100%

I have never been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADHD), then again my parents never had me tested. It's not a common thing in Indonesia, at least back when I was in elementary or junior high, to get somebody diagnosed with ADHD, we simply think that the child has disciplinary issues.

I was not that bad. I was mediocre with sometimes less than average achievement during my first 9 years in school. Then I went to a military academy, by my own request, and did very well academically for the 3 years I was there. Maybe I do have disciplinary issues. When I the academy, I didn't do that well in the university either. That's enough of my academic history for now.

I may have a mild version of ADHD. I do have a bit of a learning disability. My mind wanders off after a while, easily distracted, and trouble sitting still for too long. I have difficulty of piecing together thoughts. When I read my eyes goes all over the pages skipping words and lines. At times I need to re-read things because I lost the context of the writings. When I write my thoughts have to many things to put down, going back and forth, such as now. On top of that, my blood type is B, which according to the Japanese have their own issues, as well as advantages of course.

I took up aikido in 1998 under the guidance of Hakim sensei during my "second round" of my university education. The reason of taking it up was quite pragmatic actually, I've torn my knee ligament and had surgery done a couple of years before. My basic was Tae Kwon Do back then, did both WTF then ITF.

A few years later (I think 2001/2002) a couple of my anime/manga mailing list friends introduced me to Ki-no-kenkyūkai under the guidance of Kinoshita sensei. Our organization was affiliated with Aikikai, so if you are familiar with the rift between the two organization then I need not say more. I was not aware of this at the time, but this is for another story, let's just say that I was accepted after a period of scrutiny.

I would actually say that we had no technical training but a lot exercises and this is what we do every training. Study the principles, do them, test them, over and over again. Practicing one mind one body.

Kinoshita sensei made a point that every movement must be done 100%. Not thinking of what is going to happen next or what just happened. The mind must not be separated into different parts, it must be one. In other words, no "multi-tasking". Many people boasts their ability of multi-tasking, but when a person multi-tasks the mind focuses less on each tasks. Doing 2 things at the same time means doing each of them with 50% focus or less. Science has proven this and many were presented in articles or TV shows such as in NatGeo or Discovery.

Kinoshita sensei went on that when working, focus on the task at hand and do not think of the other things. After you have done allocating your resources for this task, you move on to the next. This is more like time management, taking things one at a time but dedicating ones full focus.

In practice, it is the same, each movement is meaningful. There is no such thing as formality. All is done 100% with 100% effect, not worrying about what comes next or what just happened, let's say splitting the mind 80-10-10.

For example with zengo undo (turning 180 degrees back and forth exercise), when you are at one side you do not worry about the other side, but when it's time to turn your mind is already 100% there. The same whether you are doing four directions or eight directions. How and when to turn is part of the practice and experience.

When one starts practicing, one will be taught to do it one step at a time. One technique may have 10 steps and these are done taught one by one. Each move must be done at 100% before moving to the next one, once you moved to the next one, you do not worry what had just happened that was in the past, and you do not worry what is going to happen next as that will be in the future, you focus on the now. Worrying about what just happened and what's going to happen will split your focus. This takes training. Each step is done at a 100% before moving on to the next one rather than only giving 10% for each 10 steps. This is true for every thing, there is only one you.

Once you have practiced correctly and thoroughly, it is no longer that you take it one step at a time, but you have taken the whole thing as an end to end process, instead of 10 steps you see one process. When you give this process 100%, then you have given 100% to all of the steps at the same time.

When facing many opponents, it is the same principle. When facing one, you are not worried about the other. How to do this must be explored in practice. You give 100% to one opponent, and then another, and then another. When you are dealing with one and worried about another, your focus goes lower than a mere 50%, as to think about thinking of the other opponent has taken away a percentage of your mind as well.

What about having all of the opponents as one? This clicked to me when I saw Kubota sensei was demonstrating a technique when his hands were grabbed by two people. First he will demonstrate the technique when one person grabbed both his hands, then he'll have one person grabbed one hand and then demonstrated the same technique, then he will have one demonstrated for his other hands. Then it clicked, it is not a technique of managing two separate people, but a technique of managing two people as one entity, or somebody that is of twice the size/strength of one person. If the mind is able to perceive this, with correct practice, then it is probable. After that apply it for multiple opponents that are attacking freely. Easier said then done. That's why such concept must be explored / experimented upon in order to be understood.

Albeit facing one or many, there is only one you and there is only one mind and body, therefore the principle must be the same, one is many and many is one.

There is no such thing as late

I was watching TV, History Channel if I recalled correctly, there was an interesting view on how battles or wars were usually lost, they used the "war of attrition" strategy, meaning kill and destroy as much things as you can and they will eventually give up or there is nothing left to defend.

Then they show how most battles or wars were won, it is about being in a position of more advantage. They used many examples on the application of Sun Tzu's Art of War, which apparently, in the way they present it, is not a strategy of attrition.

Analogy-wise, it is like between a game of chess and a game of igo (囲碁). In chess, you take out your opponent's piece one by one, until you are able to expose the king, and corner it for the kill. In igo, it is totally different, you start with an empty board and start placing your pieces strategically, making your opponent unable to move/place his piece.

There is saying that whether you are facing one opponent or many opponents, it is just the same. The same could be said when you are in a theater of war. The strategy for war or battles, and the strategy for one-on-one combat is the same. As in igo, one must be in the correct position/location in order to make his opponent unable to move, or at most the movement is weak and predictable, thus controllable.

If the mindset is being in the right position, then many of the classical techniques will start to make sense, other than just trying to pummel the other guy to death.

One of the interesting things when I started practicing Aikido is the view that there are some techniques that are used when you are late to take actions, ura (back) n most cases, omotte (front) for yokomen attacks. After a few years, the view of a late action does not make sense. In a situation where life and death is at stake there should be no such thing as late.

The terminology itself, ura and omotte themselves are not describing whether or not you are being late or early, it is actually referring to your position in regards to your partner, whether you are going through the front or through the back, inside or outside. Again, it is about position, just like igo.

When you are attacked, there is no time of thinking where the opponent is going to be, what attack is he going to use, or which hands. These are all irrelevant thinking which will lead to a cluttered mind and have you end up freezing and eventually killed. The first thing you do to break out of your freeze is that you move, left, right, front, back, whatever, anywhere, just move. After this move then you will find your position in reference to your opponent, and this will determine what you will need to do next.

In training you practice moving in a certain way. This will be one of the earlier things being taught, not the technique itself, techniques should come much later. One needs to train to move in getting into an advantageous position, and then if one does not know any technique, one could attempt to run away safely. Getting into a position of advantage should be the primary movement, this could even mean movement or non movement, depending on the situation, and perhaps depending on the skill of the practitioner himself.

There is no such thing as early or late, it has to be in the right moment. Even being early could get you killed. All the techniques should be executed while being in the position of advantage and at the correct moment, not forcing your way through while you yourself is unbalanced which therefore having access only to an inefficient means of generating power.

Simply put... be in the right place at the right time...

But simpler said than done...

Correct Practice

Student: Sensei, how do I hit the target every time?

Sensei: You practice hitting the target, every time.

I saw this meme floating around, and the quote, the saying, in it reflects how one should practice.

There's another saying that you probably have heard as well, it is better to practice one technique a thousand times rather than a thousand techniques once. However, this saying has been taken to meant repetitions. If it's only merely repetitions, then it is not enough even if you do it a million times. Why is that so? Practicing something that is wrong a thousand times won't make it right, it will just mean that you become good at doing the wrong thing.

In Japanese budo there are 3 words that you usually hear which in English are all taken to mean "practice" or "training":

• Keiko (稽古)
• Shugyo (修行)
• Renshu (練習)

Keiko literally means "tracing the old". This is a part where one sees how the elders do it and replicate it. Replicating not merely in form, but in totality, the process and outcome. In the eastern arts, the end does not justify the mean. One must follow the process in order not to miss important details that are not visible in the outcome. In the east, the arts are process based, not result oriented, though the results are clearly visible.

The only way to quickly get results is to go through the process diligently and correctly. Tracing the old is not merely copying, but understanding why your predecessor could achieve results through the given process. As the word suggests, you have to have something to trace to, a point of reference. This part is saying that you will be under the guidance of, receiving instruction from, somebody that is more senior. Even though you are doing self-practice (独稽古) or free-practice (自由稽古) the guidance is still there, in the form of what you have traced previously from your elders/seniors.

Shugyo could literally mean conducting self discipline, mastering oneself. This is usually related to spiritual or even ascetic practices. This is used for budoka as well because they are seen in the process of achieving enlightenment. A budoka is even sometimes called a shugyosha (somebody that practices shugyo). This is a part when one practices religiously, being really serious about the discipline that one is studying. It is not merely self-practice. If we could see spiritual shugyo of Buddhists or Shinto practitioners, for example, it takes dedication, not merely a 2-3 minute meditation. The same could be said for budo.

This is the further exploration of your keiko, it is more than just self practice, but you really do it to achieve understanding of what you have learned. In budo, the only way to really understand it is to experience it (taitoku). Finding out the correct process, practice it, experience it, have the discipline to train in it.

Renshu is the part that do actually mean training, practice, or repetition. This part is where one repeats everything that one has learned and experienced. This needs to be done correctly based on one has received through keiko and shugyo, this is the part where one practice hitting the target each time, doing the repetition correctly.

The three terminologies are not interchangeable but they are connected, as there are philosophies behind the words used, and each aspect of practice includes all of them.

Don't let this confuse you. Just forget about it, and keep training...

Disparity of Force

I came across the terminology "Disparity of Force" in a clip of Massad Ayoob explaining "Stand Your Ground Law" that was posted by Marc MacYoung on his FaceBook page. Before we continue, you might want to listen to the below 16.5 minute clip and get an idea what the terminology means.

I'm not here to discuss about Gun Control, Castle Law, or even Stand Your Ground Law, as they are actually irrelevant to where I am right now, Indonesia. Here in Indonesia, civilians don't have the right to have firearms. There was even a time having bladed weapons could get you into serious trouble. The only people that have firearms are police officers, military, and the bad guys, including terrorists. So this won't be the topic of this entry. But at a personal level, if you do practice martial arts then I think you should try to familiarize yourself with all types of weapons, ancient or modern.

The Disparity of Force is an important concept that all those who practice martial arts and self defense understand. As explained in the clip, the Disparity of Force is when one has a clear advantage of dominating the other person, by means of weapons or not. A bigger person may clearly be able to beat a person of a smaller size to death, or an abled body person beating the life out of a handicapped person, is a Disparity of Force, though the person is unarmed.

As we've discussed before, if we talk about martial arts we are talking about warfare, which it's either you kill or be killed kind of battlefield situation, and you do want to have the upper hand at all times in order to be able to execute this. Even when your opponent is disabled, you are going to "finish the job". Warfare has a different rule than self defense in a civilian setting.

In the civilian setting, it is not that simple. I see this as people that are actually defending themselves become the attacker because they simply don't know the lines when to stop. You may be the person that is initially being attacked, but you are maybe skillfull or lucky, you were able to get the upper hand or somehow disable the initial attacker, but you proceed on beating the guy perhaps to the point of death. In this case, you will need a very good reason why you did it. Or the tables are turned, fearing for his life, the initial attacker actually killed you instead, and he could actually get away with claiming self defense.

I am not familiar with the law down here, but it is usually vague at best. We have pick pockets or robbers lynched mob, humiliated, killed, burned, and not one of those mobs got prosecuted or even arrested. So maybe those lines are ignored here, especially if it's too difficult for the police to investigate, and they don't want to be unpopular by sympathizing with the thief rather than the mob doing their brand of "justice". A lynch mob is clearly a  Disparity of Force, and by right I should be able to defend myself or retaliate using lethal force, but that may not be the case here.

Going away from that as Indonesian Law is not my forte, and should be discussed with somebody that has more expertise in the subject matter.

This entry is just a word of caution to fellow practitioners out there to know their boundaries. Just because the tables are turned and you are having an advantage over the initial attacker, now that person who was attacking will start claiming self defense and get you into trouble with the law. We heard stories of people fighting, and the person that initiated the fight in turn claimed self defense. Which is a lot of crap, but if that person knows how to manage the situation better than you, then you will be on the short end of the stick and going to jail or at least sued. You will need to understand martial arts and self defense in the civilian context. 

The Tenth Man

One thing that stuck with me in this movie is "The Tenth Man" principle, that goes like this:

"If nine intelligence analysts came to the same conclusion, it was the duty of the tenth to disagree. No matter how unlikely or far-fetched a possibility might be, one must always dig deeper."

I see this as an antithesis to Occam's Razor, where one shouldn't overcomplicate things and try to find the simplest answer. The Tenth Man is supposed to find out the most unlikely answer.

I don't know of this is an actual principle in warfare or if this was just made up in the novel, this could be applied in think tanks and brainstorming sessions. This is actually a way to think out of the box. That's why opinions should not be immediately dismissed as there may be some merit in it.

When the whole team agrees on a conclusion, they could get blindsided. So there should be someone that could explore the other possibilities, even if that person doesn't believe it. 

If a decision was based on 99% certainty, then someone will need to explore the 1% uncertainty. In risk management they usually call this stress testing. But even with this, The Tenth Man must challenge the results and go further. A devil's advocate, if I may say so.

The Tenth Man is not actually economical in a business sense, because it could end up as a witch hunt or a wild goose chase on a theory that doesn't make sense in the first place. I guess not many will resort to this, but it is a good method of going beyond the normal thought process.

In budō, this may have relationship to shu-ha-ri (守破離), especially the ha (破) part.

黙想 (mokusō) - silent thoughts

The generally accepted translation mokusō (黙想) is "meditation", but this translation confuses me as I can't get a grasp of what the word "meditation" really is. The first kanji tor mokusō is "silence" and the second part is "thought", so by looking at this I could take mokusō to mean "silencing one's thoughts" or "silent thoughts". Approaching it this way could give me a better idea of the goals of this particular practice (in this case, shugyō - 修行).

How do one silence one's thoughts? Is it by telling it to be silent? Forcing it into silence? A friend of mind did make a good point on this, suppressing one's thought is not the same as silencing one's thought. The reason being the action of silencing one's thought becomes another noise, so this noise becomes a suppressant because it's trying to be louder than the other thoughts, drowning them.

Of course, most people are familiar with Jedi Master Yoda's saying, "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."

Don't try to be silent, don't force it, just be without being.

Though the understanding of mokusō is more of a process, as mushin no shin (無心の心), the mind of no mind, mokusō is also a state of being.

No mind does not mean the absence of mind or a mind that wanders. It is a state of mind that is not a relative mind, the true mind. As the silent thought is the true thought, immovable, uncorruptable.

Ideas such as this is a difficult concept to grasp and leads to over-thinking and over-explanation. This too only a theory of mine, as in taitoku, I have yet to truly experience this to have the right explanation and even if I did, I wouldn't know how to put it into words.

As I often close these types of blogs, I usually quote the following:

To think about not thinking, is already thinking.

It is better not to think about not thinking at all.

体得 (taitoku) - direct experience

My Japanese language class method of teaching is interesting. The teacher doesn't or is reluctant to translate words or sentences into our language (Bahasa Indonesia), instead they show it using graphics and motions or pointing it out and have us do the same.

At first it's a bit difficult, but then I'm actually picking it up faster than the Japanese language classes I had in the past. Then it clicked, this is taitoku (体得).

Taitoku literally translates to "(the) body getting (it)" or less literal is "learning through the body"; the dictionary translation is "experience" or "mastery".

Learning budō (武道) is the same thing... but I think much of how the Japanese teach things are pretty much using the same method, learning by doing. You have theories and classrooms, but in the end you will need to practice what you learn with a guidance of a teacher or senior. One can learn a lot from a classroom, make theories, etc. but if one doesn't practice, then it's pretty much pointless.

In budō, taitoku the meaning could be taken both ways. One uses ones own body to experience the techniques and movement, feeling it as they are applied through our own body. Theories are fine, musings are alright, discussions are allowed, but at the end of the day you have to "put your money where your mouth is". Talking about it won't make you understand the concept any better, you must do!

There are tendencies of over-explanation and over-thinking nowadays because these things look illogical to our somewhat "academic" mind. It is illogical because we haven't experienced it, the logic has yet to exist in our mind.

The same when learning language. We tend to discriminate with the logic that we know about our own language or other languages we know. We tend to try to identify one thing with another that have a different background. To avoid this, the teacher doesn't do much translating, instead have us practice using it immediately, regardless whether or not we understand at that point of time. With frequent use in the correct manner, we understand what it means and how to use it though we may not be able to correctly translate it into our own language.

With budō over-explanation or over-thinking of things will leave one with a cluttered mind. These explanations or thoughts are of other's personal experience put into words in manners the person know how, it may not be the actual experience itself. In order to know one has to go through the same experience.

In saying that, this blog is one of those over-explanations/thinkings mentioned above, so don't take my word for it as this is my personal experience.

If one has to explain what a rose is to a person that has never seen, smell, feel a rose, how could one do that? One could only try to make analogies using things that the person has experienced before, but it is still not the actual rose, just an analog of secondhand information. If the person wants to know what a rose truly is, then that person will need to see, smell, feel the rose directly.

This is taitoku, if you want to know then you have to experience it directly.