At the end of ‘Kajo (correction) # 1’, I made three statements that cannot be accepted without explanation. I will therefore endeavour, in this article and the next, to share the reasons that led me to write this.
1 - Gokyo does not exist
The technique we call gokyo obviously exists, and it also existed at the time of O Sensei, who used to practise it regularly; we have photos and videos to prove it. But with one major difference: when the Founder performed it, he would not say ‘apply the fifth immobilisation (gokyo)’, he would say ‘apply the First Law’ (ippō):
Let us remember, what was explained in "Kajo (correction) # 1", that the translation of the kanji HŌ :
by immobilisation (pin) misses the broader meaning in which O Sensei used this term, and which is that of law. A correct English translation of the Japanese text would therefore have been ‘... and bring him down using the First Law’, and not ... with Pin Number One as the translator writes here.
This translator, John Stevens, having no idea what kajo represent and therefore what the First Law might be, translated using the restrictive meaning of immobilisation (pin), which has become classic in modern Aikido. In his mind, ippō was nothing other than ikkyo, nippō was nikyo, sanpō sankyo, and yonpō yonkyo, and as for gokyo, well it was the fifth immobilisation since modern Aikido has decided it to be so, even though the Founder does not speak in his book of any goppō...
But with this interpretation John Stevens comes up against a contradiction. By making O Sensei say first immobilisation for the movement that modern Aikido calls fifth immobilisation, he creates a problem that a more accurate translation would have avoided, and which he simply puts aside by writing in his note 27: ‘The technique described here (n°1 for O Sensei then) is called immobilisation number five in modern Aikido’ ... and there you have it ... for everyone to make do with it.
So I'm now going to provide the explanation that is necessary to get rid of the confusion that prevents us from seeing and understanding the remarkable plan of Aikido.
Ikkyo is an immobilisation technique characterised by an action on uke's elbow thanks to the blocking of the olecranon, as we saw in the ‘Push up to the ear’ article. This locking of the olecranon is only possible when uke's arm is extended. The distinctive mark of ikkyo is therefore the blocking of the elbow by leverage on an extended arm. Any technique which reproduces these conditions obeys the principle of ikkyo, and therefore belongs to kajo no.1.
It doesn't matter whether tori's hand holds the wrist from above or below, in one way or the other. This can be confirmed by the fact that the muna dori ikkyo or kata dori ikkyo techniques, for example - which everyone recognises as ikkyo - are performed with the wrist gripped in the opposite position to shomen uchi ikkyo.
From this point of view - which is fundamental - there is therefore no difference between these two photos:
Whether O Sensei holds the wrist from below or above has no bearing on the principle of immobilisation, which remains the same. This is why he made no distinction between these two techniques, and referred to them both as the 'First Law ’: because he was not interested in this or that particular lock, but in the principle common to all locks of the same type. His students (with the exception of Tadashi Abe, who was taught by the kajo) did not understand this vision. Concerned with memorising the techniques, they decided that there were two different types of pin : pin n°1 and pin n°5, on the basis of a few discrepancies in detail.
Gokyo, immobilisation n°5, does not therefore exist as a special technique, sui generis if you want to speak Latin. What modernity has called gokyo actually belongs to the sphere of ikkyo - of which it has the characteristics - and therefore to the First Law.
I would add that the same demonstration applies to the "sixth immobilisation" (rokkyo), which modern Aikido invented more recently by renaming the technique known as hiji katame, thus further increasing the confusion in the minds of practitioners (we have to fill in the examination catalogues, don't we?). Rokkyo doesn't exist any more than gokyo. Just like gokyo, hiji katame obeys the principle of ikkyo (the name expresses this perfectly, meaning to lock the elbow). It is therefore also a matter of the First Law.
In conclusion, I would like to make you think about the following observation, which is of great importance in understanding the technical system of Aikido. To illustrate a principle, at some point you need a technique to do so. The technique that illustrates the principle in the most demonstrative way is the one that emerges naturally as reference. As far as the principle of ikkyo is concerned, the technique that illustrates it perfectly is shomen uchi ikkyo, which is why it has become the symbol of ikkyo. From then on, all references to ikkyo were made in relation to this image. But many other images could have been used that were part of the same principle (in particular the one we improperly call ‘gokyo’).
So techniques should not be considered individually, but as part of a referent set that organises them around a common principle. There are four referent sets. There is no fifth set; gokyo belongs to the set of ikkyo; it is one expression among many of the First Law (ippō):
And this is why the Founder of Aikido used this appellation when he spoke of the technique that John Stevens, and all of modern Aikido with him, now call ‘gokyo’, thus losing all possibility of accessing the plan that structures Aikido, and which O Sensei himself had permanently in sight.
Cape Clear, December 25th 2024
