PDA

View Full Version : Daito-ryu



Walker
13th June 2000, 17:30
S.Pranin has published an open letter concerning a Daito ryu organization and their web site. Check it out www.aikidojournal.com (http://www.aikidojournal.com)
check open letter link.

-DougWalker
Bastard Son of Ireland
Last living member of The Sons of Rest
“Why stand when you can sit, why sit when you can lie down.”
Preserving the secret teachings of the true way of leisure as passed down from our ancient Irish ancestors.

Anthony Chui
14th June 2000, 02:43
"I can't think of any Japanese headquarters school running a website that doesn't have a version in Japanese. It just makes no sense! How am I to understand this strange omission?"

go to http://www.aikikai.org/
to find "To Japanese Pages (“ú–{Œê)
Still Under Construction"
(and have been for a while now.)

http://www.daito-ryu.org/
"For the moment the site is in English only, but we are hoping to expand it to include the same historical and biographical material in the original Japanese as well. "



[This message has been edited by Anthony Chui (edited 06-13-2000).]

Nathan Scott
14th June 2000, 03:02
The internet is not as big in alot of countries yet, including Japan. So it is not that uncommon to find that there is an English language page and not a Japanese version since (likely) a native Japanese who is knowledgable in publishing HTML would have to create it.

That's not to say the page does not warrant some investigation, but I wouldn't use this point as the core for any argument, IMHO.

Regards,


------------------
Nathan Scott
Shinkendo & Aiki Buken Honbu dojo (http://www.shinkendo.com)
Tsuki Kage dojo (http://www.tsuki-kage.com)
Japanese Sword Arts Discussion Forum (http://www.swordforum.com/jsa)

Mark Jakabcsin
14th June 2000, 03:22
"-DougWalker
Bastard Son of Ireland
Last living member of The Sons of Rest
“Why stand when you can sit, why sit when you can lie down.”
Preserving the secret teachings of the true way of leisure as passed down from our ancient Irish ancestors."

Doug,
I laughed my ass off at this one. While my wife is not Irish I am sure she must be in some sort of sister organization. Although with her you must be careful not to wake her or the redhead in her comes out full tilt. Hope to see you in Dallas again so I can learn more about your ancient art. Being an Irish art I assume that it involves Guiness.

mark

JosephBlow
14th June 2000, 05:50
As an outsider looking in on Daitoryu (I did train for a few months), this looks like the postmortem bickering among students that happens throughout the martial arts. I've heard Kondo trashed by students of another student of Tokimune -- whether it's a junta, a family business, a religious group or a ryuha, the jockeying and in-fighting start when the figurehead kicks it.

Pranin has obviously thrown in with Kondo, and that's a very safe bet. Within the Daitoryu community I get the impression that no one can dispute Kondo's legitimacy as an instructor (though I have heard other factions disagree about his being a successor -- indeed maybe there isn't meant to be one). Pranin's Aiki News has helped to cement Kondo's legitimacy by making embutaikai videos with other system heads' expressions of support (including the Takumakai).

This is not to say that Aiki News' activities are unjustified or wrong -- it only says that Pranin has clearly indicated his position on the successorship issue people obviously want to continue debating. Rather than official position, the more important thing for me about a teacher is what can the person do and how well can I learn from that person.

Rich B

Walker
14th June 2000, 06:06
Mark,
I’m glad you liked The Sons of Rest. It is the creation of my great uncle Paul “Irish” Walker who was a newspaper man in Gettysburg PA. The Sons of Rest was a running gag that went on for years. He printed up membership cards entitling members to bench seats at parades, unlimited time observing construction sites, and the use of handicapped parking regardless of physical condition etc. He would produce materials for nonexistent events like the Knights of Columbus vs. KKK softball game and send them out. He’s been gone almost 15 years so I got a warm feeling thinking about the Sons. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

I agree with Toby. What’s the point of all this blood and thunder? They certainly seem to be talented and experienced individuals why isn’t that enough? Certainly several of S. Takada Sensei’s students coexisted just fine with different orgainizations. But, who knows what set them off. It seems to have happened during the late master’s illness.
As a “little” guy of no consequence I kinda ’spect mo’ o’ me betters.

------------------
-DougWalker

Kendoguy9
14th June 2000, 07:32
>>"I can't think of any Japanese headquarters school running a website that doesn't have a version in Japanese. It just makes no sense! How am I to understand this strange omission?"

go to http://www.aikikai.org/
to find "To Japanese Pages (“ú–{Œê)
Still Under Construction"
(and have been for a while now.)
http://www.daito-ryu.org/
"For the moment the site is in English only, but we are hoping to expand it to include the same historical and biographical material in the original Japanese as well. "

i can't say much for the Aikikai site, but i know there are other officially sanctioned Daito-ryu web sites, in Japanese. http://member.nifty.ne.jp/daito-ryu/
this site is run by a Mr. Shimomura, and from what i gather has Kondo sensei's approval. it seems it has a lot of good info. on it. if you look under "eimeiroku" section it has a list of some of the more famous students of Takeda Sokaku sensei, some even with pictures. there is even mention made of Charles Perry as well.

just because we can't see it doesn't mean its not there http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

Gambatte!!!

------------------
Chris Covington
Daito-ryu study group
Shinkendo
Kodokan judo

14th June 2000, 17:15
"As an outsider looking in on Daitoryu (I did train for a few months), this looks like the postmortem bickering among students that happens throughout the martial arts. I've heard Kondo trashed by students of another student of Tokimune -- whether it's a junta, a family business, a religious group or a ryuha, the jockeying and in-fighting start when the figurehead kicks it." - Rich B.

Rich,

What makes this so unusual and is the reason for Stan Pranin's ire is that Kondo Katsuyuki is the only person to receive a Menkyo Kaiden from Takeda Tokimune. He was also formally appointed as "Soke Dairi" to Tokimune long before his death. That pretty much seals the deal here without any question.

That these goobers in Hokkaido went to such ridiculous lengths to try and redefine what a Menkyo Kaiden is, is obvious. They don't like the deal. Well, tough beans guys! Grow up! Now you look like childish fools. Fancy pontification, blatant distortions and creative new interpretations of time honored traditional teaching documents won't change the facts.

Why they didn't just start their own faction is beyond me. Trying to hijack the hombu tradition is really ......... dumb!

Toby Threadgill

Nathan Scott
14th June 2000, 21:23
Hi,

I could be mistaken, but didn't T. Takeda Sensei experience some kind of mental degenerative type disease for some time before his death? This is very possibly why there is room for confusion regarding who was officialy supposed to continue the art.

It appears from documentation that Kondo Sensei was clearly chosen to substitute in his place, perhaps until a Takeda was fit to resume the Sokeship.

But there are at least one or two takeda's that claim to be continuing the Daito ryu blood line and now these guys.

Can anyone confirm Takeda Sensei's illness and why there might be room for "interpretation" as to who should continue the line?

Interestingly, I believe Nakamura Taisaburo Sensei may be suffering from a mentally degenerative disease as well, and I understand there is already confusion over who is supposed to be appointed Nidai Soke of his style (guess I should confirm this rumor with Mr. Power). What a really sad thing to have to go through for all involved.

Regards,

John Lindsey
14th June 2000, 22:46
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walker:
What’s the point of all this blood and thunder? They certainly seem to be talented and experienced individuals why isn’t that enough? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the problem is not with ability, but rather nobility...

Kolschey
14th June 2000, 23:21
I do find it sad that after the death of a founder or elder, various arts tend to go through a sort of " King Lear " phase. It makes things incredibly complicated for everyone who is less concerned with the nuances of organisational politics.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

ghp
15th June 2000, 05:44
Hi Nathan --

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Interestingly, I believe Nakamura Taisaburo Sensei may be suffering from a mentally degenerative disease as well, and I understand there is already confusion over who is supposed to be appointed Nidai Soke of his style (guess I should confirm this rumor with Mr. Power). What a really sad thing to have to go through for all involved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although sensei is not as coherent as he once was, he'd definitely not senile; and there's not really any confusion at all now about his successor. Each of us who received "Densho" (about 50 people) are "in the running" to be nidai soke -- however, I'll tell you right now that I'll not be selected http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif (they're just being polite to me).

His daughter is now responsible for copyrights, use of image, etc. -- so until sensei officially names someone, she's probably going to be the defacto soke-dairi for the time being.

I just hope the official nidai-soke is named-and-retained prior to Nakamura sensei passing over "Sanzu no Kawa" [River Styx]. Lord knows we don't need any factions being created.

Regards,
Guy

------------------
Guy H. Power
http://www.trifox.com/aux/kenshinkan

JosephBlow
15th June 2000, 06:12
Hi Nathan, that's one of the things I heard suggested -- that Tokimune was taken advantage of when he wasn't competent. I have absolutely no idea about its veracity -- given the goals of the Hokkaido disputants it's not a particularly creative argument.

Maybe part of the reason for the intensity of Pranin's response is because the issue isn't completely resolved (or clear). I believe there was litigation about this but I don't recall who the parties were or who won. I don't care enough about Daitoryu to find out.

Of course, this could be resolved the way a similar dispute in another ryuha was resolved -- the more legitimate guy went over to the fraud's house to pound him.

Part of the problem with classical martial arts is that there is not enough fighting -- this isn't unique to Daitoryu. Without duels, people spend way too much energy on political BS and don't get real skills. What's the point with all of this combat training if it primarily develops your ability to stab others in the back? It doesn't take any training to do that...

It isn't my intention to start a silly flame war. I think this is a legitimate problem. I don't know if Karl Friday wants to be associated with this but his book "Legacies of the Sword" addresses the issue beautifully.

Rich B

Kendoguy9
15th June 2000, 08:19
John Lindsey wrote,

&gt;&gt;I think the problem is not with ability, but rather nobility...

i am in no way a Daito-ryu master or even a good or skilled student, but having seen video of the late Takeda Tokimune, Kondo Katsuyuki, and this Kato fellow... well, this Kato guy doesn't move much like Takeda sensei did at all. better or worse, i don't know but nothing like Takeda or Kondo sensei's. it sort of looked like clumsy muscle powered jujutsu.

Nathan Scott wrote,
&gt;&gt;I could be mistaken, but didn't T. Takeda Sensei experience some kind of mental degenerative type disease for some time before his death? This is very possibly why there is room for confusion regarding who was officialy supposed to continue the art.

i don't believe that Takeda sensei became ill until 1991. Kondo sensei was awarded soke dairi in 1988. this information is from "Conversations with Daito-ryu Masters". the info is in different parts of the book, so it is sort of hard to put the dates together. i would guess that things were set up long before any mental illnesses might have set in.


gambatte!!!


------------------
Chris Covington
Daito-ryu study group
Shinkendo
Kodokan judo

MarkF
15th June 2000, 11:45
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I could be mistaken, but didn't T. Takeda Sensei experience some kind of mental degenerative type disease for some time before his death? This is very possibly why there is room for confusion regarding who was officialy supposed to continue the art.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most here know I know diddly about daito ryu, except what read. I have a fondness for the written word and more than a passing fancy for the "aiki" arts.

It seems this penchant for explaining things away with unverifiable explanations, in this case, daito ryu, goes back a couple of generations. I will base this on my reading of the series of interviews Pranin did with T. Takeda mostly concerning his father, Sokaku, with an honorable mention to Ueshiba M. It appears Sokaku was bitten by the same snake which may have bitten the son. It seems Tokimune had similar explanations for his father's rantings when Sokaku was in his eighties. The usual reason was "Please forgive my father. He is in his eighties" which would imply some kind of dememtia and does not seem so unlikely. Of course, in these interviews (BTW: you can find them on http://daito-ryu.org ) it is explained that, I believe, from a cousin, that Sokaku was a "wallpasser,"intimating he would walk through walls. It also seems that Sokaku, who was, by his son's admissions nearly deaf by then, but could hear things most humans with normal hearing could not. Apparently, he could tell the sane from the insane only by being in the same house with them, not having met them, and being on the floor above. Wow! I will not say that these interviews, much like those with Ueshiba late in life, shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, but these are just a few of the things which are "proven" to be true because, well, "he said so." Ah, well, no one said MA wasn't any fun.

That said, I have also been to the daitoryu.com site and it seems, other than the "hombu," is run out of Italy, as everything, seminars, teachers, etc, every happening within their walls happens there. Why? I am not so sure.

If Tokimune did suffer from dementia of some sort, and he was ill less than ten years ago before succumbing in 1993, that this could easily be put to rest. The inner demons of Sokaku, however, is a big question mark, one that, I'm afraid, will never be verified. The true reasons for all of this, however, is based in business, and this part should not be so difficult to understand.



------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

16th June 2000, 11:16
Hi all,

If I may be so bold as to address several different threads here with one post, please pardon me for perhaps taking a momentary tangent or two.

Mark F. wrote: "It seems Tokimune had similar explanations for his father's rantings when Sokaku was in his eighties. The usual reason was "Please forgive my father. He is in his eighties" which would imply some kind of dememtia and does not seem so unlikely."

Here is where a valid argument for studying koryu in Japan can be made. Not that I'm saying it can't be learned outside of it's cultural context with the right teacher, but Diane Skoss has a valid point in her controversial article. Try to follow as I attempt to explain what I see happening here:

This thread was about Stanley Pranin (rightfully IMO) challenging the claims of a certain group of Tokimune's students who've formed their own organisation, and acted quite disrespectfully, or shamefully as some have put it. Stanley respectfully raised the raised the right questions for these folks, and has publically called them on the carpet.

But now there has been added a new, I think less respectful take on the situation (regardless of whether it is valid or not). And that is regarding the state of Tokimune sensei's health and the possible effects it may have had on his mental faculties towards the end of his life, particularly with regard to the issue of sucession in Daito-ryu.

I think that the question of legitimate sucession of Tokimune's mainline is clearly answered with regard to the dates that Kondo sensei received the designation of "soke dairi", and the fact that he possesses the menkyo kaiden from Tokimune sensei. So while the Seishinkan in question, may quibble over the legitimacy of Kondo sensei, and people everywhere can speculate about Tokimune's mental health, it accomplishes nothing, IMO. Nor does this sort of speculation prove anything. Rather it is, in my opinion only denigrating to Tokimune sensei's memory and therefore is not very respectful. Now what does this have to do with Mark's comment, and studying koryu in Japan?

While we actually know very little about Tokimune sensei's health towards the end of his life, we’ve read tidbits published here and there and therefore it may SEEM reasonable to speculate about it, but I don’t think it serves any positive purpose. I certainly think it’s stretching it too far to include Tokimune's father, Sokaku into this speculation simply based on Tokimune's statements about his father's behaviour. Why? Because here is where I think living and training in Japan, and understanding Japanese people and cultures will provide a different perspective, and interpretation of Tokimune's comments quoted above.

The Japanese are always self-depreciating and apologetic for their behavior and the behavior of their "group", whether it be their family or associates. But Sokaku was known (even when he was younger) for his frank and straightforward, if not blunt mannerisms. Nor did he become a martial art's genius and master without developing exceptional perception skills. Tokimune was raised primarily by his mother, and was no doubt, a more polite and proper Japanese (even Sokaku felt Tokimune was perhaps too nice a guy). Naturally, Tokimune would feel somewhat embarrassed by his father's loud or brash behavior and would be overly apologetic on his behalf. I would argue that from a Japanese perspective, Tokimune's comments about his father, demonstrate his good manners (ettiquette) much more than they actually say or imply anything about Sokaku's mental health. Given the Japanese cultural context, it’s much safer to say that Tokimune was more concerned about not offending anyone than really telling it like it is. Living and training in the culture of Japan can help give us much valuable insight into interpreting both the foreign manners and words of the Japanese, in this case especially koryu masters.

For example, if I go to my friend's house in Kodaira, and she spends all day making her family's best traditional meal for me, her specialty. She will say, "It was nothing". Instead of proudly saying, "It's my number one recipe", she'll say "This is my juhachiban (#18) recipe."

If I go next door and meet the neighbors, he'll introduce me not to his beautiful wife, but to his homely wife, his clumsy mother and dimwitted kids. This is not because his wife is ugly, his mother is clumsy and his kids are dumb, but because he want's me to feel much better about my own family.

Now if you remember the story in it’s Japanese context: Sokaku accused Tokimune of associating with a lady who was mentally ill. This obviously drew attention to not only the lady, but the lady’s poor husband. Sokaku recognized the lady for what she was and saw right through her husband’s “secret”. The poor fellow was so embarrased about his wife’s mental health, that he wanted no one else to know that she wasn’t normal. Socially, the couple would be ostracized if her condition ever became suspected, they would never fit in. So what does Tokimune do to salvage this poor man’s face? He jumps in and say’s in effect, "Please excuse my aging, senile father, he’s really the crazy one around here."

In Japan, everyone has to fit in. You don't want to stand out, or rock the boat by being different; either abnormal or exceptional. Sokaku was sharp, he WAS exceptional, and he tended to be rather quick to the point. He was an uncompromising old time samurai in a modern world, he didn’t beat around the bush, and he stood out like a sore thumb. I'm sure Tokimune was constantly apologizing and making escuses for his father's behavior, but in the cultural context and ettiquette of Japan, these were not likely statements of Tokimune’s actual sentiments, but rather of his good manners and humility. It is pure and unfounded speculation to call into question Sokaku's mental health by taking these comments out of their context. First of all, it accomplishes and proves nothing, and furthermore it's disrespectful, and unpolite to denigrate the memory of someone who's no longer living. Especially someone of Sokaku's great stature and genius as a martial artist. And finally, that is how false rumours are started and misunderstandings are propagated.

If we rationalize Tokimune's comments about his father's behavior being due to senility or worse, then we'll naturally start to question also the claims that Tokimune made about his father's martial and perceptional abilities as well. Anything that sounds rather phenomenal we’d take with a pinch of salt and say, "Well, you know, Tokimune sensei was getting old and he was just bragging about his father's abilities, and exaggerating a bit, blah, blah, blah..." But while a westerner would naturally boast in pride of their father’s abilities and even exaggerate them, a properly cultured Japanese would understate their father’s abilities, and play them down. At any rate, the speculative Western approach only serves to diminish Sokaku's and Tokimune's memories, by removing them from their context.

Likewise any attempt to learn the koryu outside of understanding their cultural context will also lead to the gradual misunderstanding and diminishing (watering down) of the transmission of the teachings of that tradition. That doesn’t mean that effective martial training can’t take place outside of Japan, but it does mean that certain aspects (and perhaps vital ones) could be lost, marginalized or misunderstood outside of their proper context. I might also add that the same can happen in modern day Japan too. With all the rapid changes taking place in Japan over the last 100+ years, there’s plenty of room for misunderstanding context there too. It only underscores the importance of having a knowledgable, capable and qualified instructor. It just so happens that most of the headmasters of classical traditions are still located in Japan. If you want koryu, don’t speculate about it, immerse yourself in the context and train!

Kudos to Stanley for getting right to the po

16th June 2000, 11:16

JosephBlow
16th June 2000, 13:48
Hi Brently, thanks for your note.

Please do not interpret this as my being an advocate of this latest group claiming to be the successor. I do not care who the successor is because I don't do Daitoryu. While I wonder whether it's worth the time to bother you with a couple of points, here they are.

Folks disputing Kondo's claims might not have an insurmountable hurdle when they challenge the soke dairi.

The way I've heard this spun is that the Soke Dairi was given for some specific purpose -- like a narrow power of attorney. The argument goes that soke dairi is not a formal title in Daitoryu (unless Tokimune made it one) and as a result it does not automatically bump Kondo above the other kyoju dairi as the man to lead the system.

The menkyo kaiden, on the other hand, has carried official weight in the ryuha for a long time. That Kondo has one is not the issue in this case. The issue Kondo's detractors make is whether Kondo got the menkyo kaiden under shady circumstances by pulling it out of a senile teacher.

Kondo says no, and so does Pranin and so do a large number of Kondo's contemporaries both in Daitoryu and in other arts. I have no reason to disbelieve Kondo.

On the other hand, some detractors say he did. Both sides have financial and political interests vested in the answer and that's why the dispute is going on. "Disrespectful" inquiry as a consumer of Tokimune Sensei's condition is completely appropriate, whether one's a Japanese or a Westerner. If the allegation is true, this same thing goes on all the time in the West when a cunning beneficiary of a will gets the soon-to-be dead guy to beef up the beneficiary's take before he struggles for that final gasp.

Which is where my complaint comes in. Someone in the dispute (or at least that someone's students) is inflating his credentials. If folks were on the mat enough, there wouldn't be a need to worry. When they're collecting dues, however, that's usually when the problems arise (and it's been this way for hundreds of years, incidentally).

If this were to go to litigation, the arguments would probably be phrased in terms of lost economic opportunity because of the other's fraud. I suppose defamation is a possibility, but again the argument would probably have to be phrased in terms of destroyed economic potential because of the reputational damage.

Again, please understand that I have no reason to disbelieve Kondo Sensei's claims. If I were practicing Daitoryu, I would train with Kondo Sensei because he is the teacher closest to me. If I lived in Osaka, I would go somewhere else.

Nevertheless, if I were appointed Grand Pooh Bah of the Mooselodge-ryu (this only a generic example, not an insult on Daitoryu) and someone else was trying to steal the system, then I would probably get pissed too.

I posted because someone asked about why Pranin-san wrote what he did at the time he did it and I reported some of the rumors I'd heard to explain. It's only an explanation of the arguments, it isn't advocacy because I don't know the answer and I don't have any serious interest in who is right.

Best Regards,

Rich B

[This message has been edited by JosephBlow (edited 06-16-2000).]

Nathan Scott
16th June 2000, 21:36
Hello,

I agree with most of Mr. Keen's post, but do not see the shame in discussing the possibility of an illness contributing to confusion around succession of an art. I also see nothing wrong with speculating, as this "voices thoughts" and hopefully leads to the research of facts based on the conclusions/possibilities produced from the speculation and discussion.

I wasn't trying to imply anything in my previous post, and there is nothing to read between the lines. When someone is unfortunate enough to be struck with a mentally degenerative disease, they often forget events and things they have said before, as well as people.

It sounds like Kondo Sensei's right to lead the family line is ligitimate (documented) and the dates as noted appear to be before the aledged illness anyway. But I have heard of headmasters of other styles who have unknowingly promised Sokeship to one person verbally and then told another person later something else. It's these verbal comments and the possibility of "second thoughts" that can lead to confusion by some, and outright fraud by others who may claim to have been promised something verbally by someone who is known to have a memory problem or has already passed.

If I remember correctly, there was also some last minute changes/confusion as to whether Kisshomaru Ueshiba was to inherit Aikido or not (which he did) as Ueshiba Sensei got closer to the end of his life. These kinds of things happen, and while it is sad to see in a reputable teacher, it is all part of the life cycle and I don't see why it should be kept hush hush - especially when it is public knowledge.

The other thing is that Tokimune Takeda Sensei passed away rather recently, so there are plenty of students and instructors with first hand experience that could (if they chose) speak about what things were like during that time. It is not unrealistic that we might gain a reasonable idea of the events by discussing the subject with some of these people, rather than acting like it never happened.

Typically a ryu-ha is a family line of transmission, so the Soke tend to be specific about either passing the art to a blood relative or if necessary to an "adopted" family member. This *could* be the reason why T.Takeda S. gave Kondo Sensei "Soke dairi" ("substitute for the headmaster" - authority to act in an official capacity on behalf of the headmaster) as opposed to Soke. Was Kondo Sensei supposed to groom a Takeda for the Soke when they were old enough or qualified technically to do so?

BTW, Menkyo Kaiden is a license of transmission, which is why it is in the "official Daito ryu curriculum", whereas titles like Soke dairi are administrative titles, and may or may not be included in documentation as such.

No offense intended towards anyone, and I'm not supporting outside claims to the family line of Daito ryu, just interested in discussing the circumstances of the pass of leadership a bit and why there might be *any* room for argument over who is rightfully in leadership.

Regards,


------------------
Nathan Scott
Shinkendo & Aiki Buken Honbu dojo (http://www.shinkendo.com)
Tsuki Kage dojo (http://www.tsuki-kage.com)
Japanese Sword Arts Discussion Forum (http://www.swordforum.com/jsa)

[This message has been edited by Nathan Scott (edited 06-16-2000).]

MarkF
17th June 2000, 09:25
Brently,
I did say I based it on that series of interviews by Stan Pranin, and I did not take anything out of context, at least, no more than you have. I simply brought up a point, that if there were any questions of Tokimune's health problems, it should be easy to prove, if necessary (personally, I have found it a constant that the great teachers of anything cannot be judged by what children say, just as some of Sokaku's feats of "magic" cannot be verified with any accuracy. It is the same in the interviews with M. Ueshiba and K. Ueshiba. I also made it clear it came from said interviews. It seemed another justification for something was being made on an assumption which should be easily verified.

If anything, the Japanese are known to care for their aging parents, something Americans could learn from. But since questions were being asked, I thought something from the horse's mouth would be appropriate. Call it a coincidence or exaggeration, it did come from those interviews, and the inference is easily understandable. Possibly I should have copied all five of those interviews and have let everyone make there own assumptions, however, a question of someone's health who died only sevn years ago, was, again, brought up. A lot of facts about father and son, in this case, have been called fact when it came from Tokimune's mouth, and many of these statements have indeed come directly from these interviews. During the last "great debate" on daito ryu having the one and only true aiki of a few months ago, I found many of the "facts" published came straight from the son's words as gospel. However, you have brought up a point of how one should read something, but no new, or old, information was forthcoming. People talk about the dead all the time without being accused of lacking "resect for the dead." How T. Takeda explained his father's behavior was not the point, but rather how far some will go to believe obvious exaggerations of what had happened. It was only a discussion of the ancient tea ceremony which brought about the outburst of S. Takeda in the first place. It was not meant with any disrespect, only a seeming coincidence of both father and son suffering some form of dementia. This is hardly news. Living in Japan had nothing to do with it, but if people are going to point out these exaggerations as the truth, then a discussion about it is certainly no shame.

Sincerely,

------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

MarkF
17th June 2000, 09:29
BTW: I have also found the website in question to be "questionable" to say the least.

------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

Nathan Scott
22nd June 2000, 02:03
For those following this topic, you might want to swing over to the Aikido Journal BBS and follow some of the recent developments and new posts by Mr. Pranin regarding the history:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000013.html
http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000018.html

I for one can see where there is room for confusion now, and also that it is a sticky situation.

Although the issue of Daito ryu leadership may not be resolved in the next couple of weeks, we may find ourselves with more facts or at least first hand information than we did before, and that will have achieved something.

ando,

Guy-san, thanks for the info. I hope the transition to the nidai Soke is smooth when the time comes!

Regards,

PRehse
27th May 2001, 18:17
For the historians out there.

Which of the Koryu would be classified as Aiki arts?

I assume Daito ryu did not invent the term.

Meik Skoss
28th May 2001, 01:16
P. Rehse wrote: "For the historians out there: which of the koryu would be classified as aiki arts? I assume Daito-ryu did not invent the term."

The short answer is none of 'em. Or all of 'em. "Aiki" is a concept found in most, if not all, koryu; what it means and how it's used is something that varies with the system. It's not that big a deal, in the way that aikido makes it out to be, merely a concept or tactic to be used in defeating an enemy. The term "aiki" has been around for hundreds of years, as you surmised, and was definitely not invented by Daito-ryu, although it probably has the most sophisticated understanding of the idea.

Hope this helps.

PRehse
28th May 2001, 01:41
Meik;

God I hate those yes and no answers. I was being told in a conversation that only Aikido and Daito-ryu were aiki-arts and I felt, based on other sources, that that could not be right.

I knew the term was quite old - that the meaning varied - but I was hoping that some Koryu would calssify itself as such so that I could pull the old "Yeah but what about ....".

Thanks for the input.

Cady Goldfield
28th May 2001, 02:03
I'm taking a guess in saying that aiki predates Japanese combat history, and that the Japanese might have gotten it from the Chinese. While I suspect there are few Chinese practitioners today who have aiki (which, of course, would have a different name in Chinese), I have felt the application of one of its principles from an elderly Chinese taiji/qigong practitioner, some years ago.

The Japanese were heavily influenced by China for hundreds of years, in everything from civic pursuits to literary and artistic method. It's plausible that the Japanese picked up some of the ancient principles of mechanical and neurophysiological manipulation and control from the Chinese as well.

Of course, different arts call different things "aiki," these days, so it's pointless to elaborate. I do believe that Meik is being a bit casual about aiki being "merely a concept or tactic." Aiki is a deeply complex series of principles that in themselves comprise a discipline of training. Combined with weapons use and empty-hand jujutsu waza, aiki (at least, the aiki I'm familiar with) quadruples the power of the techniques. Nothing to sneeze at. Just because it is one of a number of systems of study within various koryu, doesn't make it inconsequential or "just another thing to study." It's the plutonium that makes the bomb go kablooey.

Dennis Hooker
29th May 2001, 14:17
Originally posted by PRehse
For the historians out there.

Which of the Koryu would be classified as Aiki arts?

I assume Daito ryu did not invent the term.

As I see it the difference between Aiki in Aikido is that M. Ueshiba Seinsei redefined the term. And made it stick for his art! Now some from the more traditional arts have a hard time with that, and many folks within Aikido want to redefine it under their own terms. Fact is it’s supposed to mean something different to us (Aikido students).

There was a time when Aki meant kicking in a door to hooch, and through power of your presence and their fear freeze everyone in there. Now there is a time when Aiki means something different and a hell of lot more useable in family, work, and social environments. Of course there are many Aikido folks who believe Aikido is about war, but that’s another discussion for another forum.

I think one definition no longer fits.

Meik Skoss
29th May 2001, 23:09
C. Goldfield wrote: "Of course, different arts call different things 'aiki' these days, so it's pointless to elaborate. I do believe that Meik is being a bit casual about aiki being "merely a concept or tactic." Aiki is a deeply complex series of principles that in themselves comprise a discipline of training. Combined with weapons use and empty-hand jujutsu waza, aiki (at least, the aiki I'm familiar with) quadruples the power of the techniques. Nothing to sneeze at. Just because it is one of a number of systems of study within various koryu, doesn't make it inconsequential or 'just another thing to study.' It's the plutonium that makes the bomb go kablooey."

This being a kobudo forum, I based my comments on a review of documents from different koryu (originals and photocopies) and from discussions with senior exponents and/or headmasters of these ryu. Being an old, but reform(ulat)ed, aiki bunny myself, it was a topic of interest to me way back when and a thing I asked a lot of people about.

Both Dennis and Cady are right in saying that there are different definitions of the word/concept, "aiki" and that's to be expected. The Japanese have a great saying about this: "ju nin, to iro" (ten people, ten colors). Or, as my high school swimming coach liked to say, "different strokes for different folks."

What I meant by "merely a concept or tactic to be used in defeating an enemy" is that, within the context of classical Japanese budo, very little special consideration is given to the idea of "aiki" other than as a way of dealing with a specific situation. Of course, lots of equivalent terms exist, but they still are used as "shudan" (a means of accomplishing something) rather than the quasi-mystic or semi-religious manner one finds in many aikiDO dojo. Not that that's "wrong" in any sense, either, but it is (was?) a completely different context from what concerned old-timey bushi.

Again, my sources are original densho and conversations with the senior exponents and teachers of different koryu. I'm not saying this on the basis of supposition, nor am I talking about a modern system such as aikido. I was talking about koryu in my post, and nothing else.

MPraskey
1st June 2001, 04:10
Aiki, according to Tokimune Takeda in one interview, refers to Go no sen methods dealing with an attack. Even in modern Aikido that strikes me as an accurate defination. All of the techinques in Aikido rely on that principle. I assume Koryu make use of use of it to one degree or another but don't rely upon it excusively the way Aikido does. Even Daito-ryu seems to have some Sen Sen methods in it's cirriculum, and in the same interview Takeda mentions that the police don't rely on Aikido exclusively but rather study a mix of Aikido, Judo and other methods. Perhaps "go no sen waza/methods/Kata " is the easiest way to classify the approach of Aikido/Daito-ryu in Koyru systems. Arts that specialize in " go no sen " methods might be thought as "Aiki arts" if that's how you want to think about it.

Mike Praskey

Cady Goldfield
1st June 2001, 11:54
Interesting, Mr. Prasky. My experience has been that practitioners on a higher level in many arts (including aikido) initiate the attack... either by detecting the intent of their opponents before the latter are able to initiate their own action, or by using some subtle means to draw the opponents into attacking predictably so that that action can be exploited. There gets to be a point at which it becomes difficult to tell who is the aggressor and who is the "defender."

While perhaps go no sen is a mainstay, in principle, in aikido, I wouldn't say that's what's practiced by many of its exponents. And, it certainly doesn't seem to be the case in traditional Daito-ryu or its classical forebears -- arts that were meant to be combative, not "self-defense."

With all due respect to T. Takeda, I'd be more interested in hearing what S. Takeda would have to say about Daito-ryu strategy and tactics on a higher level.

Dan Harden
1st June 2001, 14:05
"The purpose of this art is not to be killed, not to be struck, not to be kicked, and we will not strike, will not kick and will not kill.
It is completly for self defense"...............

Takeda Sokaku
Interview, Ozaka Yoichi
July 1930

What did he mean in exact detail? What were his actions VS his words?
How did he see the nature of conflict?
Conflict resolution?
I haven't a clue.

His qoute can be taken several ways. What is the best defense in an about to erupt encounter? Is attacking first not defensive?

War is war,
seizing is seizing,
Police work is police work
pedestrian arts are for pedestrians
modern laws are difficult.

Principles are principles
How they can be used or expressed can be a complicated subject.

Dan

PRehse
1st June 2001, 14:08
Originally posted by MPraskey
Aiki, according to Tokimune Takeda in one interview, refers to Go no sen methods dealing with an attack. Even in modern Aikido that strikes me as an accurate defination. All of the techinques in Aikido rely on that principle.

Sorry Mike - most Aikido training is go no sen just because most people in the class are relative beginners and most classes cater to the mass. Sen no sen is part of Aikido - my class was small and I was able to teach these things to students with less than a year of Aikido. In my opinion sen no sen is what make Aikido work.


Originally posted by Cady
With all due respect to T. Takeda, I'd be more interested in hearing what S. Takeda would have to say about Daito-ryu strategy and tactics on a higher level..
Well good luck considering that Sogaku was illiterate. I am sure he taught his son well.

MPraskey
1st June 2001, 14:37
Intrestingly enough, reportedly, Sokaku Takeda could read, but
was unable to write Kanji. Being in that situation myself that doesn't suprise me. Recognizing the characters is much easier then practicing them so that you can produce them.

" My experience has been that practitioners on a higher level in many arts (including aikido) initiate the attack... either by detecting the intent of their opponents before the latter are able to initiate their own action, or by using some subtle means to draw the opponents into attacking predictably so that that action can be exploited. "

Go No sen as I understand it is defined as "response action, luring an opponent into making a foolish attack so that a counter attack may be used. " (The defintion is from Koryu bujutsu by the way)

I can't think of a single Aikido technique that doesn't fit that critieria, not one.

Sen no sen as I've heard it defined is "using inititive to prevent the opponent's taking the initiative."

Initiative means the action of taking the first step or move. Aikido *never* does this. Even when you move at the same time as an opponent
you are *still* responding to the stimulus of the attack. If the opponent didn't attack you, there would be no technique. If you disagree, then please name for me the waza where you go after a sesile person who has neither struck or grabbed you. If you teach that kind of technique, you certianly have the most inovative brand of Aikido I've ever heard of Mr.Rehse.

I cannot think of *any* Aikido technqiue that teaches
purely agressive action that would fit the definition of Sen no sen or Sen sen no sen. However Daito-ryu reportedly has techniques like this. Tokimune Takeda was not his father, he was however the sucessor of the art. He studied Daito-ryu much longer and more faitfully then anyone of us here could claim to, *and* he studied under his father, which is something none of us can claim, I don't see why not being his father should make him any less of an authority on Daito-ryu technique, particularly when his father trained him to take over the art. The specific question he's asked is "are there many techinques in which one attacks first in Daito-ryu? his response is:

" For example, the police learned jujutsu as arrest techniques so it must be active. They attack first; it is not self-defense. As I have mentioned, the sword is go no sen--you deflect or evade an attack when the opponent strikes and then cut him. Go no sen does not work when a policeman arrests a criminal, he must attack to catch a fleeing criminal and then must tie him up with rope or handcuff him " (Pranin, 54-55)

Kodo Horikawa, another of S.Takeda's students noted that he taught Jujutisu to physically powerful poeple, Aiki jujutsu to less powerful people and sword techniques to those who were already skilled with swords. That shows that while Aiki was in important part of the Daito-ryu cirriculum, there is more to then just Aiki. for Go no sen, there is Aiki, for Sen sen and sen no sen there is Jujutsu and weapon techniques. Together they form a complete system. Not every situation can be handled with go no sen technique, there are plenty where attacking first is the way to go.

Mike Praskey.

PRehse
1st June 2001, 15:10
Originally posted by MPraskey
I can't think of a single Aikido technique that doesn't fit that critieria, not one.

Sen no sen as I've heard it defined is "using inititive to prevent the opponent's taking the initiative."

Initiative means the action of taking the first step or move. Aikido *never* does this. Even when you move at the same time as an opponent
you are *still* responding to the stimulus of the attack. If the opponent didn't attack you, there would be no technique. If you disagree, then please name for me the waza where you go after a sesile person who has neither struck or grabbed you. If you teach that kind of technique, you certianly have the most inovative brand of Aikido I've ever heard of Mr.Rehse.


MY my we are formal. I study Shodokan Aikido - the organization founded by Kenji Tomiki. Sen no sen, or siezing the initiative is demonstrated in several techniques of the Koryu Goshin no Kata. Most noteably the first which is oshitaoshi (ikkyo) which has a similar variation seen in Ueshiba's Budo Renshu. There are several other instances in formal kata and it is quite common in full resistance randori.

Answer quick - in six hours I head to the Honbu of my style to study for three months. It's good to go back home if only for a visit.

MPraskey
1st June 2001, 16:18
I've heard briefly of Tomiki Aikido, unfortunately I haven't heard
much more about it then the name. If I understand correctly you're saying you have techniques where you actively attack a target that hasn't moved against you? (Ie. hasn't grabbed or struck you and is just standing there?) If so I'd put that down as Sen no sen technique, it would be the first time I've ever seen it in Aikido, and I'd be intrested in seeing more of it.

I wouldn't classify that as "Aiki " however. Tokumune makes the distinction between Aiki and Kiai. Or, Go no sen and Sen no sen if you perfer. Go no sen involves reciving an attack. If you're saying that your style teaches a Sen no sen style of techniques. Where you attack the target, ie. you employ your own energy rather then steal it from the target we're talking about a diffrent approach here.

That's not a bad thing, in fact it's a deficency I see in many forms of Aikido, and would like to see remedied. Daito-ryu doesn't seem to rely upon a pure Go no sen approach, though it seems to favor that strategy over the other two available. I'd put your style down
as a composite art, someting a bit closer to What Daito-ryu is, rather then the pure go-no-sen art that Aikido has degenerated into.

We're really digressing here though :)

So how do we classify Aiki in Koryu? Go-no-sen seems to be used in almost every art to one degree or another. I think it could be said that an art that favors the Go No sen approach over the other two strategies is an "aiki" art.

Mike Praskey.

Jack B
1st June 2001, 16:45
The first technique of Tomiki's suwari waza kata is an ikkyo that captures the preparation for attack. This is sen sen timing. However, if you attack a completely inactive opponent, you are putting yourself at risk.

I have heard distinctions of types of Ki including "soft ki", "hard ki", "capturing ki" etc. For overall Koryu definition and usage, we should probably defer to Mr. Skoss' edification.

Jack Bieler

Cady Goldfield
1st June 2001, 17:03
I'm aware of that quote from S. Takeda regarding self-defense, which is in Stanley Pranin's Daito-ryu book. We can endlessly speculate as to whether Takeda was speaking about his modern surroundings and circumstances, or whether he was expressing his basic philosophy from the start. Self-defense using combat arts is a modern interpretation, IMO. There was a time when many of the skills Takeda had learned were used for combat and to maim and kill. In peace times, the philsophy had to be adapted to a self-defense oriented one. The methods of the older skill set may be preserved for accuracy's sake, but they are practiced and interpreted more subtly. We will never know what Takeda knew in his heart-of-hearts, but we can guess that his view had to fit in with the times and environment, just as old warriors must learn to decompress their instincts when they are no longer in battle.

That aside, there is, again, a very fuzzy gray area where "attack" and "defense" meet. To a bystander watching one man strike another, it might appear that the striker was the aggressor. In fact, he could have detected the intent to attack in his opponent, and so seized the initiative to strike first. Is he truly attacking? Or is he defending? On higher strategic levels, the lines and distinctions blur.

Mike, it sounds like I interpreted the meaning of go-no-sen differently than you. I take it to mean a purely defensive (as in "Oh, s#$t!") action of receiving and neutralizing the attack. But then again, when we discuss the blurring of distinctions in application, there is a point where we scratch our heads trying to decide whether what we're witnessing is go-no-sen, sen-no-sen or sen-sen-no-sen. And even the practioners might not be consciously aware of their actions anymore, either.

Greg Jennings
1st June 2001, 17:34
Originally posted by MPraskey with respect to go no sen
All of the techinques in Aikido rely on that principle. I assume Koryu make use of use of it to one degree or another but don't rely upon it excusively the way Aikido does.

If folks are going to discuss inititive in aikido, it needs to be done on the aikido forum.

V/R,

PRehse
1st June 2001, 18:32
Originally posted by MPraskey
I'd put your style down as a composite art, someting a bit closer to What Daito-ryu is, rather then the pure go-no-sen art that Aikido has degenerated into.

We're really digressing here though :)

So how do we classify Aiki in Koryu? Go-no-sen seems to be used in almost every art to one degree or another. I think it could be said that an art that favors the Go No sen approach over the other two strategies is an "aiki" art.

Mike Praskey.

Tomiki started with Ueshiba in 1926 - well before what Ueshiba was teaching stopped being Daito-ryu and became Aikido. He stopped teaching at Aikiaki Honbu long after. I don't think you could call it a composite art - maybe transitional????

That was an interesting definition of an Aiki art - let me think about it some. My initial feeling that linking Aiki to go no sen wont work but its worth thinking about.

Nathan Scott
1st June 2001, 19:13
Hi all,

I agree that this thread has gone way off topic (though in an interesting direction). It would be great if this thread could be split and tossed in either the Aikido or AJJ forum for further discussion.

The following is a section from an essay I've been working on in reference to aiki:


One of the first known usages of the term aiki actually extends back to the founder of Shinkage ryu, Kamiizumi Ise no Kami Hidetsuna. Other ryu-ha that later subsumed the Shinkage ryu kabala include traditions like Jikishinkage ryu, Yagyu Shinkage ryu, Komagawa Kaishin ryu and Owari kan ryu. These traditions are primarily sword or weapons based systems, and as such it can be presumed that the term aiki was not really used in
taijutsu (body arts) until much later; Kito ryu Jujutsu being the earliest taijutsu-based tradition found to date. Even Daito ryu Aikijujutsu was said to have been a weapons focused system until the Meiji restoration, when the current headmaster was advised to specialize in taijutsu instead.

I also have a quote from Kunishige Nobuyuki (Shinden Isshin-ryu), dating from the late 1800's/ early 1900's referring to aiki in his art.

In any event, terms like "go no sen", "sen no sen" and "sen sen no sen" are tactics, not techniques. These tactics can be applied to most, if not all techniques - including aikido. To work within one "timing" is to greatly limit the application of aikido.

Those interested in the great aiki debate are invited to browse through the following threads in the AJJ area:

aiki v1.0 (http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1304)

aiki v2.0 (http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1507)

aiki v3.0 (http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2966)


Regards,

MPraskey
2nd June 2001, 00:49
Mr. Biler:

I'd have to see it to really understand it. It's one thing to talk
about it, to get out and do it is quite another.

For the record, I'm taking the definition of Go-no-sen from indviduals who have far more experence with the intent of the concept then I do. It just strikes me as away to understand how what we consider "aiki" fits into koryu, and what arts might favor an "aiki" approach.

It does appear to me that Go-no-sen can involve a proactive "bait" that entices the target to attack, but I doubt it's necessary for something to be considered as such. The heart of it seems to be moving after the opponent has moved, or luring him into moving.

Sen sen as far as I can tell looks like a pre-emptive strike, just
hitting someone out of the blue or grabbing them and throwing them.

that's not to say it's not defense against an impending attack, it's
just that you're moving before the other guy can bring his fists or
his weapon to bear. The classic example is some one threatens to "cut your heart out " then puts their hand in their pocket, at which point you pounce on them. As far as you can tell they're reaching for a weapon to carry out the threat, from that angle you are defending yourself. You could also easily be the agressor using this method.

If you were using a Go-no sen meathod you might wait until the guy actualy tries to take a stab at you to do anything. For obvious reasons this might not be the best idea :)

On the other hand, if you're dealing with a slasher who you know can put up a good fight has the knife out and ready and you want him to come at you, you might taunt him or fake an injury or whatever. so he commits and you can apply a technique that's safer then trying to fight him "mano e mano"

It might be difficult to figure out, but I for one will keep trying.
Other wise we might as well close the thread :)

Mike Praskey

szczepan
2nd June 2001, 14:54
B: Does that mean ato no sen? (This term refers to a late response to an attack.)

O-Sensei: Absolutely not. It is not a question of either sensen no sen or sen no sen. If I were to try to verbalize it I would say that you control your opponent without trying to control him. That is, the state of continuous victory. There isn't any question of winning over or losing to an opponent. In this sense, there is no opponent in aikido. Even if you have an opponent, he becomes a part of you, a partner you control only.

from
http://www.aikidojournal.com/articles/ajInterviews/MoriheiUeshiba.asp

MarkF
3rd June 2001, 10:09
Szczepan,
Another example why the old guy, like most of the old guys, were difficult to understand.

I read that interview a while back. There is a reason he was referred to, in the sixties, as the oldest hippy by many people I knew.:)

I once asked someone who does DR AJJ if, since s/he said there was no "tai (postures)" because there was no offense in DR. The reply was that no, DR AJJ was not all go no sen, and that it was very much sen no sen and sen sen no sen. Later, this same person felt secure with the dojo mates that they could, and would, kill. Kinda puts a ! in the idea of sen sen no sen.

Does this mean there is only defensive postures (Jigotai), and no attack postures in doing aikido?

Is this a basic, but important part of aikido? I know about the tai sabaki, so this would mean there are/is kind[s] of posture[s]. That is an assumption, but that is an assumption made tha with many who do judo/jujutsu, that it is purely go no sen.

I'll begin by saying that there is a lot of sen no sen, and if one passes go, even sen sen no sen.

Mark

Cady Goldfield
3rd June 2001, 11:38
Again, we're coming back to the issue of tactical perception. In application, there is no clear-cut, black-and-white distinction of "go no sen, sen no sen, sen sen no sen" when you are in combat. The terms provide basic definitions for the sake of learning, but once instilled, they transcend clear demarcation.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with killing, as someone has suggested on this forum. Go/sen/sen sen no sen has only to do with a tactical principle, and not the ultimate results of its application. This principle is a natural part of many martial arts, *including* aikido as M. Ueshiba approached it. You just have to have the eyes to see the subtle way in which it is applied.

MPraskey
3rd June 2001, 12:12
Unfortunately this is becoming more about Aikido then it is Koryu, but I admit there is a correlation. Knowing how to classify Aikido makes it possible to classify Koryu that have similar features.

Mark, ask yourself, what technique in Aikido allows you to attack someone the way you could in Karate, etc. Even in judo or jujutsu
it's possible to just grab someone and toss them. I've never seen
anything remotely like that in Aikido. Maybe it exists in some style of it, but I've certainly never run across it anywhere. I've never seen a waza that's as proactive as as an art like Karate or even something like Jujutsu or Judo?

It all does become blurred in combat, but we're not talking about combat, we're talking about teaching and learning and the tactics that are taught and learned.

Mike Praskey.

Dan Harden
3rd June 2001, 15:16
Mike writes:
Unfortunately this is becoming more about Aikido then it is Koryu,

but I admit there is a correlation.

Knowing how to classify Aikido makes it possible to classify Koryu that have similar features.

***********************

WOW :eek:


deleted.................

Dan

dakotajudo
4th June 2001, 03:01
My working definition of aiki, which I'll use until I learn better is:

Techniques that can be performed with a largely resisting uke (like most judo throws) do not require aiki. I don't mean throws that work from combinations or counters. This is more like an o-goshi pick-him-up-and-toss-him type throw.

Techniques that can only be performed when uke provides most of the effort, and do not work when uke actively resists the technique (as in a lot of aikido kokyu-nage throws) are aiki. A lot of the 'leading' kokyu-nages fall into this category.


Of course, judo throws work better if you can convince uke to help throw himself, and some aikido throws can be made to work with resistant ukes.

It's a crude definition but it helps me understand aiki (vs. ju).

Peter

Cady Goldfield
4th June 2001, 03:13
Peter,
Aiki can be applied whether an opponent is resisting or not. And, aiki is all about "ju"!

Nathan Scott
4th June 2001, 05:48
Hi Mark-san,

I don't know if "jigotai" is the best term to use in regards to aikido. Mainly because those that are familiar with it will surely associate the term with the diagonal "horse stance" commonly seen in Judo. But anyway, I know what you mean.

You often hear that there is no kamae in Aikido. But what is the "hanmi" (half body) position? It was originally called "roppo" (six directions) in the earlier years, and is a somewhat common kamae in classical styles (sometimes under different names, like "ichimonji no kamae"). Even shizentai (natural stance) can be classified as a choice of kamae. Kamae have different functions, which is why there is more than one kamae. Just because the kamae referred to appears to be defensive or nearly non-existant does not mean that it is not a kamae.

The roppo/hanmi stance can be seen in many earlier photos of both Takeda Sokaku S. (DR AJJ) and Ueshiba Morihei S. (aikido). It is the first thing shown and taught in Ueshiba M. book "Budo" as well. He seemed to think that understanding the hanmi posture deeply was critical.

Also, there are many techniques in pre-war aikido that involves shite initiating the technique by feinting an attack (kyo/jitsu) - either using sen no sen or sen sen no sen. This does not technically mean that you "attack first", but rather, that you seize the opponent's initiative at the same time or just before they attack. Kind of hard to explain.

I agree that this is a tactic not found much (if at all) in aikido being practiced today, but it is one of many oversights that will hopefully be corrected by serious aikido-ka in the future.

Sorry to contribute to taking this thread further off topic!

Regards,

szczepan
4th June 2001, 14:18
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Peter,
Aiki can be applied whether an opponent is resisting or not. And, aiki is all about "ju"!

.....hmh.....seems you know what aiki is! Care to share? :wave:

It surly will help to make this famous aiki-classification...

Walker
4th June 2001, 16:28
Loosely adapted from a conversation involving Toby and others.
Jujutsu can be worked on an inanimate object whereas Aiki requires a mind.

MPraskey
5th June 2001, 03:17
A big part of the problem is none of us can seem
to agree what consitutes Go no sen, Sen no sen, and Sen sen no sen. If we can only decide which method Aikido favors then it should be fairly easy to see which arts are "Aiki."

Mike Praskey.

Walker
5th June 2001, 07:19
... assuming aikido is “aiki”...:kiss:

Dan Harden
5th June 2001, 12:15
A big part of the problem is none of us can seem
to agree what consitutes Go no sen, Sen no sen, and Sen sen no sen. If we can only decide which method Aikido favors then it should be fairly easy to see which arts are "Aiki."

Mike Praskey.

Say what??
Shall we define an orange by its lack of similarity to an apple?

You cannot define which Koryu arts use Aiki by *your* intrepretations, or the use of a tactic (sen) then compare them to Aikido of all things.
It matters NOT what Aikido does or does not do, to define Koryu
You have one twisted sense of logic there son

Koryu is, and has defined itself quite nicely without us
our opinion is not needed
While your on the subjectof Aiki, and this has nothing to do with comparisons to Koryu either, using Aikido as a model for Aiki is a bit shallow don't you think.

lets see, for starters you have:
The Aiki of Daito Ryu; which is a deeper study, particularly in some Ryu.
You also have the Aiki of Yanagi ryu which is a deep study
they both pre-date Aikido
as well as others..........
The Aiki of Aikido is only a "part" of the whole.

Aiki as a tactic in Koryu; is what it is. Whether or not it compares to Aikido is of no consequence.

Cheers
Dan

MPraskey
5th June 2001, 12:22
" For the historians out there.

Which of the Koryu would be classified as Aiki arts?

I assume Daito ryu did not invent the term. "

That was the premise of the thread, if you disagree with that,
why are you here?

MPraskey
5th June 2001, 12:23
I hate the tendency of this thing to go off half-cocked...

Mike Praskey

dakotajudo
5th June 2001, 13:49
Originally posted by MPraskey

That was the premise of the thread, if you disagree with that,
why are you here?

Isn't the point of a discussion to allow for disagreement? Maybe the premise is invalid and merits disagreement.

As far as 'aiki' in aikido, my only experience with practice of aiki has been in aikido, so that informs my definition of aiki. I can compare that with my experience with 'ju' in judo.

From my experience, aiki just 'feels' different than ju. That's the basis for the definition of aiki I posted earlier. I certainly won't rule out that my definition won't change as I gain experience.

I'm also certain that if you asked Ueshiba to define 'aiki' early in his career you would get a very different definition than 'aiki' as currently practiced in aikido.

Personally, the only way I can understand aiki is to consider which techniques best demonstrate aiki, and which techniques lack aiki. An esoteric discussion of the definition of various 'sen' just doesn't work.

Peter

MPraskey
5th June 2001, 15:35
Disagree yes, kill the thread no. Dan talks about what I do wrong, yet makes no effort to contriubte to the attempt to figure this out. If as he claims Yanagi-ryu has made a "deep study of Aiki" then he could share some examples with us. It's easy to be a critic,it's a lot harder to propose an definition and defend it.

To classify a Koryu as an "aiki" art we first have to understand what Aiki is and what it constitues. Aikido doesn't seem to be "aiki" at all in Dan's mind, just a pathetic piece of another art watered down and ripped apart. While I don't deny it's lost something over the years, to suggest that just because Aikido is gendai budo that it has no bearing on what Aiki is or what it might be is out of line. It may have changed, but it hasn't changed so much that there is no relationship between Daito-ryu and Aikido.

All of the technques in Aikido come from Daito-ryu. They're diffrent in some ways but not so diffrent as to be completely alien. The bones of a dinosaur aren't an entire dinosaur either, so by studying the bones I know nothing about the dinosaur? I think you'd find a few paleontologists who might take offense to that. I think they'd also resent being called "shallow" because they have no live dinosaurs to study. Likewise, I haven't had the opputunity to study Daito-ryu personally. I've looked for similarities in techniques in Aikido and I've taken the words of teachers of Daito-ryu very seriously and tried to apply their insights to my own practice in Aikido. That's not Ideal but neither is life. Many of us here, including Peter practice Aikido. That's our experence with Aiki and I don't think it's any less worthy and example of Aiki just because it's Gendai budo.

If Daito-ryu is Aiki, then so is Aikido. I've done my best to try and study Daito-ryu in a scholarly sense. If you've had the opputunity to study a Koryu art Dan you're a lucky indivudal, not all of us have had the privelage. In fact I'd wager that most of us on this site haven't had the privelage.

What I find more disturbing is that what Dan seems to be insinuating is that only people who have practiced Koryu have any right to talk about anything that contisitutes them. If you want to talk about twisted logic, there's a bushel basket right there. By extension you should only be able to talk about Koryu that *you* have personally studied, since logically you don't know the workings of Koryu you have never practiced and everthing else you say about them, as I am doing on this thread is speculation.

" Personally, the only way I can understand aiki is to consider which techniques best demonstrate aiki, and which techniques lack aiki. An esoteric discussion of the definition of various 'sen' just doesn't work. "

But there's the problem right there. To figure out what technqiues best demonstrate Aiki, we have to know what it is. Tokimune Takeda has defined Aiki is Go no sen, hence my intrest in the meaning of the three Sen.

Because we all have our own defintions of the three Sen and clasify it accordingly, Hence I've gone back to one of my books on Daito-ryu to take a second look at how Daito-ryu defines it. Tokimune Takeda has defined it as "Responding to an attack". He also says " Aiki is Go no sen." When I take that position I'm using his definition, not my own.

He also terms Kendo and Itto-ryu as Go no sen on the basis that they respond to an attack. The only example of Sen Sen he gives other, then a police man attacking and subduing a subject with Jujutsu, is Jikishinkage-ryu, which his father studied.

(What's maddening about that example is that the foot note then goes on to say " In fact, the Shinkage-derived sword traditons, and the Jikishinkage-ryu is considered to be among them, are known for their use of go no sen.")


Hence, I'd say the following:


A Go no Sen situation, which he closely assoicates with Aiki, you respond to an attack.

He again defines it as: " Aiki is self-defense when an opponent attacks first and we use the term to refer to self-defense in general."

"The opponent attacks first" Seems to be the key, the rest of the definition is rather loose.

In a "Sen no sen " situation: Takeda says that a person "initiates " the attack.

" Sen sen no sen " is rather difficult part of the foot note for that page defines it as: " there is also another level of iniitative known in Japanese as Sen sen no sen which is neither a direct attack nor a response to an attack but an attack that pre-empts an attack about to take place. "

So, accepting his Tokimune Takeda's definition of Aiki:

Go no sen is Aiki, these terms refer to those techqniues where you respond *after* an opponent attacks you.

Sen no sen seems to refer to a situation where you attack first. Such as when a police officer has to use force to subdue a criminal. In this case the officer is the attacker, he's not responding to an attack rather he's chasing down an indvidual who is trying to get away.

Sen sen no sen: is to head the attacker off at the pass, *before* he can initiate an attack. The only example I can think of here is the situation where the guy threatens to cut you, starts to reach for the knife and you deck him. He's about to attack but hasn't done it yet.

Anyway, that Seems to be "Aiki" As Tokimune Takeda looks at it.
By that definition even things like Kendo and Itto-ryu swordsmanship are Aiki. I don't think that's what you're looking for Peter. Are you looking for "Aiki" as an over-all approach to violent confrontation, regardless of how they go about it or are you looking for arts that engage in empty handed grappling-type "go no sen" style responses to attacks? Your post seems to indicate you're more intrested in the latter.

Mike Praskey.

Cady Goldfield
5th June 2001, 16:21
Mike,
Aikido "aiki" and Daito-ryu "aiki" are not the same, by their practioners' own definitions. That's the problem. We can't establish what does and doesn't constitute an "aiki" art when different groups have a different understanding and interpretation of what constitutes aiki.


Anyway, what Toby says in his later post sums it up. I'd rather just train, wouldn't you?

Dennis Hooker
5th June 2001, 19:24
I quite agree with Dan here, they are two different things. It’s like this one is a house and this one is my home. Same but different, you know it kind of redefines what that structure means to a particular individual. The old ways are the old ways, and new ways are the new ways. Why do they have to compete or even show a linear progression? Why can’t they just be separate and appreciated for what they are? Seems some folks have to justify what they do by vilifying or belittling what other folks do. I don’t have a problem practicing and teaching both old and new. To me one is an anachronism and one is not but both are relevant to my life and growth as a being-human.



[The Aiki of Aikido is only a "part" of the whole.

Aiki as a tactic in Koryu; is what it is. Whether or not it compares to Aikido is of no consequence.

Cheers
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

5th June 2001, 20:28
Guys,

I really hate to get into this muck again but maybe for just one step.

It's best to simplify the term "aiki" and stay away from the "my aiki is real and your isn't" silliness.

As has been pointed out in the past, aiki as a tactic shows its greatest strengths in the weapon arts where the momentary gap created by it's application often resulted in a decisive or killing blow with the cut of a blade. In empty hand arts it's application although impressive is practically much less decisive. This is why the concept existed in the weapons arts long before it migrated into taijutsu focused arts.

Simply defined......(I said simply) aiki is mental, psychological, and physiological disruption, so subtle that the victim is not aware of it's application until it's too late into the encounter to do anything about it. In a worst case scenario you are literally dead before you know what happened. Any attempt IMHO to more specifically define aiki is futile and only leads to illustrate the limitations of language in describing such a complex concept.

Is there aiki in Aikido? Of course there is... depending on the instructor. Is there aiki in Daito ryu? Uhhhhhh.....yeah, depending on the instructor again! With some there is more than others. Yanagi ryu......oh yeah, seamlessly integrated with weapons I might add. And Shinkage ryu ... yeah. And Jikishinkage ryu and Kaishin ryu and..............yadda yadda yadda.

So is there a "king of aiki" ? Nope. Some akikdo & daito ryu folks like to think because "aiki" is in the their arts name that this somehow gives them bragging rights or something.

Well, I gotta tell you guys I have met several instructors out there whose art's names don't mention aiki at all and who can employ "aiki" so effectively that they stand right at the pinnacle of ability in this most elusive of martial concepts. These guys are second to none.

Okay.....now I can just hear some bozo say "But thats not real aiki. What we do is different"

Good, I hope you can use it to keep from getting your @#$@@%@ kicked in!

Tobs

(This is my only post on this subject)

dakotajudo
5th June 2001, 20:37
Originally posted by Toby Threadgill

Well, I gotta tell you guys I have met several instructors out there whose art's names don't mention aiki at all and who can employ "aiki" so effectively that they stand right at the pinnacle of ability in this most elusive of martial concepts. These guys are second to none.

Tobs


In that vein, from what I understand Mifune's judo was very aiki. Many judoka may be equally as good, but none compare to his style.

Peter

Dennis Hooker
5th June 2001, 21:21
Aikido should probably have been left out of a discussion on Aiki in this forum. Like it or not, accept it or not M. Ueshiba Sensei redefined Aiki as universal life energy, the creative principle of life. Throughout four decades or so of budo study (principally Aikido) I have found this to be an overall acceptable definition of what Aiki means to Aikido practitioners. At least the old timers. This is not the Aiki of war. Only within the last decade or so have older and perhaps more traditional definitions been brought fourth from Japan by westerners with any degree of consistency. I’m not sure my Japanese friends would understand the quandary we westerners place upon ourselves with this need to pigeonhole everything. In fact, I have spoken to a few that don’t understand what it is we are debating.

So I think I will take my leave of this topic as well.

Kit LeBlanc
6th June 2001, 00:55
Toby-san,

You are DA MAN!!!!

Kit

Brently Keen
12th June 2001, 11:57
I've been absent for a while, but here's my tangential take on this subject in two parts:

Part One: Dennis,

With all respect, I'd say that the aiki of aikido and the aiki of Daito-ryu are even more different than the difference between a house and a home. IMHO it might be more like comparing homes/houses to vehicles. I can't really say, "they're the same, but different", because they're different.

I do agree with parts of your later post, namely that Ueshiba redefined aiki, and that his aiki was not the "aiki of war" (whatever that is), however, "universal life energy" and/or the "creative principle of life" are descriptions not of "aiki" but "ki". I think many people fail to make the distinction between ki/chi and aiki.

I would say that Ueshiba's understanding of aiki was more literally what the term implies - and that is the "harmonization" of "ki". The problem for many people however is that he typically chose to explain his view(s) philosophically using mystical language and imagery derived from his personal worldview and spiritual practices.

In layman's terms, I think we could safely boil down the essence of Ueshiba's definition (in a spiritual sense) to harmonizing one's personal ki with that of the universe. In a practical sense (at least in the common practice and interpretation of aikido), it's to blend and harmonize with your partner's ki or opponents attack. I'm not sure however, if the common practice and interpretation of aikido is really what Ueshiba had in mind, at least in his earlier years.

Regardless of whether one adopts a practical (pre-war/old timers) interpreatation, or a more philosophical/spiritual (contemporary: peace, love & oatmeal) interpretation, the popular definitions of Ueshiba's aiki are still influenced, not only by Ueshiba's religious views, but also by his stated goals and aspirations for what his art would accomplish (personal character development & eventually world peace). I think that these interpretations and definitions all significantly differ from the aiki of Daito-ryu.

Part Two (for Everyone):

I agree with the bulk of Toby's post. So I'm not going to try and define what Daito-ryu aiki is again (been there done that many times before), and let me say before I go any farther that I'm not claiming that Daito-ryu or the particular branch that I study has a monopoly on the term or concept. However, I don't think that there is aiki in everything, or even in every art that uses the term.

Classification of aiki is obviously difficult because definitions vary from tradition to tradition and from school to school, and from teacher to teacher and even student to student. The problem in aikido is that there are so many multiple traditions, schools, and teachers all teaching and promoting their own versions of aikido as authoritative, rather than seeking as students to discover and perfect what Ueshiba actually taught.

Although this is also the case somewhat among the koryu, and in the Daito-ryu world as well, it is much less pronounced because the koryu are typically centered around one headmaster or senior instructor who has inherited the tradition and thus defines the art, and it's terms for the students. In the koryu, the tradition is generally transmitted by kata (prearranged forms usually designed to teach principles and/or basic skills/movements), which are taught by master to disciple directly, both allow for less misinterpretation.

Whereas in aikido (and many other arts) students are frequently either self-taught, taught in large groups, taught by their peers, or by unqualified seniors and instructors who cannot properly demonstrate the art (authoritively or effectively), let alone teach or transmit it.

Post-modern society's tendency towards pluralism and relativism has also fostered a culture that encourages personal interpretation hence individual creative expression is valued, and that's fine except that it also discourages any notion of objective truth, reality, or right from wrong.

Most modern arts and some older ones are only technique or curriculum based arts and are more or less devoid of cohesive guiding principles, but Daito-ryu is a principle based art and so is/was Ueshiba's aikido. And they do share some principles. Aikido's techniques and most (not all) of it's principles are derived from Daito-ryu, but they have also been significantly modified, rearranged, and added to so as to fit Ueshiba's own personal understanding and purposes to the point where the two arts are in fact, quite distinct.

People can spontaneously create and express themselves with either art however they like, but unless the principles are adhered to they won't be doing so correctly. We're not really free to just express or interpret the art in any fashion we please. If we violate those principles in anyway by inventing, reinventing, interpreting, redefining or even borrowing techniques, concepts and terms, then we're either doing something wrong (practicing and/or performing incorrectly) or we're doing something else altogether. Something else altogether is something different, regardless of what we chose to call it.

If something violates (or simply doesn't use) the principles of aiki, then it's not really aiki, it's something else, and it's different. You can call it aiki, but that wouldn't be correct. "Words mean things" as Limbaugh would say. If you don't like or agree with that, then at least use logic - Something can not be "A" and "non A" at the same time. Sorry Toby, maybe I'm a bozo for saying it, but your logic fails me on that one (I liked and agreed with most of the rest of your post, particularly the bit about aiki as applied with weapons), but I have to insist that Daito-ryu aiki is different than aikido and other aikido derived "so called" aiki arts.

Sokaku Takeda was first and foremost a swordsman, and he taught kenjutsu long before he popularized Daito-ryu Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu. Although he later emphasized the taijutsu aspects of Daito-ryu he never strayed from the principles of his sword and even insisted that Daito-ryu as a tradition included both taijutsu and kenjutsu (specifically Ono-ha Itto-ryu). His kenjutsu has in fact been described by all accounts as being highly unorthodox and unique to him, obviously influenced by Daito-ryu's rather unique application of aiki to kenjutsu. His aikijujutsu was certainly unique by all accounts, and his skill with empty hands was usually attributed to his skill with the sword.

Aiki exists in Daito-ryu, it is in fact the core or basic foundation upon which the tradition (and it's reputation) was built. Sokaku Takeda revived and thus defined both the tradition and it's definition of aiki for us (some speculate he even invented or created it himself).

The various headmasters of the tradition's main branches interpret the tradition's definition of aiki as they understand it, and likewise teach it's curriculum either as they learned it or reorganized it themselves. If an interpretation (or teaching) strays from the principles of the art however, they are either incorrect, or they are introducing something new, something previously not part of the tradition. A headmaster would certainly have this perogative, but if it significantly alters the tradition then it'd be more proper to rename it, in order to distinguish it somehow.

If the principles are adhered to on the other hand, then regardless of the particular interpretation, application, or the form, it'll be correct. All the cummulative knowledge of the tradition will also be implicit in the transmission of the teaching even if it's not readily apparent. And a discerning student or teacher will eventually be able to discover and recognize all sorts of essential insights (okuden and hiden) that otherwise are not explicit. In the case of Daito-ryu Sokaku's techniques and secrets (along with those of his predecessors) are embedded in the techniques and principles he taught. Where those teachings are faithfully adhered to and transmitted, their insights are preserved for each generation to discover.

If you don't know and understand the principles, then you won't be able to recognize or make distinctions between correct and incorrect, proper and improper teaching, or practice. Nor will you be able to recognize or fully appreciate the contribution and insights of masters from previous generations, and it'll be easy to misunderstand much regardless of what art or branch you study.

I finish my two very long winded cents with the following quote, I'm sure I've posted it before, but it's one of my favorites:

"True wisdom is not manifested in trying to see resemblences in things which differ, but in discerning the real differences among those which resemble one another."

Brently Keen

MPraskey
14th June 2001, 04:56
" Post-modern society's tendency towards pluralism and relativism has also fostered a culture that encourages personal interpretation hence individual creative expression is valued, and that's fine except that it also discourages any notion of objective truth, reality, or right from wrong. "

That's one way to look at it. That's the argument a Platonic thinker would make and draws upon ideas of "intangible essences. " Many
"modern " western thinkers reject this idea completely on the basis that they belive that an indvidual's experences color reality and hence
objectivity is really a falacy. I don't necessarily subscribe to either school of thought, except to say don't go down that path unless you really want a headache, that's a whole seperate and widely debated argument. :)


Classifying Aiki is only difficult in my opinion if you try to define it as a group of indivdiual techniques rather then a broader principle and strategy to deal with violence. I've seen a lot of opinions for and against either idea. I haven't seen a lot of evidence presented beyond personal experence. I've tried to avoid that myself by refering to the words of Tokimune Takeda and how I understand his definition of the concept. It seems to me that he has said, expelicetly, that Aiki is not unique to Daito-ryu and has cited examples that seem to indicate to me that he is treating it as a broad strategy rather then a category of specific technqiues. Obviously I have a serious difference of opinion with the other people on this board. Considering the differences in the teachings of the students who studied him, I don't find that surprising. That's all I really can say on the matter and with that I take my leave of this thread.

I'll wrap it up by following Musashi's example of not quoting the ancients.


Mike Praskey.

Finny
18th March 2002, 11:04
Hi all, I was thinking of posting this in the Daito-Ryu forum, but I figured it's probably more relevant here (but feel free to move it moderator :) )

I dont know too much about the history of Daito-Ryu, but there seems to be some debate as to whether it is a truly ancient system (the edo period palace defence system theory), or whether it is somewhat more modern. However, everyone seems to at least accept it as a sort of quasi-koryu system.

I was wondering, Do you think that the fact it is seen as a predecessor to Aikido has influenced this debate at all (ie. people may be influenced by the fact it was a forerunner to Aikido, therefore being more inclined to see it as a koryu)

I hope I dont offend anyone here, as I said, I dont know all that much about DR history (maybe someone can fill me in?) and it was just something I thought of.

Thanks,
Brendan Finn:toast:

fifthchamber
18th March 2002, 14:49
Hello Brendan,
I was under the idea that the 'ambiguity' in the Daito Ryu claims stemmed from the lack of 'solid' evidence of the art being taught before the time of Takeda Sokkaku..From his lineage through to the Takeda-Genji family of the Kai area.
The art was originally named 'Oshikiuchi' which has been interpreted as a few possible things..One being 'Inside the Palace' and was originally used by the Imperial Guards of the Emperor for defense while on 'bodyguard' duty...There is however an incredible amount of discussion (Here also) on whether the arts can be traced back as far as they are claimed to reach..(Other posters here will no doubt add substantially to my own words here..).
The arguments against seem to stem from the belief that the art was 'formed' by Takeda Sokkaku and that the origin of the 'Oshikiuchi' that he was taught was vague and unproven..They use the fact that the term means a few differing ideas and that i is far from 'set down' as in the cse of KEN-jutsu...(Sword techniques.).
A good place to get the basics on the Ryu is at their website at www.daito-ryu.org/history.html
This is the official website and documents the path of the school now taught by Kondo Katsuyuki-San.
The school has a few branches in Japan but the above site is the main one and a good starting point..
A hornets nest this one..Always has been. (You thought the Bujinkan wars were rough...:redhot: ...:smash: )
Abayo..

Arman
18th March 2002, 15:10
Brendan,

It seems to me the reason DR is often seen as a "quasi-koryu" as you put it, has more to do with the 1) stated history, and 2) the way DR is taught.

Without getting into the details of the history, let's just say that the traditional line has the art going back to around the 12th century, with it being transmitted through the Aizu clan until Sokaku Takeda began teaching it openly at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th.

Of course, as many have pointed out, there are currently no records available to verify or contradict this lineage/time-line. What is for certain is that Sokaku Takeda placed a very strong stamp on the art, so that even if it was determined that the art extended back that far into history, modern DR might well be very different than DR taught hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, Sokaku Takeda never formalized the techniques, and never opened a "school." He just travelled around teaching people who paid well for the instruction. It was left to his son, Tokimune, to formalize the curriculum and open a DR school - which he called, DR Aikibudo.

As for the the way DR is taught, one cannot help but notice the distinct "classical" method of instruction. The art is very, very formal, and taught almost exclusively in two-man kata forms. Many of the techniques in the first level of instruction (the Hiden Mokuroku), furthermore, contain similarities with other koryu jujutsu techniques. Almost the only "modern" element in DR is the kyu/dan ranking system. Although, as stated on the DR website:

"It should be remarked that this modern ranking system has nothing to do with the system of licensing traditionally used in Daito-ryu and in other classical and semi-classical traditions. It has been adopted simply for the sake of convenience and organization, as well as to provide modern people with identifiable goals to mark and motivate their progress." See FAQ at www.daito-ryu.org

So, whether DR is a "true" koryu is, at this time, unverifiable. Nevertheless, the very classical nature of the art itself, as well as its stated lineage, is enough to describe it as a "classical" MA. DR is also a member of the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai and the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

O'Neill
21st March 2002, 02:16
It seems that Daito ryu has an immense curriculum that would be difficult for one person to develop on their own. Considering the subtle aiki no jutsu that the Kodokai teaches and the extensive jujutsu contained in the hiden mokuroku, it seems likely (though not definite) that it sprang from earlier inspirations. If Takeda did invent the entire art on his own, then he is the greatest of bugeisha. It seems that it would take several lifetimes to develop something that huge. If one looks at other ryu with curriculum that vast, notice that it took several generations to develop that completely. I am hoping that the jujutsu history of Takeda will one day be discovered for surely the material for both the hiden mokuroku and the amazing aiki no jutsu techniques had to have some very deep roots.

Just a few of my thoughts. Thank you.

Rei Ho
13th April 2004, 20:31
Please read Aikijujutsu forum. I would appreciate the viewpoints. Thanks everyone.
Tracy Crocker:cool:

MarkF
14th April 2004, 14:22
Is it important? What if it is gendai? Or koryu, would it really make a difference?

As to when it began to be called DR AJJ, it very well could be gendai. The history is scant beyond Takeda Sokaku. Gendai or koryu?

The son, Tokimune, began using the dan-i grading system out of need. Many students and the scrolls took too much time (I'm not sure if this is really true, but he did say something like that). So does that make it gendai? I know of off-shoots of one of lines of DR that doesn't call itself that, but still do some or most of the technique with modern application to it. Most of what they use is from one of the old schools, but is applied to the modern way due to a change, a big one. since then.

Personally, I don't think it matters, and it really isn't something people should spend a lot of time discussing, or at least worrying a lot. People considered very knowledgable in the Koryu/gendai separation go from one extreme to another. One says any thing from 1868 is gendai, before, it is koryu. Others are much more forgiving and mention decades, kind of like sliding from one to the other on a continuum of sorts, instead of a year in when this happened, if at all.


Mark

glad2bhere
14th April 2004, 15:02
Dear Mark:

Despite the differences in our traditions I am completely in agreement with your comment. In the KMA we have accepted the use of the dan/guep ranking system and I have seen it do no good for any of the arts. If anything, it has corrupted and cheapened the motives by which people encourage themselves to study. Even if DRAJJ were a gendai art I know of no reason to use the dan ranking system. Were an organization to grow to such a size that people were not able to be overseen by the soke or shihan of the ryu, I think it would only mean that some arrangements would need to be made to accellerate the expansion of the teaching cadre to accomplish this. I, too, believe that it matters little if one can actually prove the heritage of DRAJJ one way or another, anymore than proving the heritage of Hapkido which I practice. What counts for me is the integrity of the system. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Rei Ho
14th April 2004, 18:58
Hi everyone. I agree with what you are saying on many levels. I think you should be happy with what you are doing no matter what others think, I reckon I was looking more from a historical point of view. I thought it was weird that there are some (very few) that are practicing the full curriculum. I also thought it was weird when I read Serge Mol's book and it stated that Daito Ryu doesn't look too different than any other traditional Jujutsu/Koryu. I mainly wanted opinions on that. It is easy to say, do what makes you happy, but I was looking something somewhat deeper in thought than that, but I agree. Thanks.
Tracy Crocker :cool:

Sam Robinson
18th April 2004, 19:48
Mr Crocker,

Exactly what do you mean by this statement?

"I thought it was weird that there are some (very few) that are practicing the full curriculum."

Exactly what constitutes the full curriculum is kinda hazy despite the above satisfactory documentation kept within this school. Tokimune, Sagawa and the Takumakai all had\have slightly different slants on this subject. Takeda evidently changed the curriculum frequently during his life.

If you are alluding to the claim by some Daito ryu groups that Daito ryu is itself a sogo bujutsu I suggest you do further research. Daito ryu is primarily a taijutsu system which does not include a significant weapons curriculum.

One rather dubious Daito ryu "master" goes around proclaiming his deep knowledge in the secret art of Daito ryu Naginata? This is just a rather transparent ploy to claim expertise in something that no one else has access to. The problem is that research confirms that it never existed in the first place.

Reminds me of the rather common phenomonon of secret ninja teachers living and teaching in the back of washateria's and passing on 1000 year old secret shinobijutsu to 16 year old's.

MarkF
20th April 2004, 13:29
I didn't meant to come off that I didn't care, I do like history and the many versions it has, I was thinking, anyway, that the question has been asked, and with so many different answers it is difficult to say either way. It seems one has to separate Daito Ryu and aikijujutsu, then it becomes really confusing.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter is what I was trying to convey. Are Meiji era jujutsu styles truly ryu? I think so, but some don't accept that because it was founded during the Meiji era. That's what I mean. It isn't so cut 'n dry, IMO. It would probably be better to consider it on a continuum, IMO. IOW, Stay tuned, it will probably change again.;)

BTW: We all care, but to what degree and on which subject, well that does make for conversation, anyway.;)



Mark

dengle
15th September 2009, 17:16
The book Daito Ryu Aikibudo by Antonin Certa Shihan names several people with the name Takahashi as students of Takeda Sokaku. Does anyone know if any of these are Takahashi of Mugai Ryu?

Nathan Scott
10th July 2013, 20:34
I know this is probably a bit too late for anyone to care anymore, but what you are referring to is the summarized translation of Takeda Sokaku's enrollment books. They include the following "Takahashi's":

Takahashi Giemon (1899) - Butokukai, living Miyagi-ken.

Takahashi Kuniharu / Toji (1901) - Butokukai and 6th dan judo.

Takahashi Junichi (1937) - Osaka, Former vice-head of Meiji University sumo club, 4th dan in judo.

Takahashi Yoshimaru (1938) - Director of a unit in the police of Osaka.

Anyone from Mugai-ryu recognize these names, active in these time periods?

Nathan Scott
12th July 2013, 22:05
BTW, as far as the subject of whether or not Daito-ryu is factually a koryu or not, please refer to the following thread in the Aikijujutsu forum:

Daito-ryu - Gendai or Koryu? (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2369)

Thanks,