Aikido really an internal art?

[soc]

A little background info first...I have studied Chinese internal martial arts and I understand the concept of chi. Not the baloney mystical power of chi for I believe it is just that ...baloney. I do believe in chi as in the concept of issueing power and such or as it is called fa jing.

Now my question.

I know aikido is considered internal by its proponents. What would be the best way to discribe the fa jing in aikido? Or is the internal aspect the philosophical aspect of the art? If you consider it "looks" internal because it has circular movement then I think that is wrong too.

I ask because I am interested in studying the art but would like to know how it compares to the interal chinese arts like baji, taichi, xingyi and baguazhang. Please leave out the whole baguazhang is related to aikido because that is baloney too (I know about the whole Frantz (sp?) brew haha - I will leave my critique out of this message)

Anyhow, can some people who know fajing relate the similarities between aikido and cma to me. Thanks!!

Eric Borton

[Jack Stay]

A little background info first...I have studied Chinese internal martial arts and I understand the concept of chi. Not the baloney mystical power of chi for I believe it is just that ...baloney. I do believe in chi as in the concept of issueing power and such or as it is called fa jing.

Now my question.

I know aikido is considered internal by its proponents. What would be the best way to discribe the fa jing in aikido? Or is the internal aspect the philosophical aspect of the art? If you consider it "looks" internal because it has circular movement then I think that is wrong too.

I ask because I am interested in studying the art but would like to know how it compares to the interal chinese arts like baji, taichi, xingyi and baguazhang. Please leave out the whole baguazhang is related to aikido because that is baloney too (I know about the whole Frantz (sp?) brew haha - I will leave my critique out of this message)

Anyhow, can some people who know fajing relate the similarities between aikido and cma to me. Thanks!!

Eric Borton

Hi Eric,

Some of your answers may be found on the "Ki Inner Engergy [sic]"? Thread.

__________________________
John 'Jack' Stay

[QuaiJohnCain]

A little background info first...I have studied Chinese internal martial arts and I understand the concept of chi. Not the baloney mystical power of chi for I believe it is just that ...baloney. I do believe in chi as in the concept of issueing power and such or as it is called fa jing.

First of all, chi is not a concept. The only single satisfactory word for it in english is "energy". It does not have to be mystified.

I know aikido is considered internal by its proponents.

Nonsense. They fail to remember that nobody was using terms like "internal" and "external" until the traditional Chinese Internal martial Arts (Neijia) community introduced it. The confusion arises when people consider that these arts "employ" chi, so they assume that chi=internal. Nope. Chi/Ki practices were never limited to the martial arts.



Now my question.

What would be the best way to discribe the fa jing in aikido?

Umm, there is no fa-jing in Aikido. Give me an example if you think I'm wrong.

Or is the internal aspect the philosophical aspect of the art? If you consider it "looks" internal because it has circular movement then I think that is wrong too.

Yes, absolutely... Practicing Ki does not make an art internal. Niether does perfecting your body mechanics. As I said above, the whole concept of "internal" comes from what are referred in english to as the Chinese Internal Martial arts. But, just as the term "Kung Fu" does not mean martial arts as is commonly belived by non-chinese speakers, "Neijia" does NOT translate into "Internal Art", the meaning in english would be closer to "inner circle", or "in the family/house" as opposed to "outsiders" or "neighbors" Hsing-I, Pa Kua, Tai Chi Chuan, and Liou He Ba Fa are the ONLY martial arts referred to as "Neijia", i.e., they are thier own family of martial arts, thier familial bond being The Six Harmonies (Liu He). The Liu He are the link that make these four, and ONLY these four, "internal" Anything that does not have the Liu He are not "in the family", so to speak, hence, Waijia (outside the family/house) or what ends up getting translated into "external"... The whole subject of the Six Harmonies is too broad to bring in here, so if you want to know more about it, google it. I wrote this assuming you should already know something about it.

That said, it is safe to assume that MANY other arts practice what could be seen as aspects of the Liu He, but the only ones that actually have them are the ones that originated them:

Hsing-I
Pa Kua
Tai Chi
Liou He Ba Fa

I ask because I am interested in studying the art but would like to know how it compares to the interal chinese arts like baji, taichi, xingyi and baguazhang. Please leave out the whole baguazhang is related to aikido because that is baloney too (I know about the whole Frantz (sp?) brew haha - I will leave my critique out of this message)

Anyhow, can some people who know fajing relate the similarities between aikido and cma to me. Thanks!!

Eric Borton

Baji does not train all aspects of the six harmonies, and is thus not Neijia. If you want to deny that fact that Aikido is really fancy JuJitsu with ALOT of Bagua tactics and influence, fine, but that is the way it IS. And it does NOT have fa-jing. On a final note, the way Aikido trains for martial power does not conform to the six harmonies.

So no, Aikido is not Internal.

[soc]

First of all, chi is not a concept. The only single satisfactory word for it in english is "energy". It does not have to be mystified.



Nonsense. They fail to remember that nobody was using terms like "internal" and "external" until the traditional Chinese Internal martial Arts (Neijia) community introduced it. The confusion arises when people consider that these arts "employ" chi, so they assume that chi=internal. Nope. Chi/Ki practices were never limited to the martial arts.

I don't desire to get into the silly area of nomenclature of internal vs external. I just want to know if aikido is "internal". Also, I am very aware of what internal concepts are as well. I have practiced both "internal" and "external" enough to know they are after long enough practice one and the same. Those who know, know what I am talking about.

Umm, there is no fa-jing in Aikido. Give me an example if you think I'm wrong.

Yes I believe you are wrong. Kanai sensei was known to do a slight manuever with his hip before he sent you flying. Call me crazy but I believe he was issuing fa jing. For his students to have practiced so long and not expereince fa jing. I don't believe it possible not to.

Yes, absolutely... Practicing Ki does not make an art internal. Niether does perfecting your body mechanics.

LOL.... Perfecting your body mechanics allows to qi to flow better. This is the most basic lesson. With all due respect what art and how long have you seriously studied?

As I said above, the whole concept of "internal" comes from what are referred in english to as the Chinese Internal Martial arts. But, just as the term "Kung Fu" does not mean martial arts as is commonly belived by non-chinese speakers,

Yes you are correct and to make it more clear it means to have studied something extensively or mastered. I can have basket weaving kungfu. I know the term wushu as well or for those who don't know it means Martial Art.

[QUOTE]
"Neijia" does NOT translate into "Internal Art", the meaning in english would be closer to "inner circle", or "in the family/house" as opposed to "outsiders" or "neighbors" Hsing-I, Pa Kua, Tai Chi Chuan, and Liou He Ba Fa are the ONLY martial arts referred to as "Neijia", i.e., they are thier own family of martial arts, thier familial bond being The Six Harmonies (Liu He). The Liu He are the link that make these four, and ONLY these four, "internal" Anything that does not have the Liu He are not "in the family", so to speak, hence, Waijia (outside the family/house) or what ends up getting translated into "external"... The whole subject of the Six Harmonies is too broad to bring in here, so if you want to know more about it, google it. I wrote this assuming you should already know something about it.
[/QUOTE/

I would be careful to generalize like you did. China is big and there are literally thousands of styles so I would not say certain styles is the one and only in those categories....

Baji does not train all aspects of the six harmonies, and is thus not Neijia. If you want to deny that fact that Aikido is really fancy JuJitsu with ALOT of Bagua tactics and influence, fine, but that is the way it IS. And it does NOT have fa-jing. On a final note, the way Aikido trains for martial power does not conform to the six harmonies.

So no, Aikido is not Internal.

I would disagree with your assessment of Baji. Do you believe Hsing I is Neijia? Of course you would. Have you practised Baji? How long? Who is your sifu? How do you issue your power in Baji? Bagua? Tai-Chi? Once you practice any Chinese martial art enough you WILL have to issue fa jing. Otherwise you have not practised enough. Even mantis is "internal". You have heard of six harmonies mantis? But that is not on your "neija" list. I would like to hear people who have expereience both Chinese martial arts and Aikido please.

[soc]

Mr. Chittenden,

Please accept my apology if my previous post is a little short. The tone is a little sharp after I read it over again. I believe my originial post is very clear as to what I want to know and I wished to hear replys from those who have real direct experience and not a lesson on cma history and semantics. While those things you mentioned are valuable, my experience in ma has taught me that semantics, history and such get in the way of real practice and those who shoot off beforementioned things are not really great martial artist. I am not saying you are not a good martial artist but that is just me going off of my own experience and no one elses. While the great practioners of old were great, dead teachers don't make you a better martial artist. I believe those great teachers would agree with me. So again I apologize if I offended you or any one else for that matter but I just wanted a clear response to what I thought was a clear request. Perhaps I should have titled my thread "What are the internal aspects of Aikido"

Peace and Hard Training

Eric Borton

[Peter Rehse]

If you want to deny that fact that Aikido is really fancy JuJitsu with ALOT of Bagua tactics and influence, fine, but that is the way it IS.

Direct Chinese influence on Ueshiba M. is pretty much discounted - there's very little Aikido technique that doesn't spring from Daito-ryu.

That doesn't mean that over time Japanese martial arts were not affected by cross-cultural influences and as expected similar things can be seen across the spectrum even if they are called different names or for that matter even named.

I've never liked the external/internal distinction but am curious (now that the Chinese source has been mentioned) as to when the terms first were introduced in Japan. If forced to use the terms I would consider arts like Aikido and Kito Ryu (one of the two base arts of Judo) internal arts mainly because the sensitivity to the state of your opponents actions and the level of timing required. Call it subtlety or call it Ki/Chi its up to you. I agree that the mystical Ki has very little to do with the external/internal distinction.

[QuaiJohnCain]

Yes I believe you are wrong. Kanai sensei was known to do a slight manuever with his hip before he sent you flying. Call me crazy but I believe he was issuing fa jing. For his students to have practiced so long and not expereince fa jing. I don't believe it possible not to.

Was it a blow or throw? Spun, or delivered straight into ceter body mass? If his hip moved "before", it wasn't fa-jing. I'm not arguing that long practice in ANY art will give you great power, but fa-jing and it's operation is VERY specific. There is no way in hell you can understand it from reading anything. Go find an IMA teacher that can do it, let him do it to you in various ways and then go let an Aikidoka toss you. You will no longer have any doubts about this.

LOL.... Perfecting your body mechanics allows to qi to flow better. This is the most basic lesson. With all due respect what art and how long have you seriously studied?

Good body mechanics can facilitate flow, yes. But if you don't want to believe me, go ask any Family head if you can call practicing body mechanics qi circulation...

I would disagree with your assessment of Baji.

....Even though the school admits that thier power training comes from Shao-Lin methods?

Even mantis is "internal". You have heard of six harmonies mantis? But that is not on your "neija" list. I would like to hear people who have expereience both Chinese martial arts and Aikido please.

The 6 Harmonies were added to Mantis LONG after it's conception.

While those things you mentioned are valuable, my experience in ma has taught me that semantics, history and such get in the way of real practice and those who shoot off beforementioned things are not really great martial artist. I am not saying you are not a good martial artist but that is just me going off of my own experience and no one elses.

Yes, well, in my experience there's no way to convey how, or even what Internal skills are with text. There's a saying in the IMA community- "It has to be shown". I.E. if you want to know, go to a Kwoon and not a forum on the internet. Twice in this conversation you have prodded my personal skill not realizing this. I am not here to change anyone's mind. I can reiterate what I have experienced myself, and I can reiterate what my teacher has told me upon asking various questions concerning his experiences with other styles. There is little reason for me to doubt. But if it's that important to you, I have studied Chen Taiji and Hsing-I under Mike Patterson of Hsing-I Martial Arts Institute in La Mesa, California for 8 1/2 years.

So again I apologize if I offended you or any one else for that matter but I just wanted a clear response to what I thought was a clear request. Perhaps I should have titled my thread "What are the internal aspects of Aikido"

Sensitivity, ki cultivation, and intention.

[QuaiJohnCain]

Direct Chinese influence on Ueshiba M. is pretty much discounted - there's very little Aikido technique that doesn't spring from Daito-ryu.

Techniques, sure, but hardly anyone disagrees that what Ueshiba was doing after he came back from spending ten years in China was totally different conceptually that what he was doing before he went to China.... To think that such an intense martial artist did not absorb any CMA whilst spending so much time in China just seems absurd. BKF is not the only IMA guy who noticed the changes Ueshiba displayed, or to note the newfound similarities to Bagua that Aikido aquired after Ueshiba's visit to China.

That doesn't mean that over time Japanese martial arts were not affected by cross-cultural influences and as expected similar things can be seen across the spectrum even if they are called different names or for that matter even named.

Hey, I'll hear that. In fact, that is exactly what has been going on since the end of WWII. I don't think anyone can really say what kind of cross pollination was going on before, (if any), considering the tension and chaos between China and Japan previous to the war.

I've never liked the external/internal distinction but am curious (now that the Chinese source has been mentioned) as to when the terms first were introduced in Japan.

With the beginning of Kenichi Sawai's Tai Ki Ken (which is really just aspects of Hsing-I and also with Wang Shu Jin in the 1950's. He toured Japan to spread Bagua and Hsing-I, and became quite famous for trouncing Japanese masters (including Daito). It's interesting how shortly after Wang's visits, the Japanese arts began espouting certain ideals that weren't in them before. And these days, a lot a Japanese are starting to claim origination, and simply do so because the messengers in question are dead now.

If forced to use the terms I would consider arts like Aikido and Kito Ryu (one of the two base arts of Judo) internal arts mainly because the sensitivity to the state of your opponents actions and the level of timing required. Call it subtlety or call it Ki/Chi its up to you. I agree that the mystical Ki has very little to do with the external/internal distinction.

"If forced to use the terms", I like that, it reflects upon the fact that a real revolution is going on in the Martial Arts these days. Never before in history has there been such a wealth and variety of information concerning these subjects. New definitions are bound to arise, as they should. But when people ask me what the difference between internal and external mean in the context they originated in, I can only respond with the facts. The notion came from the terms "NeiJia" and "WaiJia", which I have already explained.

[Peter Rehse]

Techniques, sure, but hardly anyone disagrees that what Ueshiba was doing after he came back from spending ten years in China was totally different conceptually that what he was doing before he went to China.... To think that such an intense martial artist did not absorb any CMA whilst spending so much time in China just seems absurd.

Now that is just plain wrong. Ueshiba M. made a small number of short visits to what is now China. Firstly that fiasco with Deguchi and when Manchuria was under occupation a very short, failed diplomatic adventure. He was chosen for the latter because a number of his students had senior positions in the occupied territories. Between 1940 and 1942 there were also a couple of visits primarily to demonstrate Aikibudo. These were arranged primarily by Kenji Tomiki who was teaching Aikido to Army officers and were pretty restricted. He sure didn't spend ten years there - perhaps you are confusing him with a number of his students such as Tomiki K.

There was a change in Ueshiba M.'s technique - Ohba H. (famous for attacking Ueshiba M. for real during one visit/demonstration) critisized Ueshiba M.'s technique at the time for being stiff. Years latter Tomiki K. (Ohba's teacher) critisized Ueshiba M.'s technique as too soft. I really think it was a matter of where Ueshiba M. wanted to go with his own training within the context of Japanese Budo rather than anything he might have seen in China.

As an aside I only hear external vs. internal on the forums. I've never heard it mentioned in any dojo I've trained in here. Same for Do/Jutsu. I think its a need by some to over classify.

[soc]

At least this thread provides some constructive critisms

Anywho...for what it is worth I have experienced the issuing of different types of fa jing as well as issue it myself. My question really does not wish to delve into internal vs external. Hung Gar is external but is also internal as well. Again, my real question is has anyone experienced fa jing in Aikido. I ask those who know and have experienced fa jing. While the terms may not be used in Japanese arts as liberal as they are in cma, it does not mean it does not happen. My hypothesis is it does happen but the term of fa jing is not thrown around like it is in cma. Of course I will be taking Aikido soon and I will use my experience with cma to see if I can feel the issuing of fa jing but even then it may take awhile if I do not get to train with senior students ritght away.

Peace and hard training.

eric

[Jack Stay]

Now that is just plain wrong. Ueshiba M. made a small number of short visits to what is now China. Firstly that fiasco with Deguchi and when Manchuria was under occupation a very short, failed diplomatic adventure. He was chosen for the latter because a number of his students had senior positions in the occupied territories. Between 1940 and 1942 there were also a couple of visits primarily to demonstrate Aikibudo. These were arranged primarily by Kenji Tomiki who was teaching Aikido to Army officers and were pretty restricted. He sure didn't spend ten years there - perhaps you are confusing him with a number of his students such as Tomiki K.

There was a change in Ueshiba M.'s technique - Ohba H. (famous for attacking Ueshiba M. for real during one visit/demonstration) critisized Ueshiba M.'s technique at the time for being stiff. Years latter Tomiki K. (Ohba's teacher) critisized Ueshiba M.'s technique as too soft. I really think it was a matter of where Ueshiba M. wanted to go with his own training within the context of Japanese Budo rather than anything he might have seen in China.

As an aside I only hear external vs. internal on the forums. I've never heard it mentioned in any dojo I've trained in here. Same for Do/Jutsu. I think its a need by some to over classify.

Hi Peter,

As the guilty individual who is most pursuing the jutsu/do distinction on Budoseek, please let me explain this stubborn continuance.

I began the martial arts in an eclectic Judo/Karate/Jiu-Jitsu club in 1964. In one of our martial arts history classes, the sensei first explained the difference between a 'jutsu' and a 'do' style while telling the origins of Judo and Jiu-Jitsu (we were taught Hakko-Ryu Jiu-Jitsu, which bears zero resemblance to Judo at all).

That a difference exists between 'do' and 'Jutsu' is what I grew up with in the martial arts. A difference that was reinforced decades later by my studying Aikido at the New England Aiki Kai for over a year as an adult. In fact, KANAI Mitsunara Shihan (a former live-in student of OSensei) made it extremely clear that there was a big fat difference between a 'do' and a 'jitsu' during his Iaido and Misun Shinden Ryu classes. In KANIA Shihan's opinion, there is no blurring between jutsu/do whatsoever.

So with this decades old knowledge in mind, I came across Budoseek while playing with a piece of high tech junk called the internet. Frankly, I was disturbed by the general attitude I found by several experienced martial artists on Budoseek that either they had no concept of jutsu/do, or else they thought there was no difference.

So I thought it would be a good thing to 'raise consciousness' of the 'do'/'jutsu' distinction, particularly for the BJJ people.

So far in examining the counter-arguments against a do/jutsu distinction, I remain unconvinced and steadfast in my opinion. Particularly against the fallacy of the standard equivocal 'fence sitting' position that do/jutsu is blurred at best so who can tell? I have had too many Japanese Judo, Karate, Jiu-Jitsu (and one Aikido Shihan) practitioners tell me that there is a difference to change my mind that there is not.

There are a lot of egos with high flying titles on Budoseek that seem frustrated that I am not cowed into obsequiance by their many dan ranks and unconvincing rhetoric. Sorry, but I too am an experienced martial artist with a good solid background and a devotion to the integrity of the arts, and am annoyed that my opinion would be so disregarded without due consideration.

So Peter, I love your informed articles, but I will still inquire about any do/jutsu differences (along with an understanding of the tori/uke relationship) on Budoseek or any other martial arts forum regardless of peer pressure to do otherwise. Stubborn yes, wrong no.

Thanx!
_______________
John 'Jack' Stay

[QuaiJohnCain]

[QUOTE=Peter Rehse] I really think it was a matter of where Ueshiba M. wanted to go with his own training within the context of Japanese Budo rather than anything he might have seen in China.
[QUOTE]

You can think that, but I will pass on the fact that my Great Grand-Teacher, Hung-I Xiang was approached by several students of Aikido Hombu Dojo shortly after Ueshiba's death. Hung was Taiwan's foremost Bagua expert. Anyways the people from AHD asked to study Bagua with Hung, admitting that Ueshiba was influenced by Bagua, and that they wished to study it in detail. They were turned away. This is completely verifiable as most of Hung's students are still around today and teaching in Taiwan (Tang Shou Tao Kwoon) who were there when this happened.

[soc]

[QUOTE=QuaiJohnCain][QUOTE=Peter Rehse] I really think it was a matter of where Ueshiba M. wanted to go with his own training within the context of Japanese Budo rather than anything he might have seen in China.

You can think that, but I will pass on the fact that my Great Grand-Teacher, Hung-I Xiang was approached by several students of Aikido Hombu Dojo shortly after Ueshiba's death. Hung was Taiwan's foremost Bagua expert. Anyways the people from AHD asked to study Bagua with Hung, admitting that Ueshiba was influenced by Bagua, and that they wished to study it in detail. They were turned away. This is completely verifiable as most of Hung's students are still around today and teaching in Taiwan (Tang Shou Tao Kwoon) who were there when this happened.

QuaiJohnCain,

Who is your shifu? What is your lineage? I know quite a few shifus and I would like to follow your Bagua claim. Is the spelling of Hung-I Xiang correct? I can't seem to find anything on your Great Grand Master.

Does anyone have reliable sources to back this up? I find it difficult to believe as the expressions are different between the two styles. Bagua is focused on maintaining your center around an opponent and Aikido claims to be the center. I would think Aikido is more similair to Taichi more then Bagua. The energy expressed are too different.

[QuaiJohnCain]

Ooops, yeah, I mis-spelled his last name, the whole Pinyin/Wade Giles thing really gets to me sometimes.

Anyways, I did answer this question before. Have you really been reading my posts?

QuaiJohnCain,

Who is your shifu?

I know quite a few shifus and I would like to follow your Bagua claim. Is the spelling of Hung-I Xiang correct? I can't seem to find anything on your Great Grand Master.

My Lineage

Li Tsun I/Li Cunyi --> Chang Chen Feng/Zhang Junfeng --> Hung I Hsiang/Hung Yixiang --> Hsu Hong Chi/Hsu Hongji --> Mike Patterson --> Me.

The book, "The Way of the Warrior" by Howard Reid and Michael Croucher has a whole chapter on Hung. There was also a BBC documentary on him. Pump either spelling of his name into Google, and you should find plenty on him.

[Cliff Hargrave]

So I thought it would be a good thing to 'raise consciousness' of the 'do'/'jutsu' distinction, particularly for the BJJ people.

Amazing, an aikido thread and you still get a jab at BJJ. Who are you to raise anyone's consciousness? Why do you have such a hard time accepting the fact that some people will not agree with you?

There are a lot of egos with high flying titles on Budoseek that seem frustrated that I am not cowed into obsequiance by their many dan ranks and unconvincing rhetoric.

You have some serious issues you need to deal with. This is an interent forum that is designed for opinions. You write yours, others write theirs and people read them. There is no winner or loser in this game. No one here wants to make you bow down to them, and you are the only one spounting off about your dan ranks and such. If you just want to fight and argue then I suggest you go to www.mma.tv and have a ball.

As far as rhetotic, myself and others are speaking from our own experiences and you are the one quoting books. You are wrapping all your arguments in things you were told or have read. History and tradition are learning tools, not absolutes.

[Paul B]

I feel personally that one can expound on any Art without actually feeling it, and come up with their own preconceived notions about how it "resembles" this and that.

Yes, Aikido has techniques that "look" like techniques from other Arts, and in some cases little has changed in the translation of the technique.

On the whole,however, the "way" to the technique is exclusively and unmistakeable "Aiki". The paths of perception,avoidance,and resolution are somewhat unique to Aikido,and seeing and actually feeling are two very different things.

My advice would be to go start your training in Aikido with an "empty cup". To go into this Art any other way is to invite frustration in for a permanent residence.

Oh, and usually every rank practices together, so I am sure you will get to have fun right away!

Best Regards,

Paul Bladen

[Peter Rehse]

You can think that, but I will pass on the fact that my Great Grand-Teacher, Hung-I Xiang was approached by several students of Aikido Hombu Dojo shortly after Ueshiba's death. Hung was Taiwan's foremost Bagua expert. Anyways the people from AHD asked to study Bagua with Hung, admitting that Ueshiba was influenced by Bagua, and that they wished to study it in detail. They were turned away. This is completely verifiable as most of Hung's students are still around today and teaching in Taiwan (Tang Shou Tao Kwoon) who were there when this happened.

Are these the same people that told you Ueshiba M. spent 10 years in China?

A few mis-informed students of Aikikai Honbu don't make a case. At that time very few of them had seen Ueshiba M. as anything but a very old man. The ones you want to talk to are Ueshiba M.'s direct students.

[Webmaster]

Let me see if I can get this straight. The Chinese arts are taking credit for a Japanese art? That is bizarre... usually it is the Koreans trying to do that!

[Paul B]

LOL!----Awww...man! (wiping tea off screen)

Best Regards,

Paul Bladen

[QuaiJohnCain]

Are these the same people that told you Ueshiba M. spent 10 years in China?

No.

A few mis-informed students of Aikikai Honbu don't make a case. At that time very few of them had seen Ueshiba M. as anything but a very old man. The ones you want to talk to are Ueshiba M.'s direct students.

Funny you say that, two of them were....