It's an interesting article zilla however there's nothing factual in it to say that O Sensei did absolutly take anything from ba gua or that he even studied the art. The article only states the opinion of the author which isn't proof. O Sensei traveled alot in his life and studied many different martial arts. He would abviousley have incorporated elements from all the arts he studied that he thaught were useful. However that fact that many of fundimantal basics of Aikido are similar to those of ba gua, doesn't mean he studied that particular art. Many of Aikidos basic concepts can also be found in the teachings of taoism and can be observed in the many different forms of kung fu and also any number of martial arts from around the world that were developed in isolation from chinese arts. It would be nice to know where O Sensei got his ideas from but I would guard against saying he studied this art or that art based on someone elses opinion alone. If nothing else it isn't fair to O Sensei since the man can't confirm or deny the case being presented.
Hey Aikiwolfi, I totally agree with your statement. But, I would also like to mention a few things, I think you will have to take my word on this one, as it is hard to understand without the specific experience. In Internal Martial Arts, the main emphasis is on Qi as you probably know, or specifically the Qi – Yi (intent) connection. However it is my opinion that most IMA schools, all over the world teach a very watered down version of IMA’s , whether this is due to lack of knowledge or experience, your guess is as good as mine. Fortunately though, there are also schools, mostly with direct lineages from founders, that teach the real deal. In my opinion this master, B. K. Frantzis is of such a real lineage, I form this opinion on the basis of reading his very knowledgeable books and watching the way he moves in his videos. Now the point I would like to mention is an experienced IMA’ist, can tell what sort of Qi – Yi connection, or specifically how the specific connection that’s being used was trained, and it is these training methods in different IMA’s that produce variation in Qi – Yi manifestation. Now I’m no master, a novice at the most, but from my experience in watching videos of old masters I can occasionally see the internal manifestations. From this I assume that someone vastly more experienced than me is also vastly more perceptive to these things than me. I would also like to say that being able to see these things absolutely requires IMA training to a specific degree. Personally I have tried numerous times to show to other martial artists and internal martial artists these sorts of videos to see what they can gage, and only several from the internal school were able to see the internal movement. Now I know I’ve used this word ‘now’ too many times already, apologies. I know this must sound very bizarre, and I did find it quite bizarre when I first experienced it, but there is no magic involved it is just part of real IMA training that significantly enhances receptivity of perception. I don’t expect you to accept what I say cause I know if you don’t have experience in it, it sounds like BS. But I think at the end of the day its not about wrong or right, but like you say respect for the teachers and respect for the art. I also think that an art is a progressive discipline that evolves with its practitioners, thus if one has an opportunity to further one’s art one should look in to it. But once again, that’s just my two pence. I would also like to ask the Aikido practitioners for a general overview on how they train their ‘Qi’, if indeed they do so. From my limited knowledge of the art and subjective opinion, I am lead to believe that it is in some way internal. Cheers. ZB
I understand the sentiment of your comments above however, I can quote names of supposed aikido "sensei" who can walk the walk and talk however when or if you care to delve in to their historical past, one finds a degree of ambiguity or embellishment. The ONLY way to be as sure as one can be about the historical accuracy of an instructor's credibility is to see that person's accreditation (and have due reason for asking in the first place of course) I'm not questioning Mr. Frantzis in any way, merely pointing out that reading what someone has to say and or assessing a person's technique purely by watching it on video is IMHO the least effective method of judging a person's credibility.
Hey Dave H, I wholly agree with you there. Just to add to that though, B. K. Frantzis has copies of his certificates from various masters, and various government accredited martial arts institutes in China, at the back of his book (the one I mentioned earlier). However, I would think these sorts of things could be forged quite easily, though I don’t really know. I think the best way to test someone credibility is to test their skill, though it is probably not the best idea in most cases, and I’m sure you can think of plenty of reasons why that would be so, unless this was in a sanctioned and orderly manner. But the other fact I would like to mention is that in IMA, the level of knowledge that B. K. Frantzis displays in his writings is not something that can be merely plagiarized from elsewhere. In fact such in-depth knowledge is almost non existent, or at least extremely rare. Western writings on IMA's are quite limited in their scope and most repeat the same information, however, this is only from my experience. I find that B. K. Frantzis's writings have a certain depth and insight to them that most Western and Eastern practitioners would find very difficult to achieve and display. In fact I would go as far as saying one would not be able to write about them in such a manner if one did not posses a high level of competence in IMA’s. Though these are just my opinions.
Absolutely mate, I know what your saying and see the logic. It stands to reason, that I for instance, can often tell crud from credibility either from what I read or witness from others within my chosen discipline, especially if one actually knows what one is talking about in the first place. I extend that reasoning to you or anyone else with experience/skill in their respective arts. Unfortunately (as I'm sure you know) the MA's are fraught with "wannabie" masters who 'spout' credibility but fall waaaaay short of the mark if challenged. Thanks for that clarification Dave
Hey Dave H, Definitely agree on the 'crud from credibility' issue. Unfortunately a lot of teachers who lean more towards the 'crud' side also seem to spread their 'crud' quite effectively. But fortunately, as you say, if they are in fact 'crud', then they will not pass when tested against the 'credible'. But on a brighter note, I found this article recently and though that you and other Aikido practitioners may find it interesting, it's a more scientific explanation to some internal principles, which I think could also be, if they already aren’t, implemented in to Aikido. Cheers. ZB
I agree zilla it is often possible to tell which teacher a student trained with by watching their movment and technique. However it's not always the case and the fact remains an opinion is only an opinion and can never become fact until irrefutable proof is given. I have no problem with people expressing opinions. I just don't like to see opinions expressed as fact. In answer to your other question ki is developed in Aikido through a number of different ways. The methods will vary from school to school so I can't speak for everyone. The club I attend teaches Ki Aikido and in addition to our normal Aikido practice which also includes Jo and Bokken, we use meditation and breathing techniques along other ki development excorsises which relate back to Aikido techniques. In short the whole practice is really about developing ki.
Very true Aikiwolfie, 'opinions' are just that 'opinions' (sorry for stating the obvious). Personally I think its best to keep all options open and not accept nor dismiss anything until one comes across the irrefutable truth, if such a thing exist. Anyway enough of my waffling. Could you please elaborate a bit on the sort of breathing techniques that you incorporate, i.e. is it chest, abdominal, are certain points of focus during these breathing exercises involved, that sort of stuff. Thanks in advance. ZB
The breathing focuses on the abdomin. For the purposes of Ki Aikido at least, breathing into the chest is considered undesierable as there is a tendance for the shoulders to be raised. This can create instability in the students posture allowing them to be easily moved or pushed over. The actual focal point in the abdomin is the "one point" which is located roughly 2 inches below the navel and is the bodys center of gravity. The breathing excorcise we commonly use involves the student sitting in the seiza position. The student will begin and end with an out-breath.Throught the excorsise the student will breath in and out at regular intervals. Five seconds out and five in. Over time and with practice students can lengthen the interval but it is important to always be comfortable. Struggleing to acheive an interval of twenty seconds would defeat the point of the excorsise which is to achieve a state of calmness and proper relaxation. The meditation is similar to the breathing. However this time it is purely a mental excorsise and the focus is on a gradual contraction of the one point followed by a gradual expansion of the one point. Again the point of the excorcise is to acheive a state of calmness and relaxation and of course to generate a strong flow of ki through the body. The ki development excorsises are really abstract or isolated elements of techniques. The idea is really to explore the flow of ki or feeling outwith the context of being attacked and then incorporate this into Aikido technique.
One of my sensei's 4th Dan instructors returned to train after some years abroad. Within minutes he was taken aside and asked 'Why didn't you tell me you had been training with Chiba? Did you think I wouldn't know?!' Sensei was angry - not because of the training but because of the lack of etiquette. However, my guess is that whilst earlier generations of aikido sensei knew each other's styles, we now have so many instructors in each style the exact lineage may be blurred. In short, Dave Humm is right - ask first, then seek out what evidence there may be. As to breathing - get a good music or yoga teacher to show you 'diaphragmatic breathing'. This comes from the 'hara' and has been known about for centuries and is no psychic mystery. Timing breathing to your techniques adds power, mis-timing leaves you very open to attack. However, don't forget to be a natural animal as well - if you need to pant, then pant!
I fail to see, to what level, the "4th dan" offended his sensei purely because he'd been training whilst away from the UK for an extended period of time and hadn't told him. *IF* this matter is as simple as it is decribed, if one of my students lived close to someone of the standard and reputation equal to Chiba Sensei, I'd be more offended if I found out that student hadn't been training with that person. Especially if as you describe, that student had been away for a lengthy period. There must be more to this issue, because if there isn't, the impression that would leave me with of the "sensei" in question, would be less favourable. However, getting back to the point Kiaiki was making. There are a number of exponants of aikido who have very distingtive methods, if one trains with that person long enough, it is natural for those students to adopt that method. If it is pronounced enough, it is easily identifiable. I can recognise the aikido of students of Chiba Sensei and Yamada Sensei perhaps more than I can of any other 1st generation aikidoka. I've trained with both and travelled to the US to do so on one occasion. Interestingly, they both do Aikido, learned it from the founder himself, both work very centrally yet their 'methods' are quite different. An aspect of the discipline I haven't seen in any other Japanese Martial Tradition.
i don't post much much but I would like to comment on the subject of this thread. please excuse any typo's or misspellings...i am not a pen and paper kinda guy.. First let me say that I do believe in Ki.... I believe in little green men too... I DO NOT think that Ki is what makes my technique good or effective. I DO NOT know how to define Ki. I DO NOT know what Ki is, I just know it exists. Like little green men. I imagine this didn't help much I just felt like chiming in. Peace to you all Aaron
I posted this on another forum and it didn't get much play. (surprise, surprise, surprise) I realize that some among us are a little skeptical, but let's see what the rest have to say. Ki must be looked at in a number of ways. First Ki must be looked at as the energy generated by 10's of 100's of repetitions of a certain motion. Muscle memory would be the western equivalent I suppose. If you train properly and diligently you will realize a level of proficiency that appears effortless. So the continued dedication to an idea will develop an easy assurance which can be described as "KI". Next I think we must view Ki as the union between Uke and Nage (Tori in judo and most jujutsu). As has been pointed out, in most instances this means a training partner that is totally compliant, too compliant in most cases, allowing Nage to complete a motion that is either incomplete, lacking in Ki, or just plain wrong. Allowing Nage to complete a technique that would not work is a wrong training method. As Henry Kono Sensei points out perfectly in his thesis on Aikido and Yin/Yang Uke must be the other half of Nages technique or motion. If Uke begins to take Katate Tori (wrist grab); yes, I know that no actually takes you wrist in real life...if they did I would expect you to hit them... these are merely methods designed to teach the union I am speaking of; and stops then Nage MUST generate the energy to create a technique. If on the other hand Uke begins to take and his center continues to move in the direction that Nage has moved both individuals have become one and training can continue in a safe and informative manner. I think this union is a manifestation of Ki. I also think this is the hardest and most misunderstood idea in either Aikido or AikiJustu. *Please note: I am speaking of training not combat. I have absolutely no problem with ideas of stopping and starting energy or motion. In fact I rather enjoy it. But within the ideal of training and the precepts of Ai Ki this harmonious union is essential for both people to continue to learn. May I also note that if Uke learns to push his center through Nages techniques his counters become very obvious and his ukemi is effortless? Lastly I do not think we can dismiss the spiritual or mystical side of Ki. I do not feel that Ki is a magical element that can be harnessed or found. I think that if we accept the fact that life energy or "the force" (Obi wan Williams hates it when I refer to the force) is everywhere that energy can neither appear nor disappear but is always there, either potential or kinetic (heh!! I remembered something from physics class) that we can develop our sensitivity to this energy. I have found that as I have attempted to cultivate this awareness that it is harder for people to sneak up on me, that I become more attuned to the attitudes of people in a bar, or on the bus and that I am more relaxed and calmer. I feel that this is the chi that Tai Chi Chuan parishioners talk about. It DOES come about because of hard work and diligence and should not bought of only in the context of Martial Arts, think of a Potter at the Wheel, or a Cellist lost in the rapture of the music, I feel that these are also Ki. Taken together all three become one and in that one I think we find the indefinable Ki. Peace to you all Aaron
Everyone is very welcome to express their opinion don't worry mate none of us here are interlecuals. Er, intactuals... Er, can spell proper. I don't claim it doesn't exist. Neither do I. Hard solid regular training in basic technique will make aikido effective. Like all things theoretical, ultimately all explanations are opinions (all be it some are highly credible) I don't know if a Christian God (or any God) exists merely that many people around the world believe so, this is absolutely fine with me providing those people don't attempt to make me believe what they do. The same it true of Ki. (lol) No Problem Dave
Dave - yes, as you deduced, politics was a the heart of the dispute. I think good etiquett would be to have told his sensei, who had trained him in a close relationship for many years, that he was going to train with Chiba in advance - maybe he guessed he would get a pretty negative reaction. Sad. However, the 4th Dan concerned was beginning to teach techniques to our students in an entirely different manner - one which tended to contradict his sensei. Not long afterwards set up his own school. He used our syllabus but taught it very differently. He also amused us greatly with the name of his dojo - can't remember the Japanese but it translated as 'brown hats' apparently! Personally, I think life's too short for power politics but it does seem sadly common in sports and martial arts.
I'm not really a traditionalist and to be honest I think most of the etiquette in martial arts is there to keep the teacher at the top. However I can see the teachers point of view. If nothing else it would have been simple good manners for the 4th dan to say he would be practicing with another teacher while he was away. A little recognition of the contribution some has made to your life can go along way. Contradicting his teacher in his own dojo is just poor form. Unless we're invited to demonstright the technique from our point of view we should always teach what the teacher is teaching. If for no other reason, a dojo requires continuety to avoid confusion and to maintain a decent standard of practice. It would seem the 4th dan had already decided to take a different path from his teacher before he returned. So I guess the question is why did he bother returning in the first place? No need to take up yoga. I'm perfectly happy with the breathing i do. I works a treat. The hara also corresponds to the one point.
This isn't entirely true depending upon what form of etiquette your refer. "Traditionally" etiquette was based upon a form of ritual depending upon the status of the parties involved, the more elaborate being exclusive to the likes of the Shogunate and Royal family etc. If we look at the practicalities of Japanese etiquette, I think it all comes down to a desire ..a need.. to stay alive in the face of someone perhaps in a position to dictate otherwise or, a method of appearing 'non aggressive' even though the parties involved were still carrying weapons. If however we refer directly to a modern context as with Kiaiki's description of the 4th dan etc. This is far removed from the ettiquette associated with traditionalism. It would have been courtious for the person in question to have advised his instructor accordingly however, what 'obligation' does the 4th dan have to his sensei if in fact he's already made the choice to study under another instructor? Loyalty is another animal, and often lumped in to the 'ettiquette' scenario. The Japanese have something called "Giri" otherwise known as "Obligation" this may be an obligation of employment, service, debt of gratitude or something as simple as owing someone what we'd call a favour. As Westerners we don't place a massive emphasis on how 'obligated' we may be to a particular sensei (rightly or wrongly) remembering that to many, the practice of a martial art is nothing more than a pass-time therefore, they feel little obligation or loyalty. I don't agree with this personaly however, that is just my opinion. I'm also of the opinion that an unhappy student will eventually become a disruptive influance over others and, under those circumstances would best find another school, organisation and Sensei to follow. Dave
