student about the relationship between the mind and the body in a manner more abstract from general Aikido practice. The five basic priniciples of Aikido should then help the student transfer that lesson to their Aikido practice as they are essintialy the same thing and the student must complete each of the five priniples or rules to successfully perform any given Aikido technique.

In my experience alot of student completely miss the point with these principles. But if they are used correctly as another teaching tool they do bring genuine benefits for the students and teachers.

 

LOL, so you got me on that one. However, I don't see that as completely silly at all. I don't see infinity, I only see a few numbers at a time.

Find the principles that have meaning to you, test if they are true or not true in a context. If they are not always true then it is not a principle, if it is true then it is a principle.

There are some principles that are much more all encompassing, but I would not say that they are the only principles. I find even small concepts can be principles.

What I am trying to say is that as a rule of thumb, principles have to be true within a context (a fairly broad context) and they have to be proven to be true. Given these rules, how can one limit all things to only a few principles and not see that there can be tens of thousands of them

On the other hand, how do you guys define principles?

 

Good points. I agree.

What you say is more to what actually happens as someone learns principles. Kind of what I would call the narrative view of learning principles.

What I am trying to say is what I believe is actually how someone learns principles. A person will understand one (or a group of principles) and based on this knowledge and experience other principles (related) will become more obvious and understandable. By understandable I mean to actually be able to apply the principle through application.

 

Thanks for the post AikiMac.

We may not agree on what defines principles, but you make a good, informative, and reasonable discussion.

At least we indirectly agree that a principle does not have to be on a grand scale to still be a principle. Hip rotation is a basic principle, much easier to understand than say taking someone's balance away.

And by "understand" I will clarify to that this is both on the intellectual level and on the level of doing it in application.

For practical purposes, I cannot deny that most of what I call principles are in fact a subset of a more broad and generic principle. For instance there is a principle of independent motion. Within this principle I have learned that one can move the hips independently of the torso (shoulders), also related to this I have learned to keep my hips within the natural hip track for better leverage and balance. Both the latter concepts are in fact encompassed within the more generic principle of independent motion.

On the other hand, they are concepts, not applications and they are concepts that can be proven to be true... therefore, whether they are or are not really principles, they are as true as principles so I treat them and call them as such.

The flaw in my reasoning is that most of my principles can be fully encompassed within other more generic principles.

But to be clear, these are not intepretations, these are concepts that are proven to be true.

 

Okay, let's move on.

But I still think there are tens of thousands of principles "metaphorically speaking" :love:

 

No disrespect fellas but have you noticed that what you've been calling "principles" are pretty much technical applications of one sort or another.

If you have a look at a post of mine (last page back now) you will see a list of things which are not technically orientated, they are essentially things than make techniques work, otherwise known as principles.

 

Err... yes, somewhere along the line I figured out I was in error thanks to discussion with AikiMac.

I still believe that to say there are tens of thousands of principles as a metaphorical example is alright to say, but I agree that there are fewer actual principles.

On your note Dave...

Principle of Aiki - move in the direction they are already moving
Example of this principle: when pushed, turn. when pulled, enter.
Strategy: blend with strong attacks, unbalance in direction they are moving

Principle of Ju - be supple like the willow, bend but don't break
Example of this principle: when pushed, pull. when pulled, push.
Strategy: attack in direction they are moving, unbalance to where the majority of their mass is

Principle of independent motion - different parts of the body move independently and in coordination with each other
Example of this principle: hips and torso can move independently of each other, keep hips within natural hip track
Strategy: do not telegraph attacks

Principle of triangular movement - triangle is strong shape and uses angles
Example of this principle: move off the line of attack, protect your vitals
Strategy: keep shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to their chest.

 

Here's two universal truths:

Pointy end of sword toward the enemy [metaphorically or physically].

If you're enemy looks up at you from the floor, your aikido works.

Simple as that.

 

Correct but I also provided the explanation of the terms in that post did I not?
These are more than principles too. THESE ARE LAWS. Everything above quantum level in the universe obeys them including you aikiMac

The Bear.

 

You mean O Sensei couldn't really fly, teleport himself or dodge bullets?

Damn - I thought just a few more years and I'd have cracked it.

Ah well, fudoshin or fushin, I'm off to the pub!

P.S. Mods please remove my posting (#90) about Aikiwolfie as I now consider it unnecessary and a tad embarrassing, as it violates my efforts as a Buddhist who is supposed to be working towards eliminating anger. Thanks, and apologies to anyone offended..

 

Reply try #2: Sword Principles in empty hand

Okay, try #2.

I had to go back and rethink my last dozen or so posts as I went off in some strange vector... so here I wish to re-address the above statement.

I believe that sword principles apply to tai jutsu. The main reason for my belief is that even in empty handed situations, there is always the possibility that the enemy may have a weapon (perhaps concealed at first). When a weapon is involved the sword principles dictate strategies and application.

There is also the possibility of multiple attackers, this is also an area where sword principles can dictate strategies and application.

So even if we take away the sword, given the right context, the sword principles still apply.

On the other hand, the empty hand and weapon martial arts have in many cases evolved on separate paths. Some empty hand principles such as "the entire body is a weapon", don't apply to weapon combat directly except when one finds themselves in very close quarters.

So in conclusion, I would say that all combat principles apply to both empty hand and to weapon combat, however, the situation (context) dictates which principles are of particular usefulness at that moment in time.

 

The issue of buki gensoku (weapon's principles) and aikido takes us back to my "Chicken and egg" post a few pages back.

Aikido, whilst considered as an empty handed art, requires the principles of buki (specifically the sword) to make it function with meaning and context. Although the osae waza (pinning/locking techniques) and nage waza (throwing techniques) are facilitated with one's hands, the movements, positioning and strategy which has brought you to that point have pretty much been sword orientated thus; the principles behind aikido are "buki" not "taiso" (not the other way around)

These principles do not change whether one is empty handed or holding a weapon, they just "are" what they are; a means to an end.

 

Nice post Dave. So, I believe you are confirming that the footwork or methods of closing the gap to the enemy are dictated by sword principles in Aikido no matter if one has a sword or not.

I happen to agree with that, and I would also add that I believe this is also true of jiu-jitsu, aiki-jitsu, etc., not just with Aikido.

One thought that comes to mind about this is that in most of the world, there are plenty of cases where empty handed and weapon arts have distinctly evolved independently of each other. Boxing, wrestling, sumo, karate, and Judo are some examples of empty handed arts that have evolved without weapons (although they may separately train with weapons).

I believe that this is also true of Aikido. That the "buki" and "taiso" developed independently of each other. The matter of the learning and applying of sword principles in Aikido as well as empty handed principles is more of a matter of being more well rounded. The principles don't change, however, situations do change. Different situations may require the understanding and application of different principles.

If there is a reason to my points, it would be that I have experienced those that train in primary weapon arts such as escrima, FMA, etc. tend to show a much higher respect towards the empty handed benefits of Aikido than those of primary empty handed arts such as boxing and wrestling.

The reason that is clear to me is that weapon arts see the sword principles in Aikido and see this as necessary before one has to deal with the empty hand. On the other hand, empty handed specialists such as boxers may not see the value in these weapon principles because they don't have to deal with weapons most of the time.

Understanding weapon principles in an empty handed system perhaps is just a way to ensure that one is more well rounded in combat.